Holder was in Atlanta recently, not far from where I live, giving a talk at Clark Atlanta University about civil rights, voting, and gun violence. He “spoke out” against gun violence and referred to the recent shootings that took place at nearby Atlanta schools as evidence that we need to do more to curb gun violence.
Why is it always about gun violence? Why don’t they care about all forms of violence?
"Well, I don’t think they actually care about violence at all. They don’t talk about violence and murders committed with knives, bats, hammers, fists, etc. because they don’t care about those items…yet. They’ve been working hard to blame guns for violence so that they can justify taking them away.
So far, they’ve been successful in barring those with histories of felonies or mental illness from being able to own a gun. But Eric Holder said that he’s been tasked by Obama to see if he can expand that list to other groups:
“We have 2nd Amendment rights, and there’s nothing what the President is trying to do that will affect those 2nd Amendment rights. But there’s certain people, people who have mental health issues perhaps, people who have felony records. These are all categories of people who are not entitled to carry a gun, and I think we have to make sure that continues to be the case. One of the things the President has asked me to do is to look at that list, those categories, and see if we need to expand it to make sure that, again, the wrong people do not come into possession of guns.”
He wants to make sure the “wrong people” don’t end up with guns. “Wrong people,” as in Mexican drug cartels? “Wrong people,” as in Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations like the Free Syrian Army? Curiously, he didn’t mention those “wrong people.” I guess foreign terrorists and drug lords have far more rights than ordinary American citizens.
More and more, it’s becoming clear the “wrong people” to whom Eric and the Obama administration are referring are those that are opposed to their ideologies. Sure, they’ll start off with people that most might agree shouldn’t have a gun like those with felony histories or mental illness. But once most people have accepted that principle that the government can basically decide who should or shouldn’t have a gun, it creates a slippery slope that will lead to a complete disarmament of the populace.
They do it by redefining “mental illness.” If you question the government’s policies or decisions, if you’re pro-life, opposed to high taxes, critical of the Federal Reserve System or supportive of the Bill of Rights, you might be suffering from paranoid delusions. Therefore, you are mentally unfit to carry a gun, because you might potentially commit a crime with it.
Those who have been tasked to represent us in Washington have truly proven themselves to be mentally unfit to serve. They’re power hungry, and they suffer from intense delusions of grandeur. Those people should not carry guns, nor should they be around “security” that carry guns. Taking their guns away would protect American citizens.
Seems to me the ones in office have the mental health problem.
How quickly they want us to forget Fast and Furious - Holder's little scheme that killed people - our people but nothing was done about that.
It is all just a political ploy to keep the liberally schooled twits on their bandwagon.
True that, Margaret. The biased left wing media has not commented on Fast and Furious in months. This is how they bury their dirty laundry.
What is interesting in this discussion is the push to have more citizens on the "no gun list" is the failure to also discuss even the prohibitions on those who have mental health or criminal records that aren't a threat if they own guns. There are a fair number of "crimes" in the country at both the Federal and state levels that are felonies but have zero to do with any violent action. Tax, environmental, and other "crimes" ginned up at various levels for political, ideological, and/or "fund raising" reasons where those "criminals" pose no threat to others when the crime has "been paid for". Not too infrequently those "convicted" of those crimes are those that were forced to plead due to the fact that the government resources arrayed against them were greater than the legal resources they could afford and the government in question has an agenda other than "protecting the public" so will pursue the case till they get a conviction.
In the area of mental illness the same is true if you just take those who have sought treatment for some problem. Some issues are chronic and some temporary and maybe situational but pose no problems to the individual or others. One thing that seems to be a common thread in many of the recent shootings is failure by government. This was true in AZ and Ft Hood and government restrictions on committing someone for treatment was a big factor in CN. The CO incident was due to the failure of a doctor to respond properly to the theater shooters growing issues and both she and the university failed to alert authorities that there may be a problem here with this guy. There does need to be some guidelines on sharing medical info with authorities and flagging someone in a database somewhere but that area seems iffy right now on its effectiveness
Not sure that the media itself isn't a factor in some of these incidents as we are seeing in CA with the rouge cop right now as well. Apparently there are "good shooters" and "bad shooters" depending on the politics of the incident. This whole discussion is so mired in politics right now that any rational discussion is useless.
John this is very true. People fail to look at what is entailed in the label "mental illness". That could be depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, ADHD, narcissism, bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia (which can be non-violent in the majority of cases, few have the violent form), among others. Therefore, if they want to deny those with mental illness, that is going to be a good part of the population and these people, for the most part, have committed no crime against society at all. Bi-polar is a difficult one as it has the higher incidence of violence, believe it or not, but how many of the others are violent. And you are right about felons, John. At one time it was felons that had committed crimes using weapons, then it became all felons and that can be someone that embezzled $2500 who has no prior record; but they are denied the right to own a gun under current laws. It could be someone that failed to pay taxes and yet committed no violent crime at all.
Therefore, I am wondering why they want to take this further regarding felons; if anything there needs to be revision to allow non-violent offenders the right to regain their 2nd Amendment right.
And again, as to mental illness, that is lumping a good percent of the population under the restricted area if they want to restrict those with diagnosed mental illness. What about the sociopaths out there that seem normal and yet have a very strong violent tendency? They can own a gun and who is challening them?
John, agree and thank you for the comments.
You always have "the" qreat question, Linda. What about the sociopaths? This is why exercising this "universal" gun control will be a total effort in futility. A total waste of time. It's the good people, like us, who are being inconvenienced....the law abiding citizens.
posted April 18, 2007 byBryan
The form is online here. When purchasing a firearm, you have to fill this form out. Question 11 deals with reasons to be denied purchasing a firearm, and section f reads:
Have you ever been adjucated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have been committed to a mental institution?
Prior to a 2005 revision, it was question 12f so if you’ve seen the form you might remember it that way instead of 11f.
It’s a Yes or No question, and according to my friend in the gun business, it’s routinely the most laughed at question on the form. Because, of course, if you’re schizophrenic with a history of violence and you’re stalking someone, you’re going to be totally upfront and honest about that question.
The entire section on the form is laughable. If your true answer to part d, “Are you a fugitive from justice?” is yes, how likely are you to answer accurately?
As far as I know, question 11f is the full extent of a mental health background check for anyone purchasing a firearm. Your mileage may vary according to state law.
To the extent that there is any legislative solution that might prevent another Cho, and I’m not at all convinced that there is, perhaps it ought to start with making it a little harder for anyone with a history of mental illness to purchase firearms. Rather than just making it harder for everyone, across the board, to be able to defend themselves from someone like Cho when they finally snap.
Update: This just in to the Hot Air email bag. It’s a doozy.
Bush may be somewhat partially responsible for the shootings in Virginia because he has created a climate
of violence, war, killing, hopelessness, and futility. The young man is essentially responsible but he was for
four long years in that school and no one seemed able to welcome him, make him feel at home, show him
friendship and belonging to the group. Imagine living in a dorm situation (suite) with some one and not ever
being able to make eye contact or get his attention. Bush, in his operating as the President has set a tone
of ignoring the law, law-breaking, and low-rating Congress and anyone else who did not agree with him, In
not supporting proper laws to control mayhem and murder, he has also contributed to the American ambiance. He has never understood that he should speak intelligently and rationally to Americans, most of
whom are smarter than he is. Any one who wants to really understand Bush and his impact on those around him should read Kitty Kelley’s book about the Bushes. Sincerely, MPM
I have no doubt that you’re sincere, MPM. I also have no doubt that you’re a fool for thinking that Bush and this “climate of fear” or “ambience” had anything to do with Cho. Cho was mentally unstable and popped. Blaming that on Bush is, to put it mildly, unhinged. It’s of a piece with Bill Clinton politicizing theOklahoma Citybombing, and it’s despicable. As a country, we’re no longer able to unite around anything because this kind of opportunistic point-scoring.
And contrary to public opinion, bi-polar is much more volitile and prone to violence but it seems easier to assume it is schizophrenics. Most schizophrenics are non-violent. If they have issues with harming anyone, it is self-inflicted not toward others. Due to my brother's having this and therefore spending a lot of time around schizophrenics in support groups, etc., this is not just off the top of my head. If they are violent toward society, they are, for the most part, committed as that is when they can be if they have demonstrated the violence toward someone. Where most schizophrenics will take their medication, bi-polar people do not like the way it makes them feel so they stop taking it, or they start to feel better and stop taking it and then they get into trouble. Another area that needs to seriously be considered is those with Altzheimer's Disease. In the later stages they can become extremely violent. I have taken care of Altzheimer patients and know this first hand. One man picked up a wheelchair with the lady in it and threw it across the room, causing her to break an arm and have internal injuries and many stitches. He broke 2 ribs when he lashed out at one of the caregives, I had 3 fingers broken when he grabbed my hand and twisted the fingers until the snapped. Another caregiver suffered head injuries when he took a lamp and smashed it against the caregiver's head. This was over a 4 month period of time. Finally we were able to get him committed to the violent Altzheimer's ward at the local state mental hospital. Another of the Altzheimer's patients got angry and smashed a door and in the same episode pushed a caregiver down the stairs causing her to break her leg. Now, give them a gun and it would be a major problem; both of these men were capable of it as we had to lock all knives up, as well as brooms and mops and anything that could potentially be a weapon.
So that is another area that will need to be watched in the future; family members need to be aware and lock up their weapons if they have a family member with Altzheimer's living with them.
I've never experienced or witnessed that degree of violence in Alzheimer's patients, but I certainly can believe it. When my mother was in the assisted living's Alzheimer's unit, she became very agitated in the late afternoon. While she was still in her own home, she often got very nasty with people. People with dementia can be a danger to others while driving their cars, too. One time my mom, who, as it turned out, had an expired license, ran a red light & plowed into the side of a van with a mother and 3 small children, then kept on going. Fortunately, the mother & children were not hurt, but a judge ordered that her car had to be disabled so she could not drive it. It wasn't long afterwards that she had to go into an assisted living facility. In the late stages I saw, Alzheimer's patients were well past the middle violent stage. They sat quietly unaware of their surroundings & those who loved them.
Same with my mother, Sandy. It has something to do with the time of day according to my mother's nurses. I sure pitied those nurses on the 3 to 11 shift LOL.
Sandy, in both of these cases they had already gone through the stage where they no longer recognized people (family, those of us caregivers, etc.) and then they went into the violent stage which, according to what we were taught, was one of the final stages before organs start to shut down. Maybe there are people that teach something different, I don't know. But this was what we were taught and what we experienced. I took care of 8 people with Altzheimer's in an assisted living facility and we had another 3 other houses that each had 8 Altzheimer's patients, as well. It was pretty consistent with all of them and, unfortunately, the men were the ones that had the more violent tendency. The women would be a little more combative but not as physically violent and they limited their combativeness to thoose of us caring for them as they didn't want to do the things we might have for them to do; shower, eat, go to bed, help with personal care, take medication, etc.
I am so sorry that you mother had to experience this disease as I feel that it is equally as horrible as cancer; it is so destructive to the patient and their loved ones as well. My grandfather didn't actually have an Altzheimer's diagnosis, but senile dementia parallals Altzheimer's in some ways such as no longer remembering loved ones, and then the withdrawal. And in both cases the organs eventually shut down; it is horrible.
Diane and Sandy, we referred to it as "Sundowner's Syndrome" and it affects the elderly when Dementia or Altzheimer's sets in and is sad. They can become more forgetful, argumentative and combative, depressed, etc. It affects people different ways, but it is not a good time of the day that is for sure.
That's right, I remember now..."Sundowner's Syndrome." I couldn't think of it to save my life! My mother definitely had it at times.