Just got back into town on Friday and saw this wonderfully convoluted letter from one Karl Schubert of Wauwatosa, commenting on his fear that if people admit themselves into a mental hospital they would be stripped over their hazy "second amendment rights" under certain proposals.
Here's the money quote from Herr Schubert:
If voluntarily checking into a mental hospital makes one ineligible to own firearms, this will have a devastating effect on mental health care. Gun owners will avoid treatment simply to avoid having their rights confiscated. If the Brady Campaign wants to avoid crazy people with guns, keeping them from getting treatment will not help.Maybe it is their irrational attachment to an inanimate object that is evidence of their craziness. Even crazier is the suggestion that there is some therapy in allowing someone to nuzzle up with the nuzzle of their weapon (or in many cases weapons).
Certainly there is exhibited here a profound level of pathology, i.e. not giving a crap about the welfare of everyone else.
It makes good common sense that if someone has mental problems to limit access to a firearm which would magnify the level of tragedy if this person would snap. Who could argue that?
This leads to a question. Second amendment rights do deserve consideration. But for some people, where does the coinciding responsibilities enter into the discussion?
No comments:
Post a Comment