Mental health and gun rights

The right to keep and bear arms is law. It is the Second Amendment and is part of the Bill of Rights within the U.S. Constitution as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

Any change of that status must be done in a Constitutional Congress with a vote for or against the amendment by the American people in each state.

The liberal left has for a long time wanted to insert itself into the purchase process of the gun issue and create as part of the ownership process some psychiatric approval step. I have no reason to disagree with stopping anyone that is mentally ill from having weapons, and it does seem proper to stop those that are a danger to others from having such weapons. I think everyone agrees with this single point. But that is where that agreement ends – and dramatically so.

Here is the danger: The unspoken and often denied desire of the left to prevent ANYONE from having weapons except the military and police. The left does not see that as a police state, yet the right and I dare say most citizens would!

The big question of course is should the country create a system that includes, along with the present system of FBI criminal checks, a psychiatric or mental health step to receive governmental approval to purchase and possess weapons, ammunition and other accessories?

Every step that is placed into effect by the government is one more violation of the concept of “….shall not be infringed.”

It is widely known that liberal governments have installed long and laborious requirements for a person to purchase and possess firearms. Washington, D.C. and Chicago are two cities where their policy has been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as being intended to prevent a law-abiding person from obtaining a weapons permit. These two cities are of course, heavily dominated by the liberal left.

Also, one should not consider the court ruling as a final word on the subject. I am sure that it will be brought up for future consideration. Just consider the placement of one more liberal justice on the court (which is a real possibility under the Obama administration) and the most recent 5 to 4 ruling in support of the Second Amendment would vanish like dust into history.

The psychiatric field is inundated – dominated, if you will – by those educated in liberal institutions by liberal instructors. When a person places his entire life into the hands of such a person for treatment, which “can be” quite therapeutic when truly needed, it is fine and millions of persons have done so.

But, when a gun purchaser does so, their constitutional rights are in the hands of someone that not only, by education and training, may be diametrically opposed to weapons and the use of force in any way, but also can deny said rights in one lone action, without redress.

The intention of the Founding Fathers has always been to insure that personal freedoms be paramount, and any action that limits them must be done so in a court of law or by constitutional means.

There is a place for psychiatric intervention, but not as a preemptive action prior to any misconduct on the part of the person in question.

By banning weapons, we would be cutting off our nose to spite our face and allowing ourselves to become a disarmed populace, rife for external invasion by an aggressor nation and the control, oppression and manipulation of the American people for years to come.

Jon A. Underwood

Yuma