Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Sgt at arms of U.S. Senate
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 1431641" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>Unfortunately, you are correct that the attitude displayed by the sergeant at arms is all too typical among those in his line of work.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 1431641, member: 4235"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Sgt at arms of U.S. Senate
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
