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 Water Cooler
General Discussion
Sen. Cornyn, With NRA Blessing, Proposes Gun Background Checks
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="mugsy" data-source="post: 2777711" data-attributes="member: 18914"><p>Agree with the above 100%. </p><p></p><p>I don't see how anyone can make the argument that serious mental instability is not a legitimate factor to consider when determining if a right may require restriction in some manner. However, I am very suspicious of how the call is made and who makes the call. The fairest system would seem to be the same system that decides whether one represents a serious enough threat to have his freedom taken away by being sent to jail. </p><p>So mental health professionals, just like anyone else, if they felt an individual was a threat could apply to a court to weigh their assessment. So a judgement, by a competent court, of mental defect requiring institutionalization (I am sure there is a better way to define that) would be needed not merely the say-so of a doctor or other official.</p><p>Is that a perfect system? Of course not, just as the overall court system is not perfect in deciding who is actually guilty of crimes, however, it is a reasonable facsimile of justice and it has the advantage of a defined system to ensure due process.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="mugsy, post: 2777711, member: 18914"] Agree with the above 100%. I don't see how anyone can make the argument that serious mental instability is not a legitimate factor to consider when determining if a right may require restriction in some manner. However, I am very suspicious of how the call is made and who makes the call. The fairest system would seem to be the same system that decides whether one represents a serious enough threat to have his freedom taken away by being sent to jail. So mental health professionals, just like anyone else, if they felt an individual was a threat could apply to a court to weigh their assessment. So a judgement, by a competent court, of mental defect requiring institutionalization (I am sure there is a better way to define that) would be needed not merely the say-so of a doctor or other official. Is that a perfect system? Of course not, just as the overall court system is not perfect in deciding who is actually guilty of crimes, however, it is a reasonable facsimile of justice and it has the advantage of a defined system to ensure due process. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Sen. Cornyn, With NRA Blessing, Proposes Gun Background Checks
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom