After the recent school shooting in Parkland, Florida, liberal talking heads immediately launched into yet another attack on our Second Amendment rights. As has also become commonplace after mass shootings, mental health was also infused into the discussion with a flurry of possible bills proposed in the wake of the massacre.
We gun owners are used to the illogical knee-jerk reactions of the anti-gun crowd after mass shootings. We have also grown frustratingly accustomed to the eagerness of liberals to put the blame on the guns, and not squarely where is belongs – on the person who held the weapon and squeezed the trigger.
Blaming the gun used in any mass shooting will not stop future mass shootings. I can stare at our gun safe 24/7, waiting for the moment one of our firearms jumps off its rack and launches into a bloody killing spree. It’s just not going to happen…ever.
Doing something, anything, to stop gun violence can prompt some pretty scary laws – ones that have consequences those who rush to support them, do not take even a few seconds to ponder. If making a law would ensure the prevention, or even logical curtailing or a specific crime, there would no longer be murder, rape, drug dealing, or drunk driving arrests in the United States of America.
If most DUIs occurred by people driving a Dodge Charger, banning the vehicle from ever again being manufactured in America would still not stop drunk driving accidents. No politician would ever propose such a ludicrous idea in the first place.
It has been incredibly easy for liberal politicians and the media to blame the gun and not the actual evil person behind mass shootings. It reinforces their anti-gun agenda, makes it appear like they are taking action to protect the children and the public at large, and pretends to offer a quick fix to an extremely complicated problem.
Taking a long hard look at the American family and admitting that the lack of a father in the home, parents who act like besties and not real parents, disengaged parents of overly scheduled and highly pampered children, would be far too in-depth, complicated, and uncomfortable of a subject to delve into. Banning guns and calling for weapons to be removed from mentally ill or disabled people, is a much easier concept to sell to those folks who think a “gun free zone” sign will protect them.
Discussing the crumbling of our society and culture is cultivating mass shooters would lead to monstrously politically incorrect language and could of course cost liberal politicians some votes. There are more people killed in a month of weekends in Chicago than any single mass shooting that has happened in America. But, they don’t want to talk about that, not really.
The few that are pushed to answer questions about the lack of attention being paid to inner city gun violence in Chicago (and similar cities) blame it on lax gun laws in surrounding areas where they think the street punks in the Illinois city are going to get their guns. The blood in the streets doesn’t at all mean stringent gun laws don’t work, it only means such laws must be mirrored everywhere to have an impact.
Since there are so few real journalists left in the mainstream media, the logical follow up question is never asked. If the lax gun laws in other parts of Cook County are to blame, why aren’t double digit weekend shootings occurring there, as well?
Liberal’s false narrative on urban criminals…
Liberals are also fond of claiming it is not the fault of the youthful urban largely minority criminals that they got caught up in violent gangs – it is the lack of good schools and jobs that provoked them. Once again, they are pushing a false narrative. If living in an impoverished area where jobs are scarce and the schools are poorly funded, why aren’t the sidewalks in most rural areas also dripping with blood each weekend?
Kids growing up in rural areas probably have more access to legally purchased guns than Chicago youth do illegal guns, yet folks around here rarely ever bother to lock their doors at night and have no fear of getting hit by a stray drive by bullet.
If tough gun laws are the answer, why weren’t the mass shootings were have experienced in recent history also occurring during the 1950s, 60s, and 70s when far, far fewer gun laws existed?
The fact even the mainstream media is finally considering the mental health of mass shooters as the motivation behind gun mass shootings and not simply a particular weapon is a good thing, but only to a certain degree. Unless Second Amendment rights supporters keep a close eye on ALL proposed mental health gun laws, we all could one day soon hear a knock at the door by government agents coming to take our firearms.
No sane person would want a mentally ill person to have a firearm – or any other type of weapon. But, do we really want liberals, or the government in general to be in charge of determining mental fitness?
After the Parkland, Florida shooting, the mainstream media, CNN in particular, staunchly lambasted Republican lawmakers who supported overturning Barack Obama’s rule that yanked away Second Amendment rights from the disabled. Low-information voters thought the conservatives were gun-clinging monsters because Americans with disabilities who, according to the then liberal White House, no longer possessed the mental capacity to own a firearm.
There was a strict and lengthy process to determine what Americans with disabilities lost their gun rights, a formal hearing would be held and an avenue for appeal if guns were ordered to be removed. Nope, nothing of the kind was slated to occur under the supposed “common sense” mental health gun law.
Any law-abiding American gun owner who received a disability check and had a representative payee, was subject to it – without legal recourse. The government’s theory was a person surely had to be not only possibly physically, but mentally incapacitated if another adult was designed as the person who cashed their checks and take care of their banking.
If a rural grandma decided to give such authority to an adult child or grandchild so she didn’t have to drive 30 miles to the bank, she would have been forced to give up the shotgun she kept in the house to protect herself.
If a man with vision problems opted to go the same route because he no longer drove, he too would no longer have the right to protect himself from a home invader.
An urban elderly person who uses a walker and lives in a dangerous neighborhood would have had to choose between keeping a handgun they had a permit to carry and allowing a loved on to be their representative payee.
The mystery of the “mentally ill”…
Exactly what type of medication a person was taking or condition they were suffering from that would disqualify them under the mental health gun law, still remains largely shrouded in mystery.
That was then, this is now..and the mental health gun control laws coming down the pike could be even more arbitrary and contain only foggy details about firearms disqualifying conditions.
The mental health gun control laws being bantered about could impact your minor children, as well. One day soon all of the 8,389,034 kids forced to take psychiatric drugs by their doctors and/or parents, will become adults. Any of those children who want to purchase a gun, may likely not be able to due to their past history of treatment for a mental health or behavior issue – or supposed issue.
The number of children, particularly boys, being fed drugs to combat ADD or ADHD now numbers into the millions and has grown every year for the past decade.
• There are approximately 1,080,168 age five and below who are now taking psychiatric drugs.
• About 274,804 age one and younger, are prescribed psychiatric drugs in the United States.
• Around 4,130,340 children are taking the same mental health medications on a daily basis in America.
• Approximately 3,617,593 teenagers between 13 and 17 years old, the average age range of school mass shooters are consuming psychiatric drugs.
• Around 4,404,360 of the American children are taking strong prescription medications because a doctor thinks they have ADHD. Have you ever seen the test for an ADD or ADHD diagnosis? Is is a completely subjective set of questions a doctor, parents, and a teacher answers to determine if their behavior falls within currently accepted norms – that’s it. Around 1,500 of the children on ADHD drugs are still wearing diapers when the medicine is prescribed.
• Approximately 2,165,279 children who are less than one year old to 17, are taking antidepressant medications.
• Another 830,836 or so American toddlers, children, and teenagers are prescribed anti-psychotic medications.
• About 2,132,625 minors are prescribed medications for anxiety issues.
When television and government supposed experts talk about the drug problem and gun violence problems in America, they should first be talking about the impact of long-term psychiatric prescription drug on children who grow up popping a pill every day in this country.
The reasons behind the monumental increase in which psychotropic pharmaceuticals are being prescribed to children, the same type of drugs many mass shooters and terrorists were on when they created mass carnage, remains largely unaddressed – even though it desperately needs to be.
Liberals want to make the NRA and by extension, all Second Amendment supporters the big bad guys.
They go on, and on, and on each night on the news talking about the deep pockets of the NRA and all the power their political contributions bring them.
One of the many actual facts the liberal commentators fail to mention, is how the NRA political contributions pale in comparison to the deep pockets of Big Pharma. Over the course of the last decade, the NRA lobbying budget was $20 million. That is truly a lot of money, but Big Pharma, the makers of all the drugs being forced upon innocent children, had a lobbying budget or $2.5 BILLION.
No, they don’t want to talk about that. Why children are being prescribed some of the most serious drugs on the market even before they are old enough to write their own names – and the impact those drugs and have on their still-forming brains, does not fit their gun-grabbing narrative at all.
Liberals want us to believe the same type of governmental agencies that failed to revoke Nikolas Cruz’s gun rights after being alerted to his dangerous, threatening, and sometimes illegal behavior BEFORE he opened fire inside a school, is diligent and dedicated enough to determine who among us is mentally ill and isn’t fit to own a gun?! I think not.
None, exactly 0% of the suggested gun violence bills currently being debated and passed, would have stopped Cruz from legally getting a gun – not even some of the mental health guidelines that are finite and reasonable, if the law enforcement agents tasked do not share and act upon the information.
I fully respect our local heroes, they risk their lives protecting our communities for very little pay each and every day. But, in the case of the Parkland, Florida school shooting, members of law enforcement agencies where complaints about the shooter were lodged, including the school, did not do their jobs…and children died because of it.
Veterans who have sought treatment for stress, anxiety, PTSD, or similar issues have lost their Second Amendment rights because they went to a doctor for help and in most cases, been prescribed the same type of medications being given to our children.
A VA staffer sitting in an office somewhere can take one quick look at a veteran’s file and deem the man or woman too “mentally defective” to own a gun. Thousands of veterans are still fighting to retain the right to protect themselves at home after protecting us abroad.
We have already seen how badly such a blanket policy controlled by government hands has played out with the “No Fly List.” Liberals love to talk about this list too, when touting their latest “comprehensive” gun control legislation.
The “No Fly List” Analogy
The left loves to say a person can be placed on the No Fly List because they pose a national security threat, but can still buy a gun. While this makes it seem like a new gun law or enhanced background check is necessary, the liberals uttering such dogma have gotten very creative with their carefully selected set of “facts.”
The parameters for the No Fly List were so broad and subjective, some powerful public officials and agency administrators even found their names on the dreaded list. Ted Kennedy was stopped an interrogated to prove he was not the “T. Kennedy” on the No Fly List, Cat Stevens was temporarily refused entry back to the United States after his new last name, “Islam” landed him on the list, two CNN reporters and even a toddler, just to name a few, have found themselves onto the terror watch list.
Getting off the list can often involve a lengthy and expensive legal process. Only about 1,000 or so people on the 80,000 plus person fly list, are even Americans already in our country.
There is a massively huge difference between mental health patients with serious problems and a person taking some type of medication for a small or temporary issue – like anti-stress medication after the loss of a loved one.
I am very afraid all of the recently proposed laws will not only difference, but in the rush to “do something” will deter people from seeking out the help they need.
Liberals are now demanding that doctors be permitted to ask patients if they own a gun or one is present in their home. Such privacy intruding questions are not permitted everywhere.
If a doctor feels a patient if depressed, anxious, or is experiencing other similar emotions, the physician would be entitled (perhaps compelled) to report the gun-owning patient to the local authorities.
I am the first to admit I do not understand the inner-workings of a liberal mind, but what do they even hope to accomplish if every doctor becomes required to ask if a patient owns a gun?
Lying to a police officer can get your arrested, but there is at least currently no law against lying to your doctor. People lie to their doctor all the time: “How often do you consume alcohol, how often do you exercise, how much do you smoke…” probably spark the most frequent lies to doctors.
The fight to safeguard our Second Amendment rights is not one of leaps and bounds, but one of inches. We have to remain vigilant and read every single word in bills proposed both in our own respective states and federally.
Do not let innocuous sounding bills fool you into thinking the new rules they contain will not chip away at our right to keep and bare arms. Let us never allow our the United States of America to become like the former Soviet Union and use “mental illness” designations to garner control over the right to free speech, political dissent, or our Second Amendment rights.