8. legally retarded as having a court document involved?
I know a few gun owners I myself would call legally retarded, but I'm not a professional judge. And I know some folks who might be considered 'legally retarded' by some who I would trust MORE with a firearm than some of the gun owners I know.
28. Anyone adjudicated mentally incompetent in the United States is ALREADY barred from gun ownership.
Edited on Tue Dec-09-08 10:44 AM by benEzra
Anyone adjudicated mentally incompetent in the United States is already barred from so much as touching a gun.
Your problem appears to be a misperception of the oft-abused word "retarded." It used to mean "developmentally delayed" (which is what "retarded" meant, from the verb "retard," to hold back, before people made it an insult). It is not a synonym for "mentally incompetent."
There is no such thing as a legal declaration of being "retarded." And if the revocation of civil rights were involved, it would need to be done via a court hearing, not merely the decree of a "medical professional."
41. they have a hard time with that concept down here
If it's the law, it's good. Except when they don't like it. Otherwise, no questioning the law.
Question how someone with a felony criminal conviction can be precluded by law from possessing a firearm to defend him/herself -- after all, that's one of those inalienable natural god-given inherent constitutional rights -- and you get "it's the law".
The point -- that some blanket restrictions on the exercise of this particular right seem to be acceptable to them, placing the onus on them to engage in good faith discussion of other possible blanket restrictions, i.e. "RKBA!!!" is not a reply -- is just lost on them.
My favourite is "don't you know that possession machine guns is already severely restricted by some law passed 70-something years ago??" The only thing I would say to that is: So? How come it's okay to do that with machine guns but not with handguns? Hm?
13. When I worked in the mental health field, mentally retarded was written on
some of my clients official medical records. This was a few years ago (around 2002), in Portland, Oregon. I don't know about the rest of the country, but in Oregon, retarded is the word medical professionals use on official medical documents. I saw this diagnosis often.
18. A developmental disability in which the person suffers from suppressed cognition.
I am not a 100% sure the above definition is completely accurate, but I believe it to be close.
I am not a medical professional, but you are right about me having vast experience in the field. After 10 years of experience, my wife and I fostered a child with severe autism and cognitive delay. I was asked by the state to take care of this teenager because of my experience with handling extremely violent people. He is an adult now, so we no longer live with him, but we did have him over for Thanksgiving.
I originally used the phrase, 'mentally challenged', but then used the word 'retarded' because I foolishly thought people would understand that word.
If a person does not the cognitive ability, as opposed the physical ability, to preform basic hygiene, such as brushing their teeth or taking a shower, then I think they probably should not own or use a firearm.
If a person of..."dubious" mental capacity is adjudicated to be capable of understanding criminal charges brought against them, and by extension the difference between "right" and "wrong", I have no problem with them owning a firearm (provided they also understand what said firearm DOES). I also have no problem with this being an affirmative situation, i.e. if there's any doubt, some sort of legal process (hearing or outright court decision) should be initiated to *allow* the purchase and absent that, NICS should return a No.
29. You are speaking of an extreme case as if he were the middle of the bell curve.
My 9-year-old son has mild cognitive delay, primarily expressed as a difficulty with mathematics and abstract geometry, due to 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. It would be bigoted in the extreme to say that because he has trouble with math and geometry, he should be denied the right to own a gun when he is of age, if he is otherwise responsible.
If he or anyone else someday becomes mentally incompetent, they can be adjudicated mentally incompetent by a court of law. But otherwise keep your civil rights restrictions off our family, please.
"Cognitive delay" does NOT equal "mentally incompetent."
42. I wasn't saying that 9-year-olds should be able to buy guns.
Edited on Tue Dec-09-08 09:01 PM by benEzra
But his delay is the way he's wired; he'll probably struggle with those areas all his life. And it would be extremely unjust to deny him the right to own a gun on that basis when he is 25 or 35 or whatever.
Adjudicated mentally incompetent, yes, I have no problem with denial on that basis. A diagnosis of cognitive delay or impaired performance on IQ tests, no way.
19. Yes, mental retardation is more appropriate than retardation.
I didn't mean to offend anyone with my error. I have volunteered my time both consulting group homes and directly helping those with this DD. I, more than most, should not have made that mistake. I apologize.
I appreciate your dedication - we need more folks like you. It is amazing the way terminology has shifted over the years, but as we better understand and listen to persons with developmental disabilities we learn how better to define their disability. Persons with... is a much better descriptor than a label such as Retarded.
Not that it is an apt comparison in any manner, but after my chastising in this thread I would much prefer to be known as a person with assholish tendencies than as an asshole.
That guy was not, by any usage I understand 'mentally retarded'. Incompetent, yes, and a few things besides, but not 'mentally retarded'.
I like Washington State's definition/policy. It's been recently beefed up, in light of the Virginia Tech shootings. http://www.atg.wa.gov/pressrelease.aspx?&id=18552 It's going to vary wildly from state to state. It seems there's a federal statute seems to be 'involuntarily committed for more than 14 days'.
I know some people who have had mental health issues, to the point they were perscribed therapy and medication to control fear, spiraling depression, etc. As far as I know, each of them has made a full recovery, so I like to see that we have a process where anyone who is ever 'sick' by the definition of a law, has a method to regain any rights that may have been lost.
(I take a somewhat more dim view of substance abuse/DUI, even though it is in many cases, an illness, but that's another discussion)
22. What you really meant, was, should Republicans be allowed to own guns?
If a person is quick witted enough to wield a two ton deadly weapon on the road, then they can probably handle a gun; if they are properly trained and their attitude is right - with the wrong attitude and no training high IQ doesn't help. Smart people can be stubborn and may be more willfully dangerous than slow witted ones - it all depends on their intent.
Now if you meant, should a person who had previously been committed be allowed to own a gun, then that is what you should have asked. On that subject, who is to judge what constitutes a mental problem and how many of a person's freedoms may be taken away for the "public good": http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
I voted no, but there would have to be some fairly vigorous debate over what constitutes "mentally challenged" or "mentally retarded".
Firearm ownership is an awesome responsibility and requires good faculties in order to execute. You have to be able to understand firearm safety and responsibility.
That said, I don't want to get into some kind of "poll test" scenario where you have to pass some kind of test in order to exercise your Constitutional right. For example, we don't have mental or literacy tests to determine the extent of your right to free speech.
39. I grew up with a young man who was considered moderately retarded, back then anyway.
I'd say he could cook ramen noodles, he works at a fast food restaurant. He can follow directions well and is pleasant to be around and has been a good friend over 25 years, he was an usher in my wedding. His ride didn't show up for work one day and he called a cab, told them where to go and paid for the cab. He can't drive well enough to get a license though. I wouldn't feel comfortable with him owning firearms, although he was around my families guns all the time and was told not to touch them and never did, which is more than I can say for a lot of people with higher IQ's. I also have a niece the is profoundly mentally disabled. I just wanted to understand what kind of disabilities you were talking about thanks for clearing it up.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.