This diary is an extremely focused one. It won't get much into philosophical discussions about the meaning intended by the wording in the second amendment. It won't compare gun deaths to automobile accidents. It won't even present the socialist's case for support of the second amendment.
What I want to talk about today is practical. I want to talk about something I think we all agree on, whether we are gun owners or not, whether we embrace the 2nd amendment or whether we'd like to see it altered in some way. I think we can all agree that those who are mentally unstable ought not to be able to purchase and possess a weapon.
But this presents a problem, especially for us liberals who recognize the importance of ALL the constitutional amendments, including the 4th amendment.
In this diary, I want to have a discussion about the challenges this presents and talk about possible solutions. Let's consider it a brainstorming session. In this diary many points of view will be discussed. I think it's important that happen. Because what seems innocuous to one, may seem egregious to another. So it's important to respectfully try to consider each other's positions.
Ultimately, I'd like this discussion to yield further talks about legislative strategy and political realities. About framing and messaging. About how we can actually advocate for such a position without political damage.
We can save the talk about all the other stuff for another time. Yes, there's lots to talk about. Guns are an emotional issue on both sides. But today, let's be laser focused on this one issue: guns and the mentally unstable.
Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who also have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing, restrictions on small arms.) Moderate or extreme, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections. We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you, as long as you engage in a civil discussion. If you're just here to disrupt or troll, expect to get a Do Not Respond (DNR) comment and then be ignored. Insults, lies, and willful ignorance will be dealt with by normal community moderation. Engaging trolls is counter-productive, and such comments should not be up-rated. Disagreement by itself is not considered trolling.
First question/dilemma
How do we "know" that someone is mentally unstable when they go to purchase a gun? Since medical records are legally not readily available information (yet) thanks to the 4th amendment, how is it that we can know whether someone is unstable mentally at the point of purchase?
what safeguards can we put in place that might have the effect of weeding out unstable people? Some argue for a waiting period. I'm not opposed to that but I am also not sure it effects the same person. A mentally unstable person is not necessarily an impulsive one, although one can be both.
So what are your ideas? How can we do this without further eroding American's right to privacy?
Next question/dilemma
Assuming we had a way to resolve the first dilemma and someone bought a gun and was perfectly healthy, how can we ensure that the person remains in "qualifying mental condition" (again) without breaching their personal privacy? Should we even monitor it at all? What ramifications does this have for doctors, hospitals and emergency workers? How do we approach this issue?
Last question/dilemma
And this one is possibly the most difficult, as hard as the other issues are. How do we approach this issue legislatively, keeping in mind our political system, the diversity of opinion about this issue even within out own party (you didn't think that only republicans owned all the 200 million guns in America, did you?) and how can we begin to frame this issue in a way that doesn't harm the party?
I don't have answers. This is why I'm introducing the discussion. I hope we'll see a diversity of opinion here today and if you want, it can be an on-going discussion, as we probably won't "resolve" these issues in one diary,but if your purpose here today is to create disruption or distraction, or to call names or use inflammatory language and rhetoric, we will mark your comment as DNR, which means do not respond. It's our way of trying to stay productive and create an environment where respecting differences and honoring our shared values can be done. Where dialog between honest brokers can happen so we can begin to work on solutions, as difficult as they may be to achieve.