Sgt at arms of U.S. Senate

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

henschman

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
4,396
Reaction score
24
Location
Oklahoma City
Unfortunately, you are correct that the attitude displayed by the sergeant at arms is all too typical among those in his line of work.

However, I strongly disagree with you on the mental screening requirement to buy/carry a gun. This would amount to a prior restraint on the right to bear arms. A free man should not have to prove to anyone that he is fit to exercise his liberties. If the state wants to deprive someone of their liberty, in a free society, they should be the one with the burden of showing that a particular individual is a threat to the lives/liberties of others.

We already have such a system in place... people can be involuntarily committed if it is proven they are a threat to themselves or others. In a free society it would only be necessary to prove that they are a threat to others, and no one would be committed without first having a chance to defend himself in court; but in any case, we do not need to open that can of worms any more than it already is... it goes too far already (especially with emergency ex parte committment, and the situation regarding veterans and PTSD).

Another issue to consider is that the definition of insanity can be changed by those in power to target people or beliefs they find to be undesireable. The Communists recognized this... they knew that gaining control of the psychology profession is an effective way to silence opposition and consolidate power. It is not impossible to concieve of our government doing something similar, once a mental health test becomes a requrement for exercising certain liberties.

As pills510 pointed out, mental health tests can involve a very high level of scrutiny, and can involve some very subjective value judgments, like the MMPI does, when it says that it is "mentally unhealthy" to worry about one's weight. I'm sure if I took that test, it would show that I am mentally unhealthy because I am too anti-authoritarian. It would be going way too far for the government to make a test like that a prerequisite for exercising any liberty, especially a liberty like the right to bear arms, which is so vital to the protection of all our other liberties against the state.
 

dutchwrangler

Sharpshooter
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
2,155
Reaction score
2
Location
West OKC
I always wonder about gun owners who have no problem with "conditions" for gun ownership. Seems that given a chance to be in power they'd be identical to the hacks currently up on Cap Hill attempting to control the masses.

Oh, but then they give us the argument, "If you've done nothing wrong, you don't have anything to worry about".

Some people have no concept of individual liberty.
 

1shot(bob)

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
0
Location
Broken Arrow
I agree with this statement, though not likely in the context he meant it (and this isn't picking an argument with you). The gun doesn't save lives anymore than it kills people. It's simply a tool, not a talisman (as Mr. Brown put it).

Mindset, skillset, toolset... in that order!

The person and their mindset and skillset are determining factors. The tool itself won't help on its own.

Are you sure? I agree that everyone that carries a gun should take the time to learn to properly use it. But . . . .
Just the fact that there are guns out there stops some crime. If more people were known to be carrying, more criminals would think long and hard before committing crimes in those places. Isn't that why some places never or rarely get robbed? Isn't it because those places are known to the type that have gun carriers in place? Isn't that why states with CCW laws typically experience less crime than those that don't?
If you had a 1 in 5 chance of getting shot, or a 3 in 5 chance, which would you rob?
 

inactive

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
7,158
Reaction score
903
Location
I.T.
If I were a criminal, I would go for the area where 999 of 1000 are armed, if I can most accurately find the unarmed person.

I think criminals look at it from the individual target perspective, not some statistical analysis.

But that's just a guess... I'm no criminal.
 

PFXD 45

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
327
Reaction score
0
Location
Virtus, Ornamentum, Vis Veris.
For the sake of your gonads, don't stand face to face with an agenda driven politician listening to the news.

Woody

Ya just wait a week the little roaches diappear back into the DC underbelly when something else happens, just look at that Mcarthy lady (and I use that term loosly of course) She looked like she just had light shined in her eyes...
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom