Full Mental Jacket

 | 

When this essay is published, it may not pertain to the current news. But if it doesn’t, it soon will. Some deranged gunman shoots a bunch of people every couple of weeks.

Every time this happens, public reaction is predictable. On the political left, a clamor is raised to do something — anything! — about gun violence; while on the right, we are reminded that guns don’t float around causing mayhem without people attached to them, so people must be blamed.

While I often disagree with conservatives, on this issue I’m in complete accord. Let me make that clear from the start. I would never advocate the confiscation of weapons, because I have a small arsenal of my own. I would not feel safe without it, and yes, every firearm I have, I’ve taken the effort to learn how to use.

Gun control is so unpopular, with a wide swathe of the population, that gun-grabbers must proceed with caution. Even some hardcore leftists own guns, and would be loath to give them up. Thus must those who want to take them away press for legislation that achieves their purpose incrementally. They operate by stealth.

They’re so much saner than the rest of us, don’t you know, that our fitness to defend ourselves, our families and our homes is supposedly best left up to them.

Their new favorite tactic is advocating that mentally ill people be banned from owning guns. I see one problem with this, and it’s big enough to drive a fleet of trucks through. Precisely who gets to determine who’s too crazy to have a gun and who isn’t?

We can be pretty sure that leftist authoritarians envision themselves in the judgment seat in this matter, as in so many others. They’re so much saner than the rest of us, don’t you know, that our fitness to defend ourselves, our families and our homes is supposedly best left up to them. The same people who are chewing their brains into wads trying to decide whether Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders should be president see themselves (and Hillary or Bernie) as the arbiters about who is protected or not protected by the Second Amendment. Or if it protects anyone at all.

It may seem indelicate of me to suggest that such people might be influenced by political considerations, that they’re likely to claim that libertarians and conservatives — who are, indeed, the most likely to own firearms — are all psychologically unfit to be let loose with deadly weapons. Far be it for me to say that. Even though — for all their protests of concern for the rights of the marginalized — most “progressives” show very little interest in protecting the rights of the mentally ill. Nut-bashing has been such a huge part of their offensive for so many years that they have been slow to get on board with any movement to speak out on their behalf.

Once the people with pretty hair in the big-corporate media — the stars of rap and sports and motion pictures — begin telling the public how cool it is to care about some marginalized group, the little minions usually follow with enthusiasm. That tendency isn’t gaining much momentum yet on this cause — probably because they aren’t through marginalizing the mentally ill, either now or at any time in the foreseeable future.

Progressives want everyone to depend on the protection afforded by police, even as cops across the country are making war against the citizenry.

Especially contemptible has been the treatment the left-leaning media has given prominent libertarians and conservatives, such as Glenn Beck, whose pasts include mental health issues. Though they’re fond of issuing “trigger warnings” about a plethora of other sensitive concerns, they gleefully take sticks to their favorite piñatas, proclaiming them “whacko” or “a few bricks short of a load.” Now they dream of doing more than shaming and stigmatizing anybody who refuses to march in lockstep with their advance to power. They want to render them utterly defenseless.

“Progressives” want everyone to depend on the protection afforded by police, even as cops across the country are making war against the citizenry. The very people we’re paying to protect us are often engaged in brutalizing us (and not just people of color, but whites as well). Those suffering from mental disorders are muchmore likely than the general population to be roughed up, or even killed, by the police. So much for the statist left’s supposed concern for the vulnerable.

It’s hard to believe that this outrage against guns is motivated by merely the usual arrogance of authoritarians on the left. I suspect that, indeed, they want everybody disarmed for a reason. But of course when I tell them this, they reply that I’m a typical nutty libertarian.

I don’t care that they think they’re smarter than everybody else. Nor do I have any reason to trust that they’re saner. If they think I’m going to surrender my guns, they are themselves several crab puffs shy of a pu-pu platter.




Share This

Comments

Luther Jett

Anyone who doubts that rulings on who is sane or insane might be used for political advantage need only review the history of psychiatry in the Soviet Union:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psikhushka

Also, Ms. Heine is right to point out the hypocrisy of those members of the progressive left who call out for the use of sensitive language when referring to racial, ethnic, or gender characteristics, and yet see nothing wrong with labeling those with whom they disagree as nut-jobs, idiots, morons, etc. -- all pejoratives used to describe individuals with disabilities.

Johnimo

You're right about the Soviet Union. However, one need only look at our own IRS to see how political and swift recrimination can be. Imagine if the IRS had a gun registry with which to harass citizens, A.K.A. "taxpayers." Few sane folks can doubt they would do so. Envision Lois Lerner with the ability to see who owns "assault weapons." It's not a pretty thought, is it?

Fred Mangels

"...they’re likely to claim that libertarians and conservatives — who are, indeed, the most likely to own firearms — are all psychologically unfit to be let loose with deadly weapons."

That's pretty much it as I've been seeing it. My experience with those in the psych field, albeit limited, is most tend to be left of center, if not far left. As such, I would expect they'd feel someone isn't sane if only because they want to own a gun.

MamaLiberty

"It’s hard to believe that this outrage against guns is motivated by merely the usual arrogance of authoritarians on the left. I suspect that, indeed, they want everybody disarmed for a reason."

In each and every case, the bottom line is CONTROL. Those who wish to control everyone and everything want to confiscate our guns because they want to do things to us that we won't allow as long as we have our guns.

All the political posturing and verbiage either lends itself to that or is completely irrelevant.

I own my life and body, and I am the only one who is responsible for that life and my safety. That's why I carry a gun... and teach as many others to do so as possible.

Fred Mora

Sadly, the article is indeed topical.

Somehow, we were spared the "stop gun violence" bleating after Paris. Probably because guns have already been confiscated in France. There is zero legal way to buy an AK-74 or any other full-auto weapon in France, and (legally) buying handguns or rifles is very difficult.

This, of course, was greatly helpful to these Muslim terrorists. If only 2% of the concert-goers in the Bataclan theater had been concealed-carrying, the fanatics would have been facing a dozen armed people instead of a herd of helpless, panicked victims that they methodically butchered for 20 minutes, using single-shot fire to save ammo.The outcome would have been very different.

If you are wondering why some of the victims haven't been identified yet, you need to picture the effect of the Soviet 7.62-mm round on a human cranium at point blank.

Scott Robinson

Dear Fred,

I know I'm being nit-picky, but the AK-74 shoots a 5.56mm round. You did get the round right though, they were shooting the 7.62mm round. That one is shot by the AK-47.
You had a great point though about it being impossible to legally purchase a fully automatic weapon in France and extremely difficult to get any single shot per trigger pull gun. It illustrates the value of gun control. The example I like is Cuidad Jaurez, Mexico. This city is directly across the Rio Grande river from El Paso, Texas. Recently (the past 5 years) Cuidad Jaurez was the deadliest city in North America. Directly across the river, El Paso had, and has, one of the lower murder rates in all of the U.S. Mexico doesn't allow private firearm ownership as that Marine who crossed the border at Tijauna/San Diego showed recently when he was arrested for crossing the border with guns, legally owned in the U.S., in his vehicle.

Best Wishes,
Scott

HW Owens

Unfortunately, the "bleaters" only postponed their wailing. Philadelphia's mayor equated gun violence in the US with terrorism three days ago: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PHILADELPHIA_MAYOR_TERRORISM?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME

© Copyright 2017 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.



Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.