Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Dickie
Gee, and I thought that, "..shall not be infringed," was pretty damn clear. I was wrong about that and I think the NRA is wrong about this.
How about providing some law or past examples in support of your argument then? Can you show how the definition of "adjudicated mentally ill" has changed over the years? Can you show where it has changed at all?
The argument that we can't pass any legislation because someone might interpret it differently no matter how obviously we spell it out is a fallacious argument. It is nothing more than an argument that we should always do nothing because if we try to do anything, people might twist the words. Using the same logic, there is no point in trying to pass new legislation protecting gun rights because it will just be twisted against us later.
First, I never said that we cannot, nor should we not pass ANY legislation because it may be interpreted differently down the road. Although, I have to tell you, I DO think that is a damn good reason to keep the legislation passed down to a minimum, and that what does get passed should be very clearly spelled out. That is, spelled out so even a lawyer could not mis-read what it says.
Look at the Disabilities act, and how it was use by that golfer to try to force the PGA to let him use a golf cart. Was that what the legislation was for? Come on!
My point was that relying on the fact that they expect it to be interpreted one way, despite how it is written, rather than correcting the language is not convincing me. The NRA's position (which is what I was referring to) is that the open ended language will not be interpreted to mean other than what it says, BS.
...no matter how obviously we spell it out..
Ahh, but there is the run isn't it.
Can you show how the definition of "adjudicated mentally ill" has changed over the years? Can you show where it has changed at all?
I never said it would be from the definition legally, it could come medically. What is needed for "adjudicated mentally ill"? Does the definition need to change, or does it just need a judge to agree with the doctor? Nope, not even that much according to here:
http://www.lcav.org/content/mental_health_reporting.pdf
"A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority..."
That is all that is needed for the federal definition of adjudicated mentally ill. So if some judge decides that the police chief is a lawful authority; the police chief doesn't want guns on the streets, bam. You want a gun, he says you are mentally ill, no soup for you!
Do you think the number of cases we have today in autusim is because there are so many more children suffering from the the syndrome?
From here:
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/autism/detail_autism.htm
What is autism?
Autism (sometimes called “classical autism”) is the most common condition in a group of developmental disorders known as the autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). Autism is characterized by impaired social interaction, problems with verbal and nonverbal communication, and unusual, repetitive, or severely limited activities and interests. Other ASDs include Asperger syndrome, Rett syndrome, childhood disintegrative disorder, and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (usually referred to as PDD-NOS). Experts estimate that three to six children out of every 1,000 will have autism. Males are four times more likely to have autism than females.
Used to be just classic. Nowadays they pretty much just lump all the rest under autism. Why? More money to study it, and it is just easier to call it autism. According to the new standards, if I was in grade school today I would be classified as autistic.
How about ADD? Yup, must be something in the water, or perhaps it is inoculations?
When you have something medically unclear (a danger to himself or others--well now I think a hell of a lot of anti-folks would say ANYONE that wanted to own a gun would meet that criteria), the diagnoses can increase with no change at all other than the attitude of the folks making the call.
How about providing some law or past examples in support of your argument then?
I thought I provided a good one, how many lawyers have said the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right?
I have no problem with seriously mentally ill folks not getting firearms, but I have HUGE problems with this bill.
You trust the lawyers to do the right thing and look out for our rights, I don't!
As far as other legislation being mis-interpreted down the road, I don't have the time to do the research, but you can't be serious that it doesn't happen. I've lived long enough to know better than that. Not legislation, but Brown vs The Board of Education comes to mind of how a court ruling can be twisted for the purpose of those that want to. The original ruling was so the boy could go to school a couple of blocks away and NOT get bused across town.
Boy, that did not get changed at all!