Coulter NAILS it ...

[Benanov]

Back to the OP article: Coulter didn't "nail" it.

If anyone in Washington dares to reference "reducing gun violence" in the context of advocating more proactive mental health measures in this country, the NRA and 2A crowd go apeshit and see it as a backdoor plot to take away our guns. The two cannot be mentioned in the same breath.

That's because they're orthogonal at times. I haven't seen much 2A bitching on either side from the Creigh Deeds incident - just a lot of mental health concerns. The senator was stabbed but the son shot himself. You'd figure there'd be a bunch of "crazies can't have guns" whining from the left.

 

[EL1227]

Where's my stamp ?

Back to the OP article: Coulter didn't "nail" it.

If anyone in Washington dares to reference "reducing gun violence" in the context of advocating more proactive mental health measures in this country, the NRA and 2A crowd go apeshit and see it as a backdoor plot to take away our guns. The two cannot be mentioned in the same breath.

As a matter of FACT. Prior to (and during) the SB281/Firearms Safety Act of 2013 debacle, MSI prominently particpated in a OWE'Malley-initiated panel study of mental health issues as they relate to gun violence.

An MDS, MSI board member, and physician, teratos, represented our interests on that panel along with AGC's Legislative VP, John Josselyn.

Like I noted above ... Where's my stamp ?

 

[Scratch]

As a matter of FACT. Prior to (and during) the SB281/Firearms Safety Act of 2013 debacle, MSI prominently particpated in a OWE'Malley-initiated panel study of mental health issues as they relate to gun violence.

An MDS, MSI board member, and physician, teratos, represented our interests on that panel along with AGC's Legislative VP, John Josselyn.

Like I noted above ... Where's my stamp ?

Okay, tell us this: Why is it that in practically every conversation I've seen about getting (or undergoing) counseling, gun owners warn against volunteering the fact they own guns; and warn against answering any question related to whether they own guns?

 

[Mr H]

Okay, tell us this: Why is it that in practically every conversation I've seen about getting (or undergoing) counseling, gun owners warn against volunteering the fact they own guns; and warn against answering any question related to whether they own guns?

Data collection, best I can tell.

If it's immaterial to the reason you're there, why "go there"?

 

[EL1227]

Okay, tell us this: Why is it that in practically every conversation I've seen about getting (or undergoing) counseling, gun owners warn against volunteering the fact they own guns; and warn against answering any question related to whether they own guns?

Coulter uses hyperbole and sarcasim to drive home her points. In a different example, returning combat vets are 'assumed' to have PTSD and should NOT have access to firearms. PTSD doesn't mean you're homocidal, but homocidal combat vets typically are diagnosed with it ... which is analogous to someone with mental illness; one does not necessarily equal the other. She points to the extreme and offers the extreme as an answer, then points to the societal problems caused by mental illness that have been festering for some time now. Read on ...

Coulter uses the example of a "crazy" person who didn't use a gun to do anything, to advocate for some kind of national database of "crazy" people in order to prevent "crazy" people from buying guns and doing bad things (as if crazy people can't get guns any other way).

Yeah, okay - the devil is in the details. Who would she (or you) trust to establish the criteria and process for establishing such a database? Her proposal fails to take into account the fact not all 2A proponents like the idea of a national database of any type.

Don't know ... I'm NOT a Psychiatrist, and neither is Coulter. And even mental health professionals can't agree. The MD study panel appointed by OWE'Malley couldn't agree on remedies either and recommended more scrutiny.

Bottom line, progessives will attempt to push through something that will further RESTRICT rights all-the-while failing to address the root problem of the mentally ill in the general population, and how someone like Adam Lanza was allowed to 'steal' firearms to commit his heinous crime.

 

[Scratch]

Coulter uses hyperbole and sarcasim to drive home her points. In a different example, returning combat vets are 'assumed' to have PTSD and should NOT have access to firearms. PTSD doesn't mean you're homocidal, but homocidal combat vets typically are diagnosed with it ... which is analogous to someone with mental illness; one does not necessarily equal the other. She points to the extreme and offers the extreme as an answer, then points to the societal problems caused by mental illness that have been festering for some time now. Read on ...



Don't know ... I'm NOT a Psychiatrist, and neither is Coulter. And even mental health professionals can't agree. The MD study panel appointed by OWE'Malley couldn't agree on remedies either and recommended more scrutiny.

Bottom line, progessives will attempt to push through something that will further RESTRICT rights all-the-while failing to address the root problem of the mentally ill in the general population, and how someone like Adam Lanza was allowed to 'steal' firearms to commit his heinous crime.

Regarding Adam Lanza we agree. Odd that Coulter for some reason seems to've missed that. In fact, her op/ed doesn't appear to have much of a point at all. She writes about Obama and the Democrats "The bad news is that they also have no intention of passing any legislation about the mentally ill," but fails to follow up as to what legislation (if any) she would want to see in that regard. And as you point out in your response, why should we trust any legislation offered by them? Another point Coulter fails to take up. That's not "nailing it" -- more like nailing jello to the wall.

We seem to be agreeing that the 2A crowd doesn't wholeheartedly embrace the role of the mental health community in stopping gun-related violence. To further my point, read on:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ental-health-questions-and-the-2nd-amendment/

http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/...l-health-and-the-end-of-the-second-amendment/

http://www.libertynews.com/2013/06/...ment-rights-of-100000-floridians-in-jepoardy/

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/08/mainstream-doctors-say-supporting-2nd.html

 

[EL1227]

Regarding Adam Lanza we agree. Odd that Coulter for some reason seems to've missed that. In fact, her op/ed doesn't appear to have much of a point at all. She writes about Obama and the Democrats "The bad news is that they also have no intention of passing any legislation about the mentally ill," but fails to follow up as to what legislation (if any) she would want to see in that regard. And as you point out in your response, why should we trust any legislation offered by them? Another point Coulter fails to take up. That's not "nailing it" -- more like nailing jello to the wall.

We seem to be agreeing that the 2A crowd doesn't wholeheartedly embrace the role of the mental health community in stopping gun-related violence. To further my point, read on:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ental-health-questions-and-the-2nd-amendment/

http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/...l-health-and-the-end-of-the-second-amendment/

http://www.libertynews.com/2013/06/...ment-rights-of-100000-floridians-in-jepoardy/

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/08/mainstream-doctors-say-supporting-2nd.html

I think that we're in agreement.

As I stated, Coulter uses hyperbole and sarcasim to drive home her points. She's not a medical professional. She's an author and a pundit. So, when I say that 'she nailed it', she's nailing the issue, being the hypocracy of the left that support such half-baked, all-or-nothing schemes that end up fulfilling the law of unintended consequences, either by design or accident. As such, she doesn't need to offer solutions, but expects healthcare professionals and honest politicians to be reponsible enough to do so. So far, none have offered an acceptable answer because it's a complex problem involving people, NOT guns.

I think we agree that having some sort of mental health provision for gun ownership is required. Otherwise, we wouldn't continually check off 'NO' on an ATF Form 4473 line f ... or the MSP Form 77 checking 'NO' on line 7 ... or sign the additional MSP 'crazy person permission slip' allowing access to mental health records. We expect both ATF AND MSP to perform due dilligence in scutinizing the existing application process and applicants. However we don't want a cart blanche, one-size-fits-all license to restrict our rights in the guise of a mental health 'smoke screen'.

In other words, enforce the laws already on the books and stop trying to add new ones until you have an intimate understanding of the problem and a long-term workable solution. And, in her acerbic way, I think that was what Coulter was trying to convey ...

 

[EL1227]

Another bit of her hyperbole and sarcasim ...

Writing about the recent NYC Mayor's race in TownHall.com -
Is it Too Soon to Say "I Told You So?"

Liberal zealots view {incoming NYC Mayor} de Blasio as a breath of fresh air because he's stuck in policies of the 1960s. That's when Americans were assured by brain-dead liberals that if we could just improve criminals' self-esteem, crime would disappear. You'll see!

The result? The violent crime rate quadrupled.

They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

Sound familiar ?

Here in the PRofMD, we have banished the death penalty, turned prisons into country clubs for thugs, and elected criminal-defense-lawyers-come-politicians who vote down minimum mandatory sentences and stronger laws against criminals WITH guns, all-the-while stripping law-abiding citizens of their right to defend against said criminals.

 

[Brooklyn]

Again, the way you say this implies that you view liberty as something to be given, rather than something to be taken away.

You see, the nature of liberty is such that, as something that exists until removed by force, one needs to have specific justification to strip someone of it. To say otherwise, i.e. to say that stripping someone of their liberty is something that can properly be done without justification, is to favor tyranny. For tyranny is precisely what arbitrary, unjustified removal of liberty is.

As such, when asking about someone who steps foot here, the question you're really asking is this: is there justification for forcibly stripping such a person of their liberties?


So there are no "magic criteria" for "allowing" someone to keep their liberty. There are only criteria for removing said liberty.

Therefore, you need to explicitly justify the removal of the liberty of the people you speak of.

No all you need to do is believe in sovereignty of nations. The only issue here is protection of the boarders. The best and only sustainable way to make 'American citizens' is to export our values and let them build there own republics.


So what do we do -- we apologize for being america, throw open the boarders and proceed to turn america into Europe in the name of international norms.


This will not sustain -- its not if we seal the boarders, its when. Its not If we become Americans again it when. The other question is the body count required and if CA NY NJ MD and a few others will sign on.

Of course the collapse of Rome shows another path we could take...

Head I win, tails we all loose. I like heads..

 

[Brooklyn]

She gets the great majority of her facts straight. Her problem is that she seems to revel in making sarcastic and shocking pejorative statements...and it's that over the top stuff that rubs some of us on her side the wrong way. But it does help sell her books and get her on a variety of new op programs.

Its called Rule 5.

 

[Brooklyn]

Okay, tell us this: Why is it that in practically every conversation I've seen about getting (or undergoing) counseling, gun owners warn against volunteering the fact they own guns; and warn against answering any question related to whether they own guns?

Because The DSM IV is horse shit. Read about the proud history of Psychiatric care in the US -- then tell us all about it. Personally I think you are better off seeing a priest than a psychiatrist -- and I am an atheist.

Only one exception--- Cognitive Therapy ..

 

[DanGuy48]

I'm not as cynical than I used to be. Despite how the MSM biasedly portrays public sentiment, I keep hearing the strains of this 60's song by Buffalo Springfield waffing through the air.





CSNY's redo sucked ...

I'll probably go to the grave a cynic. I hear Steppenwolf's Monster lyrics instead.

"And though the past has its share of injustice
Kind was the spirit in many a way
But its protectors and friends have been sleeping
Now it's a monster and will not obey

The spirit was freedom and justice
And its keepers seemed generous and kind
Its leaders were supposed to serve the country
But now they won't pay it no mind
Cause the people grew fat and got lazy
Now their vote is a meaningless joke
They babble about law and order
But it's all just an echo of what they've been told"

 

[DanGuy48]

Just had to add this...

"CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision."

--The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/972/972-h/972-h.htm#link2H_4_0004

 

[EL1227]

Immigration, gun rights, and other 'silly things'

AnnCoulter.com -
GOP CRAFTS PLAN TO WRECK THE COUNTRY, LOSE VOTERS

Immigrants -- all immigrants -- have always been the bulwark of the Democratic Party. For one thing, recent arrivals tend to be poor and in need of government assistance. Also, they're coming from societies that are far more left-wing than our own. History shows that, rather than fleeing those policies, they bring their cultures with them.

While 67 percent of native-born Americans believe our Constitution is a higher legal authority than international law, only 37 percent of naturalized citizens agree.

The two largest immigrant groups, Hispanics and Asians, have little in common economically, culturally or historically. But they both overwhelmingly support big government, Obamacare, affirmative action and gun control.

Pew also found that only 27 percent of Hispanics support gun rights, compared to 57 percent of non-Hispanic whites. According to Latino Decisions, large majorities of Hispanics favor a national database of gun owners, limiting the capacity of magazines and a ban on semiautomatic weapons.

The only ones opposed to our current immigration policies are the people.

• But are they going to give John Boehner a job when he's no longer House speaker, as some big business lobbyist will?
  
• Will they help Marco Rubio run for president on the claim that, as a Cuban, he can appeal to Hispanics? (Fat chance.)
  
• Will they bundle contributions for Eric Cantor's re-election, as well-heeled donors will?
  
• Will they be enough to re-elect Kevin McCarthy to Congress so he can keep his gold-plated government health insurance?
  
• Will they be the ones writing Darrell Issa's flattering New York Times obituary?

Sorry, Americans. You lose.

Wanna' see how this ends ... Go west young man, or read VDH's Mexifornia.

 

[PO2012]

Schizophrenics have committed how many mass shootings compared with others? Locking people up because they might commit crime is like banning guns because they might be used in crime.

No one is being locked up because they suffer from schizophrenia. What causes someone to be the subject of an emergency petition is:

1) stating that you are going to commit assault or murder
2) attempting to commit or actually committing assault or murder
3) stating that you are going to commit suicide
4) attempting to commit suicide

No one is involuntarily detained simply because they suffer from mental illness. I encounter schizophrenics all the time on patrol. Unless they are violent or suicidal they get treated just like anybody else. If they request that I take them to a hospital for treatment I oblige. If they don't want treatment then I respect their wishes. By that same token, when they look me in the eye and tell me that they're going to shoot me in the face with a pistol and that they want to confess to 38 murders, that's when hospitalization ceases to be their choice. Same thing goes for when I respond to a report of disorderly conduct and find a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic attempting to pull motorists out of their cars so that he can eat their flesh.

I'm not a physician and I don't have any formal training in psychology nor do I pretend to. What I do have is years of first hand experience responding to calls for service involving violent mental cases. Every single one of them has involved an individual diagnosed with schizophrenia. Every single one of them has been subject to involuntary commitment and released after a brief period of confinement prior to the call that brought them to my attention. The mental health system in this country is not working. We have a large number of violently psychotic people walking around free despite the fact that they have stated their intent to commit assault, arson, homicide or suicide. I have never encountered a single violent mental case who wasn't schizophrenic. Not one. Not ever. I have encountered a few folks who were diagnosed with depression, bi-polar etc who attempted suicide but they were never violent toward me or anyone else save for themselves. Horrific violence when motivated by mental illness has, in my experience, been the exclusive province of schizophrenics. Other people's experience may differ. I can only testify to what I've seen and had to deal with.

I support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Maryland. I have no problem with a requirement that the due process of the laws be required to commit someone indefinitely and I have no problem with having a an appeals process, complete with public defenders, to ensure the release of those who have been wrongly committed or who are legitimately cured. What I do have a problem with is simply medicating the violently psychotic and sending them on their way or pretending that schizophrenia is a benign mental illness and that hearing God command you to commit murder is no different from compulsively washing your hands. If we don't find a way to confine these people on a long term (and where necessary, permanent) basis we are going to continue to have these types of crimes repeated and our right to keep and bear arms will continue to be chipped away at legislatively and by executive fiat.

 

[PO2012]

Wanna' see how this ends ... Go west young man, or read

Culture matters and anyone who thinks that our Constitution can survive the influx of millions of additional Hispanic immigrants is either ignorant or has an agenda.

I grew up in an overwhelmingly Hispanic neighborhood outside of Maryland and worked side by side for many years with Hispanics from a variety of nations. By and large (there are exceptions) none of the folks I knew who immigrated to the United States did so because they wanted to be American. They didn't come here to speak English, they didn't come here to escape religious persecution and they certainly didn't come here so they could own and carry a pistol or an AR-15. They came here because our standard of living is higher than what existed in their home country and they came here to make money. Period. Full stop. End of sentence.

When these folks arrived here they immediately set to recreating the conditions that existed back in their homeland. The quality of life they enjoyed in my neighborhood was in spite of their best efforts not because of them. Crime where I grew up was very high, among the highest in the nation at that time. So high, in fact, that it makes Baltimore City today look tame. The influence of the law abiding, patriotic Hispanic immigrants who became truly Americanized was completely outweighed by the violent Central and South American flavored criminality of their neighbors. Not surprisingly my neighbors were staunch Democrats, not because of any principles mind you, but because Democratic politicians handed out the most freebies.

For all those who see nothing wrong with the demographic trends in our country you need to step back, clear your heads and decide if you're truly ready for what unchecked immigration is going to mean, namely Civil War. It's going to take time to get to that point but make no mistake it will. When California and Texas end up being 80+ percent Hispanic whose cultural traditions do you think are going to reign supreme, ours or Mexico's? If you want to see the future go live in one of the barrios here in the United States. Don't visit, go move there. Then after you've spent a few years immersed in the future of America I defy you to come back and tell me how great it is. I guarantee that you won't. Unchecked immigration means the death of the right to keep and bear arms. Don't be fooled into thinking otherwise.

 

[EL1227]

Arranging the deck chairs ?

HumanEvents.com -
Did I move?

Coulter takes aim on the Republican 'leadership' who are poised to hand all future elections over to the Democrats starting in 2016 (and possibly sooner) , using a twist on the Democrat meme, "It's for the children !",

The House Republicans’ “Standards for Immigration Reform,” for example, contains this fat, honking nonsense: “One of the great founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents.”

As the kids say: WTF?

If we have to excuse lawbreaking so as not to “punish the children,” there’s no end to the crimes that have to be forgiven — insider trading, theft, rape, murder and so on. {Gun-control laws ???}

Soooo ....

Why not just forgive the crimes of all perpetrators who have kids? At a minimum, shouldn’t we allow criminals to defer their sentences until their kids turn 26 so they can stay on Dad’s health insurance? Or at least until their kids have gone to college? Chris Christie {And Martin O'Malley} can give them in-state tuition!

Oh wait, this sounds all too coincidental, and I'm sure that it's in the fine print somewhere in ObamaCare and the Dream Act. We are being "fundamentally changed" into a third-world country one illegal immigrant child at a time. Go ahead call me a heartless bastard, but better still read VDH's Mexifornia.

With the repeal of Obamacare in the balance, I have argued that it’s insane for Republicans to waste resources primarying their own guys in 2014. Even the most heinous Republican can usually argue, “Would you really rather have a Democrat in this seat?”

But any Republican who supports mass immigration — whether with Marco Rubio’s amnesty bill, or idiotic arguments about “not punishing the children” — has forfeited that claim. If the country is going to be ruined anyway, it could not matter less who wins any particular seat on this Titanic.

 

[EL1227]

She didn't nail it this time ... She knocked it out of the park.

HumanEvents.com -
New Obama promise: If you like your life, you can keep it

The New York Times has described Obama’s repeated claim that you could keep your insurance plan and keep your doctor under Obamacare as a mere slip of the tongue: “Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that.”

Misspoke? How exactly does one misspeak, word for word, dozens of times, over and over again?

That wasn’t misspeaking — it was a deliberate, necessary lie. Even Democrats couldn’t have voted for Obamacare if Americans had known the truth. It was absolutely vital for Obama to lie about people being able to keep their insurance and their doctors.

Of course, it was difficult for voters to know the truth because every time Republicans would try to tell them, the White House and the media would rush in and call the critics liars.

The White House posted a specific refutation of the “disinformation” about not being able to keep your doctor or insurance plan that was being disseminated by Republicans “to scare people.” Their proof consisted of a video of Obama clearly stating, “If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance. If you’ve got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor.”

What the NYT fails to say is that all those times Obama had his fingers crossed behind his back and what he really meant to repeatedly say was ...

"If your insurance company or Doctor DOESN'T like the way you {or ObamaCare} looks, they're going to drop you like a hot potato."

He should have had the Men's Warehouse guy do a commercial for it ...

 

[EL1227]

Coulter gets NAILED ...

By ObamaCare, and goes on a tear ...

SCREW YOU, MICKEY KAUS

She can certainly afford a gold-plated platinum plan ... if she could find one.

So my only two health insurance options -- and yours, too, as soon as the waivers expire, America! -- are: (1) a plan that no doctors take; or (2) a plan that no hospitals take. You either pay for all your doctor visits and tests yourself, or you pay for your cancer treatment yourself. And you pay through the nose in either case.

That's not insurance! It's a huge transfer of wealth from people who work for a living to those who don't, accomplished by forcing the workers to buy insurance that's not insurance. Obamacare has made actual health insurance "illegal."

It's not "insurance" when what I want to insure against isn't covered, but paying for other people's health care needs -- defined broadly -- is mandatory.

And ends with a warning for November ...

You 99-percenters still unaffected by Obamacare will blithely go to the polls this November and vote on some teeny-tiny issue {like birth control or gay marriage}, completely unaware of the total destruction of health insurance in America {and of America itself}. The waivers have worked.

WAKE UP AMERICA ... and vote the bastards out !!!

 

[EL1227]

I disagree with Ann's assessment ...

TownHall.com -
Don't Stigmatize Murderers!

Of course, it's more of her trademark sarcasm, but she made two good points after detailing Rogers depth of madness.

This is not a good case for liberals: The killer was an immigrant, a person of color, and the majority of his casualties resulted from attacks with a car or knife. It makes as much sense to rant about the NRA as to blame the Auto Club of America or the National Knife Collectors Association.

It's hard to feel sorry for a mass murderer, but it was cruel to Elliot Rodger to allow him to refuse medication and turn himself into a monster. It was beyond cruel to his innocent victims -- as well as the other victims of psychopathic killers. But liberals are more worried about "stigmatizing" the mentally ill than the occasional mass murder.