I am becoming
more-and-more disturbed about the far too many politicians,
news commentators/reporters, those opposed to the fullest exercise of
Second Amendment rights and others of that ilk who loosely
substitute the terms "mentally ill" OR
"emotionally disturbed", for the more accurate term
"dangerously mentally ill" as to those who should not be
allowed to obtain firearms.
It is fit-and-proper and
legally/constitutionally-sound that someone should be declared
"Dangerously Mentally Ill" only after a fact-based and
contested hearing before a judge-and-jury, in accordance with our
1000 year old system of laws and our Constitution.
Why? Because to tag any citizen as being "dangerously mentally
ill" takes from such citizens as many civil and political rights
as a conviction of a felony---And, deserves
the same legal protections.
At this time there are too many government units (eg
-- The FBI) who will accept the unverified
and non-judicial comments of some (Anonymous?)
Psychologist/Psychiatrist/Other-persons as
sufficient "Proof" to deprive citizens of a basic civil
right. Even
super-sane me (If, and only
if, you accept my self-diagnosis) once consulted a
psychologist, with my wife, to iron out some marital problems---Which
smoothing did occur. .
Should I or
some child with home/school problems who sees a school psychologist
or some active-duty
member of the Armed Forces/Veteran for whom war/other-problems has
resulted in s/he seeking counseling, and other like and law-abiding
citizens be deprived of a basic civil right without "due process
of law"? [I
believe we have another, of too many Federal Laws which
provides for both criminal and civil prosecution for "Deprivation
of Civil Rights Under Color Of Law" which should deal with and
punish those who would do so to those who are not
dangerously
mentally ill.
The
FBI has reportedly placed entire groups
of innocent military veterans on the "no buy" list
and that without "due process of law".
April,
2013 Note: the New York State Police
are seizing guns from citizens who are lawfully taking
anti-depression medications without
any prior “due process of law”. After the death of my beloved
wife I took such “meds” for a short
time which, in NY, would have led to my being deprived of my rights
under the Second Amendment to the Constitution
by violating my other rights to “due process of law”. Such are
unconstitutional acts of tyrants---About which see President
Jefferson’s comments as to tyrants, guns and citizens—As
attached..
THE
“SOVIET SOLUTION”: As
the old USSR developed, a political decision was made to deal with
those who “dissented” by considering-and-declaring them, per
se, mentally
ill for doing so. Such persons were involuntary confined in prison
like “hospitals” and subjected to “aggressive” treatment”
It
appears that too many (Chiefly, but not universally Democrats)
consider anyone who wishes to fully
exercise their rights (And, implied duties) under the “Second
Amendment” as likewise “mentally ill”. I suspect that many
Democrats consider anyone who opposes any of Mr. Obama’s
extra-constitutional actions as likewise “crazy”.
LIKEWISE
DOCTORS & JOURNALISTS:
Doctors
and
“journalists do NOT “see” the very many whose lives and “bodily
integrity” are safe-guarded by the private use (Most often “mere”
display) of guns by citizens. They treat and report on only those
events as where medical attention is needed OR “politically
correct” reporting had.
THOSE
WHO ARE NOT CURRENTLY DANGEROUSLY
MENTALLY ILL DESERVE THE PROTECTION OF ARMS PROVIDED IN THE SECOND
AMENDMENT..