mental health train wreaks bump for later.......
America Doesn’t Need Gun Control, It Needs Lunatic Control
FINALLY! Someone in the major media is saying this.
I've been saying it for decades and decades and decades. Pretty much my entire adult life since the bleeding heart liberals started closing down the Mental Institutions in the 1960's and putting the Insane People On The Streets -- "because they have rights".
Emanuel calls for ‘vote of conscience’ on assault weapons ban
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter fspielman@suntimes.com December 17, 2012 1:08PM
Chicago Police Superintendent Garry F. McCarthy, at news conference Monday, November 26, 2012. l John H. White ~Sun-Times
Updated: December 18, 2012 8:45AM
Mayor Rahm Emanuel called Monday for a “vote of conscience” on an assault weapons ban in the wake of the Connecticut school massacre but Police Supt. Garry McCarthy said it would be like “putting a Band-Aid” on a cancer without a companion ban on high-capacity magazines.
And Gov. Pat Quinn on Monday renewed his call to ban the sale and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
Unfortunately, lunatic control would necessitate rounding up everyone in government, as well as the entire Democratic Party.
Not really practical.
“Lunatic Control”
1- MSNBC talking heads
2- CIC and his cabinet
3- Dems in House & Senate
(was that last modifier unnecessary?)
The NEA got their practice in the 1970s, implementation in the 1980s, by the 1990s and beyond their have been increasing incidents of school shootings by students.
The National Education Association is responsible for these acts of murder. Not the NRA.
“America Doesn’t Need Gun Control, It Needs Lunatic Control”
Actually, it needs more people carrying.
“Lunatic control” is a kneejerk reaction to the calls for “gun control” which is the primary kneejerk reaction to the shooting.
However, lunatic control can be just as unconstitutional as gun control.
The latest shooter is characterized as an asperger’s type (though it seems to be more rumor than diagnosis).
The first draft of the DSM-V indicated that most asperger cases, as well as other “autism spectrum disorders” can lead normal lives without treatment.
I found that to be a pretty shocking statement considering that the DSM V is supposed to describe clinical problems, not personalities. The condition was removed from subsequent drafts.
Nevertheless, screening folks for mental illness and locking them up can get pretty dangerous too.
Can you really trust your government or school shrinks to decide if you’re dangerous and should be removed from society? The first draft of the DSM V had a personality type characterized as a mental disorder.
You can certainly argue that there are obvious cases where folks do need to be committed, but is it really the solution to the shooting in question?
I say not.
The real solution is the fundamental one - an armed public.
However, in effect, folks are generally not allowed this. E.g. to get a concealed carry permit, you have to provide prints, etc., to make sure you’re not a criminal. Sounds reasonable until you realize it only takes about 5 minutes for a cop to find this out about you during a traffic stop. All the hoops you jump through for that permit are the culmination of kneejerk reactions to violence.
If someone calls the police and say they see someone openly carrying (not brandishing) in an open carry state, do the police say “that’s perfectly legal” and hang up or do they send cops over to “investigate”?
When someone defends themselves in their home are they celebrated as a hero or prosecuted as a murderer?
Without the legal and social barriers above, we’d have a much safer public as HONEST armed citizens would step up to the plate when needed, comparable to a civil defense matter.
Fewer guns, more asylums, and more cops are not the best answer for a supposedly free country.
Tied neck-and-neck with homosexual behavioral disorder, which claims about the same amount of adults, although there is some crossover there.
Thank you for this article. This is a conversation we need to be having.
@Vaquero & Condor
“The left said it was against those people’s constitutional rights to warehouse them… liberals started closing down the Mental Institutions in the 1960’s and putting the Insane People On The Streets — “because they have rights”.
I’ve heard the left blame Reagan for “emptying the mental hospitals” (the article gives a nod to his signing of the Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act - but does not foam at the mouth with blame to RR on this)
@randita
“Most mentally or emotionally challenged people do not show a penchant for violent actions”
The article though, points out how many mass-murderers left flashing red neon signs in their history(s), so the question becomes, what do we do with those?
I’m in favor of long-term institutionalization, but we have to figure out how to do that because
leftists can and will figure out a way to abuse the system & put US in there because we *disagree*...
The news is featuring two murderous lunatics who are calling for mass murder.
One, a watermelon warmist stationed at RI State University and the other a Democrat party leader in Houston, Texas. Texas, as you remember is right next to Mexico where mass murder is a daily occurance and guns are banned. It’s the country where our DOJ was selling guns to murderous drug cartels, who are in turn, slaughtering innocent people like the children in Conn. The watermelons on the other hand, are chicken little doomers who think mankind is killing the earth. They are into eugenics.
Both lunatics are so mad about the killing of innocent children in Conn., they are calling upon their students and political followers to murder gun rights supporters.
Both should be arrested for inciting mass murder. They are lunatics. Since liberals are hypocritical lunatics, chances are they both own guns.