Great read for "gun" people.

NCBusa2001

Registered
http://gunowners.org/a100407.htm

This could be bad.  

The parts of the bill the letter is reffering to involve "mental health".  In the wake of VT slayings, due to the shooter being mentally ill, this was shoved through as "common sense".

My concern is how they will define "mental health" prohibitions on firearm possession.  THis opens the door to all kinds of restrictions.  The problem is people don't know much about what "crazy" truly is, so they error on the side of caution.  There is a strong "bias" against people defined as "having mental health problems".  

I'm concerned that most people would automitacally agree to restrict firearms to people that have a "mental health diagnosis".  Kind of a knee jerk reaction, so to speak. Mental health diagnoses are derived from criteria set fourth in the DSM4-revised.  

My problem is peoples ignorance of exactly what is contained within the DSM.  Those 110,000 soldiers the letter referred to would be excluded due to a diagnosis of PTSD.

also covered in the DSM is anxiety disorders (anyone nervous), depression (has anyone ever been prescribed "antidepressants"?, sleep problems (ever been prescribed a sleeping pill?), or past substance abuse issues, as examples.

It seems a GREAT many of generally fine folks have "mental health problems", don't it.  And with free access to health care records kind of makes it easy to "pry".  WHat happened to the 4th ammendment anyway?

Just something to think about.  

Chris
 
Yeah and the DSM changes as does the cultural acceptability of the diagnosis therein.
Remember when homosexuality was a mental illness or disturbed paraphilia?
Me neither....

Some of our leaders will come up with anything to socialize us (remember Brady II and the lead ban?) and with President Clinton part III around the corner we aint seen nuthin yet.
 
Yeah...that's what I think...

Nuns.jpg
 
Back
Top