Let’s see if any facts matter to the gun-banners, shall we? When Jimmy Carter expanded the civil rights of the mentally ill and opened the doors on the U.S. asylums, the folks that needed mental treatment the most simply walked out and moved in under our bridges and into cardboard boxes.
Police are no longer permitted to detain someone like Aaron Alexis at a local hospital’s psychiatric ward for 2 weeks of counseling and medication (if necessary).
If that intervention were still permitted, 13 people this week and dozens of others in the past would still be alive.
The liberals refuse to decouple this mental health issue from gun-ban for fear of loosing the argument on guns without the background check component.
What question should be asked about why the perception of so many people of one race is so much different than that of many other members in that same society? Is the answer related to one’s skin color and their ability to process facts? That does not make any sense.
This may be in the nature versus nurture argument where science debates if genetics or environment are causation for one’s actions. Genetically we all are decedents of the sons of Noah. Although the hypothesis has been made that with each generation we have become less intelligent*, a lower I.Q. as our cellular makeup looses information by dilution and disease. The argument goes, that since Noah’s Flood, we are exposed to higher levels of Solar radiation that damages cells and their ability to resist biological attacks and can distort the structures within cells that affect perfect cellular replication. But, this should affect everyone to a near equal degree.
The answer could then be our environment (nurture). This seems to be the obvious explanation. But, why so many people of one classified skin color and not more people with similar environments of all the various melanin levels? This explanation seems vapid as well.
What seems to remain then is political coercion. History has proved manipulation of large self-identified groups of people possible and sometimes deadly. Those sitting on opposite sides of a political chess board have their strategy to achieve their concept of victory. What could be the stratagem of these instigator’s promotion of the recent rise of racial tensions? What do they wish to gain? And, can the pawns, knights, bishops and rooks be convinced they are unwitting game pieces in this dangerously serious board game?
The best solution therefore must be spiritual, the outpouring of love for the unwitting and changing their hearts. Then can they see the lies for what they are and understand Satan’s stratagem for the world.
* not less educated
The argument being used for including females in ground combat military forces, bad breath distances (infantry, armor, special forces) is that the U.S.A. needs to have the highest efficency combat force it can have. WHAT? What that red herring statement is implying is that we currently have a less than efficient force in the field, and we won’t have that until the U.S.A military has men AND women in the same foxhole. That is offensive.
Of course now all girls over the age of 18 will now have to register for the draft (Selective Service). The proponents of this asinine idea have never been in a close combat role. It is somewhat embarrassing enough for men to preform their personal hygene, ETC. in the field with other men (some of whom are sexually attracted to them). Add a couple of females into a building under seige with enemy fire, or as one of a four man crew in a tank out in the field with lonely, horney ninteen year old guys that are coming down from daily adrealine rushes, and you know there will be problems.
A combat rediness loss of total troop (?) strength of 2-5% for pregnancy is common now in Navy ships, add to that the additional 2-5% potential loss of troop strength for the men facing court-martial and immediate ‘sensitivity training’ immersion programs. This will make a LESS than currently effective fighting force.
Conservatives/Libertarians/Constitutionalists/Tea Partiers NEED to “grab more attention”. The Marxists’ playbook is to be bombastic to catch the news attention, and garner interest even if what they puke out are lies, the more ridiculous the assertion, the more attention they receive. An recent example is Piers Morgan’s serial interviews with the pro-self defense leadership. Watched by both sides of the issue, he now falsely believes he is a popular commentator.
The uninformed sheep who feed on reality TV and salacious stories are drawn to these outlandish falsehoods, because they are more interesting than the dullness of reality.
Constitutionalists, et al (right) tend to be more law-abiding, truthful, thoughtful and not as emotion based when solving problems and are therefore more dull and boring. The anti-self defense crowd only need to capture an image with a one line description supporting their ideology to influence the sheep. The right then to counter the image or sound-bite needs to fully explain the truth of the matter with statistics, charts, footnotes, et cetera. Boooorrriing!
I am becoming more convinced the right needs to begin fighting fire with fire. By using the “Any publicity is good publicity.” tactic to draw attention to the subject thus prompting a lengthy debate on the truthfulness of the topic. Of course the media, as it tends to do will find the most benign, moderate or uninformed representative to offer an opposing view, i.e. Senator Lindsey Graham as the ultimate Republican-view spokesman. An effective offense is necessary instead of always being on the defense. (So in honor (?) of today’s sports lineup, a good quote would be “The best defense is a good offense.”)
Instead of meekly stating we have our God-given right to keep and bear arms to protect our homes or hunt, we need to express the truth aggressively that the Second Amendment was written to inform the Federal government officials that We The People have the right and the will to violently defend that right should the need arise.