Those with a mental illness who are physically violent are extremely rare, those who are violent with guns are even more rare. In the same vain, a firearm owner who commits a violent act with a gun is extremely rare too. We – gun owners – asked politicians and the media not to associate law-abiding gun owners with violent acts like the Sandy Hook shooting. We were ignored and specifically called out as the problem. Yet, President Obama was asked to distance mental health issues from the gun control issue, and he complied.
Even Mother Jones took time-out to point out a majority [hint, it’s not a simple majority] of the mass shooters were mentally troubled and displayed signs of their issues prior to the shootings. Then there is the connection with loan-wolf shooters and psychotropic drugs used to treat mental illness. Of course that does not mean anyone with a mental illness who is being treated with – or was treated with – drugs will shoot anyone, but why are gun owners and 2nd Amendment advocates not afforded the same respect?
President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden will host a mental-health conference at the White House on Monday but, after an outcry from advocacy groups, the administration is no longer billing the meeting as part of its effort to enact gun control legislation.
Just two weeks ago, the White House described the conference as part of Mr. Obama’s plan to reduce violence in the wake of December’s Sandy Hook school massacre in Newtown, Conn. But on Friday, when White House deputy press secretary Joshua Earnest previewed the meeting for reporters, he never mentioned the words “gun violence.”
Instead, Mr. Earnest said the conference will address “how we can all work together to reduce stigma and help the millions of Americans struggling with mental health problems recognize the importance of reaching out for assistance.”
I happen to agree we do not want to stigmatize mental health issues with any sort of act of violence. I started off an April 5 post this way…
I was speaking to Jim the other day about the reluctance of people to “get involved” with the mental health of friends and family members. Honestly, I’m guilty. It’s not a stretch to be aware of a constant stream of strange attitudes, inappropriate comments, excessive drinking, depression, anti-social behavior and other “quirks” of someone we know and say nothing. After all, we’ve been conditioned for years not to judge people, since some folks are just “different” and that’s OK. For the Aurora and Newtown shooters, it was not OK.
This is the hard stuff people. It was easy for Connecticut and Colorado politicians and gun-control activists to blame firearms and law-abiding gun owners for the shootings, targeting the small percentage of the population who own these “evil black rifles” with their “excessively high-volume” of bullets.
But you see, stigmatizing gun owners and tying what they own – rifles, magazines, pistols, bullets – directly to the extremely rare mass shooting is perfectly acceptable and the right thing to do as far as the gun-control advocates and many politicians are concerned. It’s perfectly acceptable for them to take away our freedoms and liberties for the illusion of their own safety.
In a related item we now have a fruitcake journalism professor writing the following in an op-ed piece. The first sentence is a complete fabrication, you know … a lie.
The NRA advocates armed rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States of America. That’s treason, and it’s worthy of the firing squad. …
Normally, I am a peaceable man, but in this case, I am willing to answer the call to defend the country. From them.
To turn the song lyric they so love to quote back on them, “We’ll put a boot in your —, it’s the American way.”
Except it won’t be a boot. It’ll be an M1A Abrams tank, supported by an F22 Raptor squadron with Hellfire missiles. Try treason on for size. See how that suits. And their assault arsenal and RPGs won’t do them any good.
Other than the fact we don’t have any RPGs, isn’t it interesting that this guy is dreaming of military action against those who are concerned about the growth of government and the tyranny that comes from it?