ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

The GOP's Mental Health Hypocrisy

[ Posted Wednesday, June 8th, 2022 – 15:49 UTC ]

Republicans have come up with all sorts of attempts to deflect the public's attention from the enormous number and easy availability of guns in this country, some of them far wackier than others. But the more-reasonable response they've largely gathered behind is to say that all mass shootings happen because of "crazy people," and therefore we should put lots of effort into weeding those crazy people out before they can cause atrocities. That's what they say they're for, at any rate. As a way of deflecting attention, it's a lot better than what the fringe of the GOP is saying, after all.

But no matter how reasonable this may sound, their position simply doesn't hold water. Without even having the mental-health-versus-gun-control argument; even when you take the Republican argument at face value -- the assumption that beefing up our mental health infrastructure would prevent lots of shootings -- the Republicans still not only fall short, but in fact display some rather blatant hypocrisy towards such goals. In multiple ways.

First is the mental health system itself. Texas, where the Uvalde school shooting happened, reportedly ranks 50th among all 50 states, when it comes to mental healthcare systems and availability of such care to the public. (I will refrain from calling that "dead last," although it is tempting to do so.) That is the result of years of Republican rule, plain and simple. It's not just mental health either, the worst states for healthcare in general are red as well. There was one way for them to easily and dramatically improve access to healthcare for their neediest citizens, but due to ideological hatred, they refused to accept the expansion of Medicaid because it was part of Obamacare. So poor people in a dozen red states are mostly denied access to affordable mental healthcare, even though some of them could truly benefit from it. That is the result of Republican politics, plain and simple, so to hear them now extolling the benefits of mental healthcare is beyond disingenuous, it is outright hypocrisy.

Second is the fact that even if a mental health professional identifies a person who is a danger to themselves or others, Republicans are now fighting hard against using the best tool developed to avoid such people causing atrocities: "red-flag" laws. These laws allow mental health professionals (and sometimes others, such as school teachers or family members) to report to the police someone who is dangerous and has guns. The issue then goes before a judge, who rules on the matter and can allow the police to confiscate any guns the person in question has or has access to as well as barring the legal purchase of any more. This avoids unstable people having easy access to guns. It is not a perfect system, but in the places it has been adopted it has proven far better than the system which was in place previously, which was, essentially, "do nothing." But Republicans are now coming out strongly against expanding red-flag laws.

In their fantasy world of what the future should look like, Republicans tell us that "mental health" needs to get better, which will help avoid at least some mass shootings. Since mass shooters are all obviously crazy people, if you help crazy people out that will avoid them picking up a gun and slaughtering people.

Except that they won't support red-flag laws, so even if a truly disturbed person does get some mental health counseling, if the therapist is frightened of what the patient will do, the government will do absolutely nothing about it. Which kind of pulls the rug out from under the GOP fantasy future of how to prevent mass shootings. Also, the disturbed person should definitely have a good-paying job with benefits and thus have the health insurance that would be needed to access good mental health programs. Because of course all mentally-disturbed people all have great jobs with benefits, right? If they're poor, well, that's their fault and the government will, again, do absolutely nothing to help them. You can see how this fantasy absolutely collapses when tied to other real-world Republican positions.

Thankfully, at least one state may see an improvement soon. Last night, in a little-watched race in South Dakota, the voters prevented the Republican politicians from making it prohibitively hard to (later this year) vote on a proposal to accept the expansion of Medicaid in the state. South Dakota is one of the 12 holdout states which have not yet done so, due to being run by Republicans. Other red states (even some of the reddest, such as Utah, Idaho, and Nebraska) have successfully expanded Medicaid -- over the wishes of their Republican politicians -- by putting the idea on the ballot in a referendum. South Dakota will be the next such state to attempt this, with a ballot measure that will appear on the November ballot.

So the Republicans decided to try an end-run to prevent this from happening. They put a ballot measure on the primary ballot (when far fewer people turn out) that would have raised the threshold for such a ballot measure to pass to 60 percent, instead of just a simple majority. They figured this would be high enough to avoid having to expand Medicaid even if a majority of their constituents wanted it. In five out of the six Republican states where ballot measures have forced the expansion of Medicaid, the vote to do so was under 60 percent. Only in one (Idaho) did the measure get over 60 percent of the vote. So the South Dakota Republicans figured that would do the trick.

They gambled, and they lost. In a big way. When last night's returns were counted, the GOP measure to make it harder to pass ballot initiatives failed 2-to-1. The "No" vote stood at a whopping 67 percent. If that holds even mildly firm in November, then it wouldn't have mattered anyway, since 67 is obviously more than 60. Or even if some of those voting against it yesterday only did so because they were upset that the politicians were trying to take away political power from the voters, it still will almost certainly easily cross the 50-percent mark that it will now need to pass. South Dakota will thus join 38 other states in expanding Medicaid and helping its poorest citizens gain access to healthcare. Including mental health.

But the lesson is how hard the GOP fought against allowing this to happen. When you hear Republicans start blathering about how improving mental health access will solve mass shootings, remember this. Remember that they are fighting as hard as they can against even the easiest ways to actually improve mental health services. They refuse to put budget money towards any other healthcare improvements as well -- it isn't just the Medicaid expansion, it is across the board. They have latched onto the "improve mental healthcare" soundbite as a dodge against talking about any sort of gun safety laws, but then they refuse to actually do anything to improve mental healthcare (or, indeed, improve any healthcare), period. They don't want to spend more money on it -- they don't even want federal money spent in their state to do so.

And even if a mental health professional identifies someone as a danger to others, Republicans don't want to allow the courts and the police to do anything about allowing that person to continue to own or buy as many guns as he or she wants.

So the next time a Republican spouts their bromide about "improving mental health systems," I would love to hear a reporter throw it right back in their face: "But what does that mean? Would you spend more government money on mental healthcare? Would you push for the 12 states which have not expanded Medicaid to do so? Would you invest in building lots of mental health clinics that were open to all? What would you do? And then what should happen if the mental health system determines that someone is a danger to others? What should happen then?" Because without the answers to those questions, the handy Republican talking point about mental health improvements is completely meaningless.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

83 Comments on “The GOP's Mental Health Hypocrisy”

  1. [1] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Good article; well-written; thanks.

    An important quibble:
    They only talk about mental health when it's a white person, preferably right wing.

    White BLM supporters or those against fascism may not qualify.

    If it's a Black person, immigrant (or US born who remind them of immigrants), Muslim, member of the LGBTQ+ community, or anyone else they dislike, mental health is never raised. Instead, it's let's bash said group, as a whole.

  2. [2] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I believe it was Saint Ronnie who first started shutting down funding for mental health facilities, leading to mentally ill homeless out on the street.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Because without the answers to those questions, the handy Republican talking point about mental health improvements is completely meaningless.

    Well, first, those questions need to actually be asked ... by Democrats in Congress and state houses, right?

  4. [4] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    FPC

    Chris,

    I dunno about you and Future Shock. You may already be way too radicalized to handle this tome, one of the most influential (on me) books that I ever read.

    Don't wanna temp any gratuitous tear in the time-space continuum because you went all overboard and stuff.

  5. [5] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Safety First, and such.

  6. [6] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    (I will refrain from calling that "dead last," although it is tempting to do so.)

    Isn't it's fun to "not" say something by simply "saying" something?

    It's from the Comrade Carlson "I'm just asking questions" school of thought.

  7. [7] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Hypocrisy

    Irony

    Shame

    Three words no longer in the right-wing Dictionary. Most anything any Repug says is aimed at the folks living in the Fox/Newsmax/OANN parallel universe, period. They don't give a bleep about what Libs think, unless it's to be pleased that they "owned" them by saying crazy shit that their rubes buy into. Win- win for Repugs, no?

    Stop being shocked! Unless you just want to play into their game, that is.

  8. [8] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Mtn

    Now there's a "blast from the past."

    My 8th grade Social Studies teacher assigned Future Shock (1979 or 1980). Toffler had written it like, a decade earlier, I think.

    Thanks for the memories.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    As a way of deflecting attention,

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    Second is the fact that even if a mental health professional identifies a person who is a danger to themselves or others, Republicans are now fighting hard against using the best tool developed to avoid such people causing atrocities: "red-flag" laws.

    For example...???

    So the next time a Republican spouts their bromide about "improving mental health systems," I would love to hear a reporter throw it right back in their face: "But what does that mean? Would you spend more government money on mental healthcare? Would you push for the 12 states which have not expanded Medicaid to do so? Would you invest in building lots of mental health clinics that were open to all? What would you do? And then what should happen if the mental health system determines that someone is a danger to others? What should happen then?" Because without the answers to those questions, the handy Republican talking point about mental health improvements is completely meaningless.

    That's a very tenuous connection that doesn't hold water...

    I mean, if one wants to make such a thin connection, they can easily say that the GOP is against mental health laws as a response to mass shootings because the GOP didn't support Train Wreck Care..

    It's like saying that the GOP is REALLY the DEFUND THE POLICE Party because the voted down a Democrat bill that had, as a very small portion, some small funding for LEOs...

    There are OOODLES of reasons the GOP did what they did with regards to medicare/medicaid... NONE of which has ANYTHING to do with the issues of mental health vis a vis mass shootings..

    Even if allowed that the GOP is not ALL IN on Red Flag laws, trying to paint them as completely against mental health laws as a response to mass shootings is a dog that just won't hunt..

    On the flip side, we have DEMOCRAT Chris Murphy who doesn't even want to HEAR "Mental Health" in regards to mass shootings..

    THAT is the Democrat Party position on mental health vis a vis mass shootings..

    They don't even want to discuss/debate it..

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed"
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speak2

    They only talk about mental health when it's a white person, preferably right wing.

    White BLM supporters or those against fascism may not qualify.

    If it's a Black person, immigrant (or US born who remind them of immigrants), Muslim, member of the LGBTQ+ community, or anyone else they dislike, mental health is never raised.

    "And you can PROVE that, right?? Oh yea, that's right. I forgot. You were absent the day they taught LAW at Law School.."
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    :eyeroll:

    But hay...

    Kudos for being able to drag RACE and BIGOTRY into an issue that there are SIMPLY NO FACTS that race/bigotry has ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING..

    That takes real talent..

    :eyeroll:

    Instead, it's let's bash said group, as a whole.

    You mean, like you just did with Republicans?? Like that??

    Hypocrisy.. It's not a bug in Democrat programming. It's a feature..

    :eyeroll:

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    I believe it was Saint Ronnie who first started shutting down funding for mental health facilities, leading to mentally ill homeless out on the street.

    Actually, that occurred during the Carter years.. :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, first, those questions need to actually be asked ... by Democrats in Congress and state houses, right?

    Exactly..

    And yet....

    “Spare me the bullshit about mental illness. We don’t have any more mental illness than any other country in the world. You cannot explain this through a prism of mental illness..”
    -Democrat Chris Murphy

    Considering the Democrats view on mental health vis a vis mass shootings is complete and utter felgercarb to try and claim that it's the GOP who is against mental health laws as a response to mass shootings..

    It's even sillier than trying to claim that the GOP is the DEFUND THE POLICE Party...

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    MC,

    Hypocrisy

    Irony

    Shame

    Three words no longer in the right-wing Dictionary.

    As opposed to being totally ripped out of the Democrat Party dictionary?? :D

    . They don't give a bleep about what Libs think,

    And, OF COURSE, you and your Democrats take what Republicans thinks to heart, right?? :D

    This entire commentary/comments section is replete with examples of how ya'all accuse the GOP of doing exactly what the Democrat Party does.. :D

    That takes talent.. :D

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    From Quora...

    If guns keep us safe, why isn't America the safest country on earth?

    What *IS* it with Anti Gun nuts that they think that guns are sentient beings that can act on their own volition??

    Guns don't kill people and guns don't "save" people..

    You can have a house full of 500 guns and that house is just as safe as a house full of 500 bananas..

    One gun or 400 million guns.. Neither is "safe" or "not safe"..

    It's how a HUMAN BEING uses a gun that is determinative..

    Not the mere existence of the gun...

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    'Blood' of Uvalde children is 'on the hands of Republicans' for not passing gun control: Texas Democrat

    Democrats have COMPLETE control of the Executive and Legislative branches of government..

    Democrats can't even get ALL of their *OWN* Party on board with dunsel anti-gun laws..

    Democrats had even BIGGER control of government after Sandy Hook which was even a BIGGER tragedy...

    And Democrats STILL couldn't pass anything.. STILL couldn't get ALL of their Party on board..

    Of course, Democrats blame the GOP.. :eyeroll:

    Can we have a little dose of reality here??

    Dunsel WOULDN'T IT BE NICE laws won't do squat to prevent mass shootings..

    All these laws will do is unconstitionally disarm law-abiding Americans..

    In a post-Heller and post-Bruen world, gun bans will not happen...

    It's time Democrats got on board with that reality..

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    ARMED MAN DETAINED NEAR KAVANAUGH HOME
    WANTED TO KILL JUSTICE
    UPSET OVER ABORTION, GUNS

    No condemnation of the attempted assassination of Justice Kavanaugh???

    smhs....

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nicholas Roske found Brett Kavanaugh’s address online, feds say

    Democrats' actions DIRECTLY led to an attempted assassination of a Supreme Court Justice..

    Where is the outcry?? Where is the condemnation??

    {{{ccchhhiiirrrrpppppp}}}{{{ccccchhhhhiiiiirrrrrpppppp}}}

    One has to wonder if it had been Kagan or Sotomayor or Breyer and the assassin was a demented pro-lifer would we be seeing any coverage??

    Actually, one DOESN'T have to wonder at all, eh? :eyeroll:

    Hypocrisy. It's not a bug in Democrat programming. It's a feature.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Re: The attempted assassination of a SCOTUS Justice....

    I am betting that Democrats will try and poo-poo this away as no big deal..

    That would be par for the course..

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    FPC

    Well we still have Alaska to look forward to. And the J6C public hearings.

    Internal Capitol Police review found sweeping intelligence, security failures on Pelosi's watch

    Secret after-action report cited widespread ineptitude and inadequate riot squads, found closing of open-source intelligence unit may have contributed to tragedy.

    These are the REAL FACTS that the J6C *SHOULD* be investigating..

    But, of course, Democrats suffer from PTDS and simply refuse to acknowledge their own malfeasance, ineptitude and incompetence..

    I am sure that once the GOP owns Congress, the malfeasance, ineptitude and incompetence of Democrats will be fully and completely investigated..

  20. [20] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    terrorism is always a big deal, whether it's one terrorist or ten thousand.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    And now, as I am wont to do :D...

    I'll step aside and let other Weigantians chime in.. :D

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    terrorism is always a big deal, whether it's one terrorist or ten thousand.

    Agreed.. And if we are to face another summer of terrorism like we did in 2020....

    The Party best equipped to deal with it is the Republican Party..

    By definition, Democrats coddle terrorists and violent thugs..

    One only has to look at what is happening in SF and LA to know that this is factually accurate..

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    By definition, Democrats coddle terrorists and violent thugs..

    Or, in Biden's Handlers' case, donate over 80 BILLION dollars in top of the live military equipment to them.. :^/

  24. [24] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Speak2 [1] -

    Excellent point.

    -CW

  25. [25] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    nypoet22 [2] -

    YEah, I almost included that in this article, then decided it was too ancient history to bring up. But I remember the explosion in homeless people on the street, and homeless who weren't just down on their luck or whatever, but actually seriously mentally disturbed. It was a noticeable change.

    -CW

  26. [26] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    MtnCaddy [4] -

    Heh. Was just showing what a backlog I have in my reading material... I actually was cleaning some books up and stumbled across FS. I got it for like a quarter at a yard sale, but never read it...

    -CW

  27. [27] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    MtnCaddy [6] -

    Heh. Hey, prosaic license, right?

    -CW

  28. [28] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [9] -

    I will let you do your own research on red-flag political positions right now. The answer may shock you, from what you wrote there.

    And please point to one, just one Republican proposal to increase mental health coverage or access in the past 20 years. Hint: don't spend a lot of time researching that one, you won't find much of anything. Likewise any bills they passed to increase money for cops (border patrol doesn't count, I mean cops everywhere in America). There's one party that is for these two things... but it's not the GOP.

    -CW

  29. [29] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    M [15] -

    Um, since when have the Dems been in charge of passing laws in Texas? It's been a while... one party's responsible for their state gun laws, and it ain't the Dems.

    -CW

  30. [30] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    As for the Kavanaugh thing...

    He was armed with a knife, not a gun. Still deadly, sure, but not the same thing.

    And he was mentally disturbed, called 911 himself, and essentially turned himself in.

    So how does that fit with your grand storyline?

    -CW

  31. [31] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Oh, and want me to condemn it? Sure. I condemn all political violence, period. Always have, always will.

    In fact, you'll find plenty of Dems condemning it. Unlike when the shoe is on the other foot, and *no* Republicans condemn it -- they tend to explain it away as "one crazy guy, what can you do?"

    -CW

  32. [32] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    M [19] -

    Don't forget to spread any blame to Mitch McConnell too. Pelosi is not solely responsible for the Capitol cops, no matter how many times GOP/Fox News claims it to be true.

    -CW

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Arrest outside Justice Kavanaugh's home is shocking. But, sadly, not surprising.

    Police said the man was carrying a pack containing a handgun, a tactical knife, pepper spray, zip ties, a hammer and a crow bar.

    The scumbag is a pro baby killing and anti-gun nut and has been charged with attempting to kidnap, murder or threaten a federal judge.

    This is especially ominous due to a Federal Judge being kidnapped, zip tied and murdered last week...

    And did ya'all read all the media articles and quotes from Democrats condemning this attempted assassination of a SCOTUS Justice??

    Neither did I... :^/

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Moderator,

    Um, since when have the Dems been in charge of passing laws in Texas? It's been a while... one party's responsible for their state gun laws, and it ain't the Dems.

    I stand corrected.

    As for the Kavanaugh thing...

    He was armed with a knife, not a gun. Still deadly, sure, but not the same thing.

    Not factually accurate..

    Police said the man, identified in court records as Nicholas John Roske of California, had a pack carrying a Glock pistol, a tactical knife, pepper spray, zip ties, a hammer and a crow bar.

    Oh, and want me to condemn it? Sure. I condemn all political violence, period. Always have, always will.

    If it's not condemnation of the same caliber and passion reserved for Right Wingers, it's not condemnation..

    Don't forget to spread any blame to Mitch McConnell too. Pelosi is not solely responsible for the Capitol cops, no matter how many times GOP/Fox News claims it to be true.

    As the Party in charge, Democrats bear the brunt of the responsibility..

    But, hay... If you want to condemn Pelosi and Schumer with the same passion you condemn the Right, I'll be happy to give McConnell his just blame..

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    “I want to tell you, (Justice Neil) Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
    -Chuck Schumer

    Using ya'all's President Trump/6 Jan reasoning, Schumer is responsible for the attempted assassination of Justice Kavanaugh..

    Schumer sent the scumbag assassin to extract "the price"... :^/

  36. [36] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Handy map for you:

    https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/status-of-state-medicaid-expansion-decisions-interactive-map/

    guess which party runs those states?

    What's funny to me is the red states where the voters have overruled the politicians, since expanding Medicaid sounds like a great idea to them... pretty hard to make the case that Idaho is some lefty state. Or Utah, for that matter...

    -CW

  37. [37] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Check your facts. On J6 and during the entire runup to it, McConnell was Majority Leader. Dems didn't win back the Senate until 1/5 -- the day before the attack. And McConnell didn't relinquish control for weeks, because he was in a snit.

    Check your facts. Because Fox News won't admit this part of it, and never has.

    -CW

  38. [38] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    and you're right, the Kavanaugh story is developing, I had heard that last night, but now the pistol info was added.

    As always, in these things, early reports are often inconclusive and not gospel truth... which is one reason why I tend not to write about fast-moving events until at least a couple days later, as a general rule.

    -CW

  39. [39] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    I mean, just look at how the story shifted in Uvalde, about the cops' response... first reports proved to be wildly inaccurate.

    Just sayin'.

    -CW

  40. [40] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Ain't no gawdam mystery about why mental healthcare availability is skimpy in the red states. It's simply a matter of relative need. All the crazy people live in the blue states.

    However, that being clarified, the sad truth is that it simply is not even feasible, much less possible, to anticipate when an individual is crazy enough to become a potential mass murderer, and to lock him up.

    The only viable soludtion is get rid of assault weapons. The 2nd amendment doesn't specify which arms we have the right to bear. Didn't need to, because no such arms existed at the time it was written. But now they do exist and they need to be banned.

    That need not infringe on the right to bear sensible "arms" (for hundint, personal protection, etc.)

  41. [41] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @crs,

    it's not always as difficult as you think. people tend to tell somebody who they are and what they are capable of prior to picking up a weapon and murdering children. the trick is being willing to endure the process of dealing with someone who isn't a willing mental patient.

    JL

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Re #37,

    Which doesn't change the fact that, when you hold Pelosi responsible for ANY of 6 Jan, I'll hold McConnell according to the same standard..

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    AND we can hold Schumer responsible for the attempted assassination of SCOTUS Justice Kavanaugh..

    At least by the standards that Democrats use on President Trump...

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    The only viable soludtion is get rid of assault weapons.

    NEVER going to happen..

    The 2nd amendment doesn't specify which arms we have the right to bear.

    And, in lieu of the lack of specificity, the amendment is applied broadly..

    Using your reasoning, the 1st Amendment doesn't specify WHAT media is allowed, so the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to the Internet as there was no Internet at the time..

    That need not infringe on the right to bear sensible "arms" (for hundint, personal protection, etc.)

    And yet, YOUR president wants to ban 9mm firearms including handguns, which makes up almost 60% of the arms this country owns..

    There will never be a ban on rifles or handguns in our lifetime..

  45. [45] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    " . . the amendment is applied broadly". That's true, and it was a mistake, and now we're paying th price.

    BTW, I lived all my life in the Rocky Mtns. My garage is so full of elk and deeer antlers, there's no room for the car. I spent the first $ I ever earned on a .22 cal (rimfire) rifle, and by the time I got too old . .er, I mean when the mtns kept gettins steeper every yr, I had 17 rifles, shodtguns, handguns, etc, but I NEVER owned an "assault rifle" They are worthless for huntin, and I never got around to murdering schooklkids, so I never owned one.

  46. [46] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    although i strongly disagree with you on the constitutionality of a ban on specific weapon types, i agree that it is extremely unlikely to happen in our country, as well as not being the most effective tool to prevent mass shootings.

    red flag laws, more police access to psychiatric records, longer wait times for one's first weapon, more thorough criminal and psychiatric background checks, all would be more effective than a specific ban.

    JL

  47. [47] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    maybe also mandatory safety training, like the gun equivalent of drivers' ed

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    I had 17 rifles, shodtguns, handguns, etc, but I NEVER owned an "assault rifle"

    Since you put "assault rifle" in quotes I am going to assume you realize that there really isn't any such thing as an "assault rifle" any more than there is such a thing as an "assault bat" or "assault feet/hands"...

    They are worthless for huntin, and I never got around to murdering schooklkids, so I never owned one.

    But they are EXCELLENT for self defense.. Much more so than your .22

    Unless you can GUARANTEE that the bad guys will attack one at a time and ALSO will only have .22 firearms, then there is simply no logical or rational argument against the kind of firepower you are arguing against..

    If you are a reader, read STAR TREK novel PERRY'S PLANET...

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    although i strongly disagree with you on the constitutionality of a ban on specific weapon types, i agree that it is extremely unlikely to happen in our country, as well as not being the most effective tool to prevent mass shootings.

    Any class of rifle or weapon that CAN be banned under the 2nd has already been banned..

    In 1994, Democrats got away with banning certain rifles SOLELY because they looked "scary". And even THAT ban was so riddled with loopholes and grandfather clauses, it was essentially worthless and toothless..

    In a post Heller world with RECORD rifle sales over the past decade, please explain EXACTLY how such rifles could be "banned"..

    red flag laws, more police access to psychiatric records, longer wait times for one's first weapon, more thorough criminal and psychiatric background checks, all would be more effective than a specific ban.

    Agreed to a certain extent..

    But do you know what would be the BEST way to prevent mass shootings and gun violence..

    A strict enforcement of CURRENT gun laws and general criminal laws.

    And THAT is solely and completely a DEMOCRAT issue that ONLY Democrats can fix..

    The fact that Democrats refuse to do so?? Indicates how serious Democrats are about actually doing something effective..

    Namely, Democrats are not serious at all..

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    maybe also mandatory safety training, like the gun equivalent of drivers' ed

    That's already in place to carry...

    But simply to own?? Unconstitutional..

    Put it another way??

    Mandatory classes and training before one is allowed to post on the Internet... Or Vote...

    That's the easiest way to show the unconstitutionality of proposed laws..

    Apply the same standard to free speech or to vote..

    Then the unconstitutionality shines thru...

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    " . . the amendment is applied broadly". That's true, and it was a mistake, and now we're paying th price.

    We can't un-ring a bell...

    Further, applying amendments broadly is what gives us free speech over the Internet..

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Background checks are supported by 92% of Americans regardless of party, according to the poll.

    But what those 92% of Americans don't understand is that we already HAVE background checks for 99% of all weapons sales...

    And there has NEVER been an instance where a sale of a firearm under that 1% was ever used in a mass shooting.

    An "assault rifle" ban is a dunsel law...

    Would serve no useful purpose.. It would only deprive law abiding Americans of their constitutional right..

  53. [53] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Mandatory classes and training before one is allowed to post on the Internet... Or Vote...

    that already exists. it's called compulsory education, and we have it in every single state.

  54. [54] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    and have had it for the last 104 years.

  55. [55] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    most people get their voting and free speech classes as part of their schooling from ages 5 to 18, but anyone who comes to this country from outside has to take classes in order to gain citizenship and the rights that come with it.

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    that already exists. it's called compulsory education, and we have it in every single state.

    Unless it's SPECIFIC to Internet posting or voting, it's not applicable.

    The same could be said that compulsory education already teaches not to murder people in mass shootings..

    Ironic, though..

    When I was in High School, we DID have gun safety classes... AND School Rifle Teams..

    I was on the ROTC rifle team.. Qualified EXPERT every year.. :D

    We didn't have a lot of mass shootings back then..

    Coincidence?? I think not..

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    most people get their voting and free speech classes as part of their schooling from ages 5 to 18, but anyone who comes to this country from outside has to take classes in order to gain citizenship and the rights that come with it.

    Just as they get an education about the laws and such..

    If you want gun specific education, then you must prove vote and Internet specific education..

    If there was mandatory education in voting, it would have to be education for EVERY election as the issues change with each election..

    Democrats get ape-shit hysterical over voter ID.. :D

    But I am willing to trade..

    Mandatory Gun Safety every 5 years.. In exchange, we have mandatory classes every two years to get the right to vote...

    What's that??? We already HAVE the right to vote.. We don't need classes or education to affirm or exercise that right..

    You are correct.. That also applies to gun ownership..

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mandatory Gun Safety every 5 years.. In exchange, we have mandatory classes every two years to get the right to vote...

    "Com'on Michale!! You just want to make voting to onerous so people won't even bother!!"

    Yep.. :D

    Just as Democrats are trying to do with gun ownership.. :D

  59. [59] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Hey Michale -

    House just voted on red-flag law. 202 voted against it. Guess which party they were from?

    -CW

  60. [60] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Also (extra credit): guess why it won't pass the Senate?

    -CW

  61. [61] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    voting and free speech are indeed specific parts of the k-12 social studies curriculum in multiple grades, in every state. i say again, we already have that. and if pro-gun states want to make firearm classes a compulsory part of the k-12 curriculum as well, i support that.

  62. [62] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Oh, sorry, "guess which party 201 of them were from?"

    -CW

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    House just voted on red-flag law. 202 voted against it. Guess which party they were from?

    No.. House just voted on a whole mess of crap of which ONE aspect was a red flag law..

    Why didn't Democrats JUST push thru the Red Flag law??

    I mean, if Democrats are SERIOUS about red flag laws, why don't they put it in a stand-alone bill??

    BECAUSE their hysterical Anti Gun and Anti America agenda is MORE important to them than preventing mass shootings..

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mandatory Gun Safety every 5 years.. In exchange, we have mandatory classes every two years to get the right to vote...

    You game, Jean Luc???

    :D

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    i say again, we already have that. and if pro-gun states want to make firearm classes a compulsory part of the k-12 curriculum as well, i support that.

    As will I..

    But you want to poll all the other Weigantians on whether or not they would support it?? :D

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    i say again, we already have that. and if pro-gun states want to make firearm classes a compulsory part of the k-12 curriculum as well, i support that.

    Can you imagine how ape-shit the Democrats would go if such a thing were proposed??

  67. [67] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    no idea. but if the constitution regards firearm ownership as inalienable a right as speech or religion, then we have a great responsibility to educate kids about firearms.

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    no idea.

    Oh I think you have an idea.. :D

    but if the constitution regards firearm ownership as inalienable a right as speech or religion, then we have a great responsibility to educate kids about firearms.

    Yer preaching to the choir on this..

    And, by having firearm safety classes in school, it's possible, even likely that a Uvalde shooter or a Sandy Hook shooter or a Parkland shooter would be spotted way before they had a chance to wreck such havoc..

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now back to MAD MAX BEYOND THUNDERDOME

    :D

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

    -Chuck Schumer

    Wannabe Assassin Armed With Zip Ties, Duct Tape And A Gun Made It Steps From Supreme Court Justice's Home Before Being Caught: Cops

    Seems that Schumer is just as responsible for the attempted assassination of SCOTUS Justice Kavanaugh as Democrats accuse President Trump of being for 6 Jan..

    Except of course for the FACT that President Trump told the protesters to protest peacefully...

    I'm just sayin'..... :^/

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    {Scumbag assassin} said he believed Kavanaugh would side with Second Amendment decisions and loosen gun laws, court docs stated.

    The wannabe killer thought about how to give his life purpose and decided to kill Kavanaugh after finding his address online, investigators said.

    He bought the gun and planned to break-in to Kavanaugh’s home to kill the justice and home, according to records.

    So, the Democrats who released Justice Kavanaugh's address online is an accessory to Intent To Assassinate A SCOTUS Justice..

    Don'tcha just LOVE the "peace" and "tolerance" of Democrats??

    It's BECAUSE of Democrats like this that we NEED a 2nd Amendment...

  72. [72] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [48]

    Since you put "assault rifle" in quotes I am going to assume you realize that there really isn't any such thing as an "assault rifle" any more than there is such a thing as an "assault bat" or "assault feet/hands"...

    I must agree! It's not an actual word but rather it's a political slogan.

    Not quite as egregious as "baby killer" but it's the very same communication technique in action.

  73. [73] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [65]


    i say again, we already have that. and if pro-gun states want to make firearm classes a compulsory part of the k-12 curriculum as well, i support that.

    **

    As will I..

    But you want to poll all the other Weigantians on whether or not they would support it?? :D

    Yeah, I think I can get behind this idea, too.

    At first, the Marxist DNA within me reacted "I dunno...sounds kinda pro-gun indoctrination."

    But then I thought, "Sure. And for the same reason Sex Ed is included in modern curricula -- to make sure kids have the info that they may not get from their parents."

    Ahem.:D

  74. [74] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    So, Michale. Your Fox News has been forever claiming that the J6C hearings are a politically motivated witch hunt. I'm sure you watched this evening's First Hearing on Fox, with Fox fact checkers and analysis debunking the Committee's presentation, point by point. At last, expose this big nothingburger for what it is!


    Won't you be a Dear
    and please summarize Fox News wisdom for Weigantia? I watched the MSNBC live stream myself.

  75. [75] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @caddy,

    So that's three weigantians out of three so far in favor of mandatory firearm safety curriculum, perhaps part of the phys-ed department like sex-ed. We should run Congress!

  76. [76] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @caddy[74],

    My biggest gripe about Republicans who pooh-pooh the j6c and claim that it's too partisan is that they're the ones most responsible for it being that way. If they had voted for it, there would have been a FULLY bipartisan special committee from both houses, with a mandatory end date last December!

    if when that failed, Republicans had simply appointed some sane congresscritters who weren't also material witnesses, nearly half the committee would still be Republican and sympathetic to the former president.

    So now that the committee has collected evidence and is presenting its facts, they're going to claim that it's a partisan witch hunt? If you believe that i have some pie I'd like to sell you.

  77. [77] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [76]

    I believe the Repugs deliberately scotched these various chances to participate in the J6C because they didn't want to be in the same hemisphere as any and all evidence such an investigation would reveal.

    Some of them are co-conspirators, after all.

    I mean besides the House Repugs who, having just fled for their lives from ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse then voted to aid and comfort #TheBigLie.

  78. [78] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [76]

    Behz pih-roe-hah
    Bood LAHS-kah!

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW

    Texas, where the Uvalde school shooting happened, reportedly ranks 50th among all 50 states, when it comes to mental healthcare systems and availability of such care to the public. (I will refrain from calling that "dead last," although it is tempting to do so.)

    I appreciate your restraint, but the shoe definitely fits. I can attest that Texas has more than its fair share of people who couldn't pour piss out of a boot with a hole in the toe and the directions on the heel, and these same people are now allowed to purchase firearms without any necessary training or a license. It is now easier to purchase an AR-15 in Texas than it is to cast a vote. Sad.

    Before Abbott signed the permitless carry law, Texans were generally required to be licensed to carry handguns openly or concealed, also had to submit fingerprints, complete four to six hours of training and also required to pass a written exam and a shooting proficiency test. Now? It's basically a free-for-almost-all.

    After the 2019 massacres in El Paso, Abbott swore to do "everything we can to make sure a crime like this doesn't happen again," and raised concerns about Texas laws that allowed private gun sales between strangers without background checks. Also, Dan Patrick said he was "willing to take an arrow" from the gun lobby in order to pursue the necessary changes.

    So fast forward, they proceeded to cut mental health care by 200+ million dollars and signed into law permitless carry. Even a moron could have predicted the outcome of these actions so there's definitely no excuse for these mental midgets. The fish rots from the head.

  80. [80] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    15

    'Blood' of Uvalde children is 'on the hands of Republicans' for not passing gun control: Texas Democrat

    Democrats have COMPLETE control of the Executive and Legislative branches of government..

    Not in Texas, they don't. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a "Texas Democrat" would be upset with federal legislators for the handiwork of Greg Abbott and Dan Patrick in the State of Texas. Heh.

    You also seem to need the word "COMPLETE" explained to you (probably why you capitalized it) in regards to federal government. No single Party ever has "complete" control of Congress; the fact that there is a "Majority Leader" and a "Minority Leader" in both the House and Senate should have been a dead giveaway. :)

  81. [81] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    14

    From Quora...

    If guns keep us safe, why isn't America the safest country on earth?

    What *IS* it with Anti Gun nuts that they think that guns are sentient beings that can act on their own volition??

    Go ask them over on Quora. The first flaw in your argument is your assumption that the person asking the question is an "anti gun nut" versus being "anti nuts having guns."

    You can have a house full of 500 guns and that house is just as safe as a house full of 500 bananas..

    Incorrect. Assuming the guns are loaded, it is definitely less safe in the house with 500 guns than the house with 500 bananas. I would think that would be patently obvious.

    It's how a HUMAN BEING uses a gun that is determinative..

    It's how a human being uses a banana that is determinative. You see how easy it is to refute your silly argument?

    How many times need I explain that it's the ammunition that does the damage and not the gun?

    Not the mere existence of the gun...

    You seem to have forgotten about the ammunition... again.

    Guns without ammunition are all fairly useless. There is not a single word in the Second Amendment that gives anyone the right to carry a high-capacity magazine.

    Those are the facts. :)

  82. [82] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    48

    Since you put "assault rifle" in quotes I am going to assume you realize that there really isn't any such thing as an "assault rifle" any more than there is such a thing as an "assault bat" or "assault feet/hands"...

    Why do you keep repeating this false claim? There is definitely such a thing as an "assault rifle." I particularly wouldn't think I would have to explain this to a person who claims to have been in the United States Army where "assault rifle" is specifically defined, but here we are... again.

  83. [83] 
    Kick wrote:

    MtnCaddy
    72

    I must agree! It's not an actual word but rather it's a political slogan.

    Another person who was actually a soldier in the United States Army seeming to agree that an "assault rifle" doesn't exist. Wow. :)

Comments for this article are closed.