March 17, 2018

The NRA Are Hypocrites

Perhaps doing a slightly better job of pointing out the insanity of the newly-signed bill in Florida than the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the NRA shows their hypocrisy on their NRA-ILA website (surrounded by “Donate Now” buttons).

Evidently, the NRA completely supports parts of the new bill (as does the NSSF and others) including the blanket approval of actions to “educate” and “rat” on anyone “suspected” of having mental issues and ceding more fascist authority to the police to confiscate guns and ask questions later. As Trump stated, he preferred to confiscate guns first and worry about Due Process later. Nice…real nice! Leadership? Hmm!

This and a plea that states: “Contact your members of Congress and state lawmakers today and ask them to oppose all gun control schemes that would only impact law-abiding gun owners.”

Maybe the NRA should take a lesson out of their own playbook. If we lined up all the “gun control schemes” the NRA has been promoters and supporters of, it might make a fairly large book.

And it’s time to ask why the NRA thinks giving more power to cops to confiscate your property and at the same time allow governments to decide what is mental illness in the context of gun buying/ownership and what it is that is to be “educated” upon the people, isn’t supporting “gun control schemes” that impact law-abiding gun owners?

Wording is everything. The NRA states (above) that: “…oppose all gun control schemes that would only impact law-abiding gun owners.” (emboldening added) Are they saying that it is okay to support “gun control schemes” that impact gun owners and criminals together? Their historic record seems to indicate that, which in turn makes them an anti-Second Amendment organization. So, keep sending them money! MONEY-MONEY-MONEY!!!

The NRA also says that: “If we want to prevent future atrocities, we must look for solutions that keep guns out of the hands of those who are a danger to themselves or others, while protecting the rights of law-abiding Americans.”

According to how the NRA operates those solutions all involve giving up some of your rights. I guess they call that compromise. Either it’s a right or it’s a meted out privilege. Have we already forgotten that a previous administration in the White House believed that GIs returning from war who sought any kind of emotional assistance should be banned from owning a gun? Apparently so! What could possibly go wrong when Government decides your state of mind? Who decides theirs?

And is the NRA suggesting that we take away a person’s right to “innocent until proven guilty” and “Due Process” as a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist; a fairytale that it will prevent further crimes by “mental” people?

The answer appears to be yes. It is obvious (to me anyway) that the NRA pisses on the Second Amendment and then tells people it’s raining, so why wouldn’t they be willing to offer to give up even more of your rights to the sacrificial lamb (money and power)?

But if forget. You think the NRA is your best friend. He ain’t much of a friend, but he’s the only one you have…right?


Mentally Ill People Don’t Kill……But Don’t Go Look!

I know I have told this story many times before, so bear with me as there are some and new readers who haven’t heard it. True story. When my nephew was perhaps 3 or 4 years old, my brother was struggling to get him to eat his meals. On a day around noontime, I showed up at their house for a visit. My nephew didn’t want to eat his lunch and his father was being persistent that he did.

He gave the boy instructions about eating and the two of us retired to the living to discuss work. After about 5 minutes my nephew came into the living and excitedly announced, “Dad! I’m all done eating now! But don’t go look okay?”

In discussions about violent crimes with guns, guns are getting blamed – like they can kill someone all on their own. Not wanting to be included in any of these discussions are violent movies and video games and the data that shows that the common link between violent crimes and guns is drugs given to patients with mental problems.

For political and personal agenda reasons, Katherine Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, was reported to have said, “The vast majority of Americans with a mental health condition are not violent. In fact, just 3% to 5% of violent crimes are committed by individuals who suffer from a serious mental illness.”

There’s a problem here with her statement BUT I am going to go look!

She states first that, “the vast majority of Americans with ‘A’ mental health ‘condition’, are not violent.” Please consider exactly what that sentence is saying and that she does not qualify what determines “a mental health condition.”

Now let’s look at the second sentence. She states that only 3%-5% of violent crimes are committed by those, “who suffer from ‘a serious mental illness’.”

The information provided here is incomplete and therefore extremely misleading. The intent here, I believe, is to force anyone hearing or reading her statement to believe that mentally ill people are not a factor in the number of violent crimes committed. But when you examine what she said, she may not have lied, but she wasn’t very honest either. She qualifies the 3%-5% as being those with a serious mental illness.

For my money, there’s a vast difference between a person with a mental condition and someone with a serious mental illness.