Who would be so insane as to shoot at innocent little 5 and 6-year-olds at a Jewish Community Center using an automatic gun that spouted over 50 bullets?

The man's name was Buford Furrow Jr. He was known to at least one psychiatric center in the State of Washington. So maybe he truly was insane. But wait, didn't he also say that this shooting was a wake-up call that Americans should start killing its Jews. Some said, "Well, that was truly a hateful statement but that did not prove that he was crazy."

But what about his shooting an innocent postman to death. He later said that he killed him because this was an opportunity he could not pass up. The man worked for the hateful government and was non-white to boot. Was this mental illness or extreme bigotry? How about the Chicago man named Smith that shot Jews, a black and some Asians until the cops surrounded him and he killed himself. Was he a little bit off or a highly programmed shooter for a nefarious cause?

Americans have been rightly outraged at these horrible crimes of racists and anti-semites. Yet, if you read or listen to the news of these events and to the discussion about the state of the mind of many of the perpetrators, you may truly be confused. There is a temptation to tie all these incidents into a bundle and declare this epidemic to be the work of madmen.

It does make you wonder how that mental hospital in Seattle could have let Furrow plead to a minor felony. After he voluntarily asked to be given treatment, he burst out with knife threats to nurses. He had to be restrained. He also made comments that he had an urge to go to a mall and wipe out a lot of people. You have a right to ask how could they let such a guy get out so soon and be punished so lightly. It boggles the mind but it's not hard to explain. First, it's no crime to be a hater. Even an organized hate-monger. You are still protected by First Amendment rights. It's also no crime to threaten to shoot a lot of people in a mall. There is no way law enforcement can do anything to you before you actually commit a crime, the cops often say. Here's the kicker question. Should it be this way? Well, "no" I would say. Let me tell you why. Here's where I get into trouble with my friends (former) of the American Civil Liberties Union.

In New York State, we just passed Kendra's Law, a law that is similar to those in over 40 other states. We will now be able to require former mental patients or those who are diagnosed as psychotic to take their medicine or be forced to be hospitalized. Some still object to this as a violation of individual rights. This is no small thing, especially since these drugs sometimes have terrible side effects. But others rightfully ask, "What about Kendra? She was thrown off a subway platform and killed by a psychotic who wouldn't take his medicine."

What's the connection of Kendra's Law to the racist shooters of little children and others? Clearly it is that one's past history should be factored in when society deals with pathology. It has always seemed strange to me that a rapist's past sexual history is sometimes ruled inadmissible in court when he is being tried for a new rape.

It seems equally strange that a man like Furrow who has a known history as a member of a Nazi-like organization, which is now advocating that their members take "lone wolf" actions against the enemies of "white America," be allowed to receive a license as a gun dealer. Yes, that's right, Furrow was a licensed gun dealer.

In our zeal to protect the First Amendment and the Second Amendment, both of which call forth positive emotions on my part, and I'm sure on yours as well, we may well be on our way to giving some bad people a license to destroy others with impunity. Isn't it possible that our well intentioned reverence for the Bill of Rights has some weak spots. Maybe in our zeal to protect individual rights we wrongly interpret what the Founding Fathers really meant, or what is necessary to absolutely protect our society. Judicial review which constantly deals with the subtleties of the Constitution is ongoing. The last word always leaves room for change.

The First Amendment was intended to protect free political speech, not necessarily hateful advocacy against defined groups, especially when that speech is couched in a manner to arouse killing and genocide. The Second Amendment was meant to protect citizens against tyranny by allowing them to organize a well-maintained militia, not to put a semi-automatic killing machine into the hands of every crook and malcontent.

We're charged, as parents, to raise and protect our kids. There should be no doubt about it. These haters and gun huggers are predators. When you put their hate and their guns together you have an especially deadly brew. We definitely need effective gun control and anti-hate crime legislation.

Let me sum up my case by speaking as a mental health professional. I truly believe that all the mayhem doers, from Littleton and other shooting sites, are at least seriously emotionally disturbed. Some are psychotic. All have criminal tendencies to harm others and to destroy property. They often have a peculiar fascination with weapons of destruction. They seem to be easily influenced by Armageddons and mythical cataclysmic showdowns. They have paranoid fantasies about others who are members of groups that are not their own. They project onto them their deep self-hate and personal psychological injury, which they have often saved up from a lifetime of hurts. In short, they are dangerous and they need watching, they need treatment and at times they need removal from the open society where they may harm others. This should not be so hard to understand. Should it?