How To Resolve Gun Sickness & Disease

Firearm fascination has gotten to the point of ridiculousness, to the extent that it’s much like a paraphilia. It’s no longer merely “disturbing,” its downright dangerous, and blatantly irresponsible. As Healthcare professionals, we research & examine the scope, extent, and exact nature of the problem, then make a diagnosis, and formulate a plan of treatment to either ameliorate the symptoms, or cure the disease. It presumes, of course, that the patient will cooperate with the plan, and follow the course of treatment.

In this present “gun nut” scenario in which we find ourselves suffering, the NRA has bent over backwards to ensure that the very ones charged with promoting Public Health (the CDC) are PREVENTED from doing so. THAT is not merely “tragic,” it is CRIMINAL, because it promotes a sickness, refutes that is it a sickness, and forbids any attempt to research or resolve the problem.

THAT is PURELY MENTAL SICKNESS, AND IT MUST STOP!

By NO MEANS am I “anti-gun,” I am ANTI-STUPID!

In the same manner that our First Amendment does NOT allow anyone to yell “~FIRE!~” in a crowded theater, there are similarly reasonable limits to the Second Amendment (which the SCOTUS has also identified¹), such as denying ownership/possession by Felons, those involved in Domestic Violence, the Mentally Unstable, Drug/ETOH Addicts, and others.

It is similarly entirely REASONABLE to require ALL firearm owners to demonstrate competency, exercise responsibility, and judiciousness in the use, ownership and storage of firearms. Further, it is entirely reasonable and rational to ensure Public Safety and Health, and to reduce criminal enterprise and illicit firearm trafficking to establishing a mandatory registration in much the same manner as is done with automobiles, so that no firearm transaction (sale, gift, or transfer) may occur without FIRST being subject to vetting, and thereby ensure the prospective owner has legal authority to own/possess the firearm. And through their taxing power, Congress could also mandate a tax upon the same, in much the same manner as the Federal Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax, and/or the the National Firearms Act now do.

It is IRRESPONSIBLE to cause Law Abiding citizens to suffer for the misdeeds of a few miscreants by a wholesale ignorance and refusal to act to ameliorate such problems associated with firearm abuse, and by enacting and enforcing such measures, the discomfort of a distasteful process is dispersed throughout. I labor under no misguided notion that we can completely eradicate such anomalies, but rather that we can significantly ameliorate the cause of the problem.

For additional information on how this problem came to be, see:
https://www.npr.org/2015/10/09/447098666/ex-rep-dickey-regrets-restrictive-law-on-gun-violence-research

Ex-Rep. Dickey Regrets Restrictive Law On Gun Violence Research
October 9, 2015 4:53 AM ET
Heard on Morning Edition

Former Rep. Jay Dickey of Arkansas authored an amendment that restricted funding for research into gun violence and its effects on public health. Dickey tells Steve Inskeep he now has deep regrets.

—//—

¹See District of Columbia V Heller, 2008, No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

In the majority opinion, late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in part that, “The right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. See Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281–282 (1897); ante, at 22, 54 (opinion of the Court).” He also wrote that “…I shall not assume that the Amendment contains a specific untouchable right to keep guns in the house to shoot burglars.”

In the minority opinion, dissenting Justices Breyer, Souter, Stevens and Ginsburg wrote in part that, “The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are — whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do.”