“I think that Mental health is the problem here. This was a very, based on preliminary reports, a very deranged individual, a lot of problems over a long period of time. We have a lot of mental health problems in our country, as do other countries, but this isn’t a guns situation, I mean we could go into it, but it’s a little bit soon to go into it. Fortunately someone else had a gun that was shooting in the opposite direction, otherwise it wouldn’t have been as bad as it was it would have been much worse. But this is a mental health problem at the highest level level. It’s a very very sad event, these are great people and a very very sad event, but that’s the way I view it. Thank you.”
The twitterer-in-chief has spoken. It’s a mental health issue, see? Just like in other countries…you know, other countries where tons of people with mental health issues go on leisurely killing sprees. Oh, they don’t? Why is that? Well…we should deal with the over-abundance of guns..by having more guns. That’s the only thing that is effective, right? Right?
Crazy, topsy-turvy world my friends.
Trump has spoken. That’s the way he “views it,” end of story. It’s not the time to discuss guns and that time shall never arise. It is a mental health problem: our nation’s mental health.
It would be easy to point to the legislation Obama pushed through in the twilight of his Presidency to make it impossible for the mentally unfit to purchase firearms. This was struck down by Congress and Trump before it was set to go into effect in December of this year. However, the legislation itself was not to make it impossible for those with mental issues to purchase handguns, as incorrectly presented by armchair gun right activists. That was legislation to give to the Social Security Administration the power to strip someone’s rights to own a gun if they’ve already been declared to be receiving disability benefits for a mental impairment that keeps them from working, and “use a representative payee to help manage their benefits.” This is a rather circuitous way to get at the matter and would have only affected a swath of people in the system. It may have seemed pleasing in it’s logic (we giveth-we taketh away), but it was fundamentally flawed. It oversteps a person’s constitutional right to due process. Defenders of this repeal are quick to point out there are already laws, properly adjudicated, that remove a person’s right to own a gun. So with them, we can agree that there are such laws that should be enforced.
This argument that removing Obama’s law isn’t the same as making it easier for crazy people to get guns, is…crazy. Of course it makes it easier. An entire group of people couldn’t get guns AT ALL, removing that obstacle certainly makes it easier. I, however, agree with the premise that this law would have been unconstitutional.
Let me also say it doesn’t appear to be an issue with this Administration to trash “due process” as represented by their leader time and time again. Whether it’s by threatening to jail his political opponents or submit his renderings to trials that haven’t even happened or demand certain investigations take place. It has also been this administrations stance to trash “equal protection” rights very recently, by demanding an imprisoned foreigner cannot have an abortion…so, so much for principal. That’s neither here nor there.
What we do agree on is the mentally unfit shouldn’t have firearms.
To legally drive a car, we need to:
- Pass a competency test.
- Register the car with the state.
- Provide ongoing insurance for the car.
- have the car regularly inspected.
Now, cars can possibly be used as weapons. Weapons on the other hand, are well….weapons. Explicitly. The only thing they do is kill. (target practice dudes, you get a pass). How is it what is deemed as an arguably necessary instrument, in the form of the car, receives so much more consideration than that which is not at all necessary except in a ideological, constitutionally afforded sense? All you need to own a gun in many instances is cash. That’s it.
We can agree the insane shouldn’t have guns, right? Do we agree it shouldn’t be infinitely more “relatively” costly and time consuming to own a car than a gun? I submit the exact same standards should be employed when purchasing and maintaining a gun as those demanded of transportation ownership and usage.
To leave the competency test to whether an individual has previously shown up in court for mental issues, is laughably and woefully inadequate. Anyone that feels the need to own a gun should have a test just the same as if they were desiring of owning and operating a car. We don’t judge someone’s insanity after they commit a crime and deem that sufficient to halt the crime in the first place, except in only as a remedy for future action.
Right now I’m thinking of the book “Catch-22,” and it’s basic premise. You can’t get in the army if you’re crazy, but you have to be crazy to want to kill someone. : )
Gun ownership should require at least the same standards as automobile ownership. That’s where we should start. Not in tiny teeny little steps that the NRA will fight all the way. If you want a gun, you should be responsible for it.
Then, let’s revisit that second amendment and clarify what the founders intended. They never intended this madness, the gun lobby just decided and paid to make sure it was a constitutional right to commit mass murder.