When everybody is diagnosed with a mental disorder, gun permits will be a thing of the past. Take that seriously. At a presidential debate, Obama was asked about achieving gun control. He said, “Enforce the laws we’ve already got. Make sure we are keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals…[and] those who are mentally ill.”
In case you’ve been sleeping in a cave for the past few years, the US government is doing everything it can to create more categories of crimes, and the psychiatrists are expanding the list of (fictional but enforceable) mental disorders, as they also relentlessly promote “more diagnosis and treatment.”
Some estimates state 20-25% of the US population is suffering from a mental disorder. These are absurd and cooked figures, for several reasons, but it doesn’t matter. What matters is that huge numbers of people can be arbitrarily labeled as such.
So legally owning or not owning a gun may soon hinge on a broader definition of “mentally ill,” changed to “having been diagnosed with a mental disorder,” because that is one back-door way to execute a massive gun ban.
Simply put: diagnose everybody and his brother with a mental disorder, and then assert that any such diagnosis bars a person from obtaining a gun permit.
Psychiatry, in addition to destroying lives through toxic drugs, becomes a political instrument for gun control.
In the July editions of both Psychology Today and The Psychiatric Times, the same editorial, written by Dr. Allen Frances, America’s most influential psychiatrist, spelled out a clear position:
“Guns do kill people and the number of people depends on the number of guns and the number of rounds they can fire in a given period of time.”
Of course, no mention is made of the psychiatric drugs that induce violence and murder.
Dr. Frances sums up his unequivocal position: “We really have only two choices…accept mass murder as part of the American way of life, or…get in line with rest of the civilized world and adopt sane gun control policies.”
I thought I would explore the issue of mental illness from a slightly different perspective, however: WHY ARE FANATICAL GUN GRABBERS PSYCHOTIC?
What is the nature of THEIR mental disorder?
In the wake of the Newtown massacre, the gun-control forces are on the march. Ban this, ban that, go after the Doomsday preppers and bitter clingers.
The gun grabbers don’t respond to the obvious charge that, when honest people have weapons for self-defense, they can, in fact, defend themselves and stave off crime, harm, and death.
This point doesn’t make a dent.
Neither does arguing Second Amendment. Neither does painting a picture of a society in which the only people who have guns are the government and criminals. The gun grabbers seem to like that picture. At least theoretically.
Here are a few truths you can take to the bank:
If the media in this country (which are notoriously anti-gun) made a big deal out of every case in which an armed citizen successfully defended his home against a violent intruder, and made every such person a hero, we would have a different mood in America. Everybody would see the sense in gun ownership.
In the case of the Newtown killings, the media would be saying, “Now here is a tragic case in which no one in the school was carrying a weapon.” And everybody would see the sense and the truth of that.
So really, it’s matter of what the media cover and how they cover it, and what they ignore. That’s all it is. It isn’t anything else. In other words, they’re running a psyop.
Point two: the government doesn’t want private citizens to own and carry guns because that would diminish the role of government.
The people in charge hate it when private citizens take over a self-appointed government function. It’s insulting. It’s people saying to the government, “We don’t need you.” It’s proof that government acts in many, many ways that are intrusive and preemptive.
“No need to worry, officer, I caught the thief as he was leaving the liquor store. I pulled my weapon and put him down on the ground and cuffed him. He’s in the back of my car.”
No, no, no. no. The government must be in charge of everything that pertains to showing or using a gun. No outsiders allowed.
“Yes, Mrs. Smith, I’m sorry we’re late, and I’m sorry you husband was beaten to a pulp by that intruder, but we have other crimes to process. We have to man speed-traps. It’s better that your husband didn’t have a gun, let me assure you. Why? It just is. Now, let me call an ambulance. I hope they get him to the hospital in time.”
Imagine what the response would be if you asked an IRS executive what he thought about a flat consumer tax on bought goods that would replace the whole IRS code.
We’re talking about government jobs here. Jobs and money and pensions.
Private citizens must not do what the government does.
In case you hadn’t noticed, this spills over into the health field. The FDA certifies, as safe and effective, every (poisonous) medical drug before it can be prescribed for public use.
The FDA therefore controls drug treatment.
If somebody comes along and cooks up, in his kitchen, an herbal brew that knocks out the flu like a ridiculous little sissy in two hours, that’s a threat. Suddenly, a private citizen is miles ahead of the FDA (and the drug companies). No, no, no.
If home schoolers educate their kids better than government-run schools do, that’s another sore point. That’s bad. It expose the government factories that manufacture illiterate children.
Third point: if enough citizens were well-armed, it would take a full-scale federal invasion to overcome them in case of, oh, secession from the federalized United States.
The feds, of course, would win in the long run, if they killed enough people, but the publicity would be devastating to the government. Think Waco multiplied by a thousand or a million.
And in the process, word would get out about these well-armed private citizens’ grievances against the central government. The grievances would make sense to a lot of people watching the carnage unfold. Can’t have that. No, no, no.
Fourth point: A lot of people in this country grow up thinking they have to take care of other people. That’s really all they know how to do. This goes far beyond any understandable humane impulse.
This is meddling. It’s moving in on other people’s private business. The meddlers turn out to be vicious little scum. Well, where else are they going to be able to exercise these cheap impulses, other than in government jobs?
The corollary to this is: “I’m the hero. I protect you. I…you what? You protected yourself? No, you’re not allowed to do that, because then I can’t be a hero. You’re supposed to be the helpless citizen on my watch. If I can leap tall buildings, you have to be grounded. Otherwise, my life is in vain.”
Fifth point: Elites want to continue to own America. They want to have sway over the land and resources and people and money. Their minions and agents are the official people with weapons. That’s the way it works. It has to be a one-sided game. If millions and millions and millions of private citizens owned guns and knew how to use them, the tin gods wouldn’t be able to sleep well at night.
Sixth point: So-called liberals hate people who own guns. For them, guns are symbols of everything else they hate. Religion, land ownership, property rights, fences, and boundaries. Unless, of course, those fences define the liberals’ land.
Corollary: Many conservatives hate people who own guns, too, when they perceive those people are ready to decentralize power away from an overarching corporate-government control- nexus.
These are all elements of a true psychosis. It needs to be treated.
Short of mandatory sedatives, or a sudden attack on a lonely street at night by armed thugs, I recommend mandatory gun ownership for every non-felon adult in the US. This would solve the problem expeditiously.
I especially want to see all members of Congress packing heat in their chambers. If, once in a while, there is a shooting, well, we can catch it on C-Span. It won’t be lost to history.
I also want to see Chris Matthews in his MSNBC studio with a .45 strapped to his leg, the one that tingles.
There is one caveat to my proposal. In order to create a fully armed population, that population must be responsible, which is to say they must understand inviolable private property rights. They don’t have to own property, but they have to know that such a thing as private property exists. Why? Because property is one of the things an armed citizen has a right to defend.
Unfortunately, we’re losing the concept of private property like water leaking out of battered rowboat. It’s part of government’s plan, because government wants to own everything that isn’t already nailed down by its partner mega-corporations.
And government’s thinking goes this way: “Since we own everything, our cops defend it with guns; there is no reason for private armed citizens to defend it; it isn’t theirs.”
Meanwhile, I have to get going. I just got a message that three armed women teachers shot a guy named Adam Lanza in a classroom. I’m heading over to check it out.