A MENTAL ILLNESS INFRINGEMENT FOR SAFETY IS INSANE
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety, deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin
The "adjudicated mentally ill" Second Amendment infringement is a camel's nose under a tent which those who demanded a Bill of Rights were wise enough to not carve an exception.
In the 19th Century, there was no treatment for mental illnesses except exorcism. Additionally, there persisted a belief in the existence of witches and warlocks. Nevertheless, no asterisk was placed next to the phrase "shall not be infringed" to exclude witches and warlocks, the Satanic possessed, nor the insane. Why was that, why is that still, a display of uncommon wisdom?
In every epoch there exists cowards willing to exchange a veneer of safety for sacrifice of true liberty. Simultaneously, there exists a craven layer of society willing to exploit the foolish weakness of the first group by presenting an illusion of safety by sacrifice of others' liberty. In doing so, they expands their own power to engage in the liberty of unfettered prerogatives.
Then, there exists a third group, often in the minority. In that group we find the framers of the federal constitution and the Anti-Federalists who demanded an explicit Bill of Rights. Upon the third group has always fallen the responsibility to educate the gullible, as much as possible, in order to ameliorate the folly of cowards, while at the same time, maintain a force of arms to intimidate knaves who are would-be exploiters of the weak that set linguistic traps for fools constructed as reasonable appearing safety laws.
There are no hard physical markers of mental illness. Membership in an organization that defends the Second Amendment, or a social media post of the same flavor might be construed as a sign of mental illness with a legislative coalition of cowards and knaves. A belief that the only signs and symptoms of an adjudicated mental illness will be universally agreed upon criteria is in itself the mental illness of delusion.
By current standards of psychiatric definitions of mental illness, a defendant medically mentally ill, may be considered legally sane, and vice versa. For the purposes of infringement of the Second Amendment there is no rational rebuttal that psychiatric and legislative agenda cannot find common language definition.
Then there is the reasonable infringement of "no fly, no buy".
Oddly, a bipartisan coalition of left and right can be formed to oppose that poisoned shiny red apple disarmament ploy.
