Mental Health Used by Feds as a Pretext for Constitutional Rights Violations.
Mental Illness sought as a justification for the revocation of due process.
When one speaks of “mental illness”, how do they perceive the meaning of that term? Mental health disorders are relative at best, and there are many ways to perceive behavior, and how that behavior fits into the greater scheme of things. Even among mental health professionals, a diagnosis is subjective, and you could realistically receive three different diagnoses from three different doctors. Why is this an important thing to recognize? Where do you constantly hear the term “mental health” brought up? Violent crime, or more specifically the gun control debate that continues to be a point of contention here in America, usually references mental health, when speaking of ways to remedy the issue of mass shootings that we see on a regular basis. Red flag laws have been implemented in many states, giving the state legal standing to deny due process trying to prevent a crime that hasn’t been committed. This is straight out of Minority Report as it attempts to go after pre-crime. One can probably imagine all the different ways that this can be abused by a rogue government that is known to have engaged in overreach or taking full advantage of legal ambiguity to attack dissenters.
I have heard Democrats call Republicans, mentally ill. I have also heard Republicans refer to Democrats as mentally ill. Depending on how you analyze the opposing ideologies, you can get either one to sound legitimate. We hear conservatives argue that guns don’t kill people on their own, and that is true. They put an emphasis on the mental health of the individual which is much more realistic when discussing the origins of these heinous crimes liberal Democrats/Progressives tend to lean toward blaming the mere existence of the gun, for the violent act, rather than putting the blame on the individual committing the act. Some on the left will also concede that mental health is an issue here, so that makes for possible common ground between the two major parties. However, even if you can agree on the mental health aspect of the gun control debate, how do you turn that into relevant, constitutional, functional, legislation that will make any kind of difference? I think that the answer is no, as you cannot stop evil from occurring. The enemy will operate in this world whether we want him to or not. There is no piece of legislation that is going to stop bad people from doing bad things, period.
Let’s go back to the existing red flag laws that I mentioned previously and how those are tools for the state to deny citizens their 2nd Amendment rights in the name of safety. Remember that there will always be a pretext. There will always be some reason why, the government wants you to give up your rights. The economic crisis that took place in pre-Nazi Germany is a great example of this. Then Chancellor Adolf Hitler asked German Parliament to give him dictatorial authority so that he could fix the problems that were plaguing Germany. Keep in mind that this is just after the Nazis burned the Reichstag building to the ground, while blaming their political opposition at the time, the communists. There will always be the urge to respond emotionally to a crisis. This is why the red flag laws sound like such a great idea on paper. But these laws are too broad, and they allow for interpretation by government officials that do not have the best interests of the citizenry in mind.
If our progressive government came out tomorrow and stated that all Trump supporters are mentally ill and that they are a danger to society, even in the absence of any criminality whatsoever, what would that mean? Now imagine that at the time this declaration was made, we have a federal law on the books that allows for the arrest and detention of anyone deemed mentally ill, in the name of keeping Americans safe. Technically we have a current law via the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that allows for indefinite detention of American citizens without due process or even charges, if someone is deemed a terrorist. That’s not someone that is convicted of terrorism in a court of law, we are just talking a declaration by the Executive that you are a terrorist, and that is currently enough to get you locked up with no charges, right to due process, or even the right to employ writ of habeas corpus. Just a reminder, the NDAA is renewed every year by congress with overwhelming support, and the excuse is that “we have to fund the military”.
I just want to bring attention to the fact that knee jerk reactions to crises that seem to occur now on a daily basis, do nothing but chip away at the few rights that we have left, while congress screams, “we have to do something” without considering, the long-term consequences of sweeping government overreach. Our elected officials are nothing but snake oil salesmen, and the only terrorists that current pose a serious threat to this country right now, are the ones that “claim” to represent we the people and roam the halls of congress.
The cognitive dissonance that has been on display in recent years, has created an emotional knee jerk culture, where we look to the government to deal with societal issues and act as a remedy to economic turmoil. The federal government takes advantage of this willful ignorance as we allow ourselves to be made slaves to the system. Our system of government was born of the concept of self-governance, not authoritarian governance. We the people are given the responsibility to solve problems, not Uncle Sam. Always be cautious when someone is trying to sell you some feel good legislation to benefit the “collective”.