Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    36,012

    The Problem Isn’t Guns Or White Men

    The Problem Isn’t Guns Or White Men

    Ann Coulter | Wednesday Oct 7, 2015 4:32 PM




    • Share on Facebook606
    • 683 SHARES



    The media act as if they’re performing a public service by refusing to release details about the perpetrator of the recent mass shooting at a community college in Oregon. But we were given plenty of information about Dylan Roof, Adam Lanza, James Holmes and Jared Loughner.

    Now, quick: Name the mass shooters at the Chattanooga military recruitment center; the Washington Navy Yard; the high school in Washington state; Fort Hood (the second time) and the Christian college in California. All those shootings also occurred during the last three years.

    The answers are: Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, Kuwaiti; Aaron Alexis, black, possibly Barbadian-American; Jaylen Ray Fryberg, Indian; Ivan Antonio Lopez, Hispanic; and One L. Goh, Korean immigrant. (While I’m here: Why are we bringing in immigrants who are mentally unstable?)

    There’s a rigid formula in media accounts of mass shootings: If possible, blame it on angry white men; when that won’t work, blame it on guns.

    The perpetrator of the latest massacre, Chris Harper-Mercer, was a half-black immigrant, so the media are refusing to get too specific about him. They don’t want to reward the fiend with publicity!

    But as people hear details the media are not anxious to provide, they realize that, once again: It’s a crazy person. How long is this going to go on?

    When will the public rise up and demand that the therapeutic community stop loosing these nuts on the public? After the fact, scores of psychiatrists are always lining up to testify that the defendant was legally insane, unable to control his actions. That information would be a lot more helpfulbefore the wanton slaughter.

    Product manufacturers are required by law to anticipate that some idiot might try to dry his cat in the microwave. But a person whose job it is to evaluate mental illness can’t be required to ascertain whether the person sitting in his office might be unstable enough to kill?Maybe at their next convention, psychiatrists could take up a resolution demanding an end to our absurd patient privacy and involuntary commitment laws.

    True, America has more privately owned guns than most other countries, and mass shootings are, by definition, committed with guns. But we also make it a lot more difficult than any other country to involuntarily commit crazy people.

    Since the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1960s, civil commitment in the United States almost always requires a finding of dangerousness — both imminent and physical — as determined by a judge. Most of the rest of the world has more reasonable standards — you might almost call them “common sense” — allowing family, friends and even acquaintances to petition for involuntarily commitment, with the final decision made by doctors.

    The result of our laissez-faire approach to dangerous psychotics is visible in the swarms of homeless people on our streets, crazy people in our prison populations and the prevalence of mass shootings.

    According to a 2002 report by Central Institute of Mental Health for the European Union, the number of involuntarily detained mental patients, per 100,000 people, in other countries looks like this:

    – Austria, 175
    – Finland, 218
    – Germany, 175
    – Sweden, 114
    – England, 93

    The absolute maximum number of mental patients per 100,000 people who could possibly be institutionalized by the state in the U.S. — voluntarily or involuntarily — is: 17. Yes, according to the Treatment Advocacy Center, there are a grand total of 17 psychiatric beds even available, not necessarily being used. In 1955, there were 340.

    After every mass shooting, the left has a lot of fun forcing Republicans to defend guns. Here’s an idea: Why not force Democrats to defend the right of the dangerous mentally ill not to take their medicine?

    Liberals will howl about “stigmatizing” the mentally ill, but they sure don’t mind stigmatizing white men or gun owners. About a third of the population consists of white men. Between a third and half of all Americans have guns in the home. If either white men or guns were the main cause of mass murder, no one would be left in the country.

    But I notice that every mass murder is committed by someone who is mentally ill. When the common denominator is a characteristic found in about 0.1 percent of the population — I think we’ve found the crucial ingredient!

    Democrats won’t be able to help themselves, but to instantly close ranks and defend dangerous psychotics, hauling out the usual meaningless statistics:

    – Most mentally ill are not violent!

    Undoubtedly true. BUT WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANOREXICS, AGORAPHOBICS OR OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVES. We were thinking of paranoid schizophrenics.

    – The mentally ill are more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violence!

    I’ll wager that the percentage of the nation’s 310 million guns that are ever used in a crime is quite a bit lower than the percentage of mentally ill to ever engage in violence.

    As with the “most Muslims are peaceful” canard, while a tiny percentage of mentally ill are violent, a gigantic percentage of mass shooters are mentally ill.

    How can these heartless Democrats look the parents of dead children in the eye and defend the right of the mentally deranged to store their feces in a shoebox, menace library patrons — and, every now and then, commit mass murder?
    http://humanevents.com/2015/10/07/th...-or-white-men/

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    312
    With guns, a certain level of savage behavior is evident. That is the part that must be isolated and fixed.

    How else can a (sane) person explain this?:


  3. #3
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    36,012
    It is a Marxist monument to Pol Pot. The first thing he did was to disarm the population and that led to the photo that you just posted Nkosi. These were the folks that disagreed with the agenda. In my opinion, people that do not take a lesson from history will see the same things repeated. People that have sought to disarm to conquer and eliminate dissent have been around far longer than this country has been in existence and the writers of the Constitution paid attention to history to keep it from happening here. Here is a little rundown of the just the most recent dictators guilty of this. Notice that they are all Communists, Marxists, or Socialists?

    Bradlee Dean January 8, 2013

    Gun Control Dictator Style - Tyrants Who Banned Firearms Before Slaughtering The People

    “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
    
- Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6, 1938

    How ironic that those who are calling for gun control are those who want the guns so they can have the control.

    It is of interest to the American people to take note of those who they entrust to serve them. We are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, yet time and time again in this country we have leaders in government who put on the guise of “patriot” and then turn out to be the criminal in garb.

    We learned in the past about the criminal acts of anti-gun mayors. (http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/exposed-c...ti-gun-mayors/) We found that anti-gun mayors are criminals themselves, guilty as charged within their own ranks of such crimes as tax evasion, extortion, accepting bribes, child pornography, trademark counterfeiting, perjury, and one demigod mayor was even convicted of assaulting a police officer.

    The crimes that these anti-gunner mayors are convicted of suggest they are public enemies rather than public servants. No wonder they want to take guns from law-abiding citizens.

    These politicians know all the well that where the citizenry operates in the rights given to them without government interference, namely the right to bear arms, crime diminishes. And with mud on their face, they know when they interfere with the right to bear arms, crime skyrockets.

    What we see is that some of today’s politicians are magnifying the crimes they are placed in office to prevent.

    They allow crime to be promoted through entertainment and when the crime is committed, they are there in hopes to grab the guns away.

    This is exactly how criminals in government operate. They demonize the gun, not the criminal.

    Friends, this mentality is like blaming spoons for people being overweight, as if to say the act is apart from the actor.
    Since criminal politicians refuse to look at history, which can be at the present our greatest teacher, it is very clear that gun banners know exactly what they are attempting to do -– put the Second Amendment in the crosshairs.

    Looking back, who has committed murder in the largest degree? Dictators Adolf Hilter, Mao Tze Tung, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc.

    Time and time again it has been a corrupt government who is responsible for the mass murder of their own people under the deceptive guise of “gun control,” all of which the said dictators implemented.

    Keep in mind these people promised their citizens protection and freedom upon the forfeiture of their guns.

    How many times, I ask, does history need to repeat itself?

    Paralleling History

    Let’s parallel history with the present ideology and methodology that those in the past blueprinted to implement gun control.
    Mass murderer Adolf Hitler at a dinner talk on April 11, 1942 said:

    “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”

    Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

    Josef Stalin, the sole leader of the Soviet Union from 1924 to 1953, said:

    “If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”

    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Mao Tze Tung, communist dictator of China said:

    “War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.”

    China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Idi Amin, president of Uganda from 1971 to 1979, said:

    "I do not want to be controlled by any superpower. I myself consider myself the most powerful figure in the world, and that is why I do not let any superpower control me."


    Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Pol Pot, who created in Cambodia one of the 20th century's most brutal and radical regimes, was responsible for killing one million of his own ‘educated,’ yet unarmed citizens.

    Conclusion:

    Our forefathers did not arm the American people for the purpose of hunting, but rather to protect themselves from those who were doing the hunting, namely the tyrant King George. The second amendment is only to vouchsafe our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to ensure all of the other rights given unto us by our Creator.

    The wisdom of the framers of the Constitution once again is found consistent with the lessons of the Bible they used as their bedrock for civil law. The people’s individual protection should always be a primary concern of government “of the people”. In a righteous country, self-government reigns by the constraint of Christian morals. The civil government that desires such a monopoly of force (i.e. they are the only ones with guns) is a threat to the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens, for that government ceases to be “of and for the people.”

    George Washington, our first president, said:

    “From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.”
    [/COLOR]

    Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/gu...41yzj7EiPpM.99

  4. #4
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Nkosi View Post
    With guns, a certain level of savage behavior is evident. That is the part that must be isolated and fixed.

    How else can a (sane) person explain this?:

    Are those human bones or the bones of our American buffalo that had their herds decimated by American settlers of the old west?

    Yep, I'm pretty sure those are buffalo bones. The horns are a dead giveaway.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  5. #5
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    36,012
    Quote Originally Posted by MW View Post
    Are those human bones or the bones of our American buffalo that had their herds decimated by American settlers of the old west?

    Yep, I'm pretty sure those are buffalo bones. The horns are a dead giveaway.
    Good call MW. These are pictures of Pol Pot's reign. When I see a big pile of bones, I think of The Khemer Rouge and Pol Pot.





  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    312
    Quote Originally Posted by MW View Post
    Are those human bones or the bones of our American buffalo that had their herds decimated by American settlers of the old west?

    Yep, I'm pretty sure those are buffalo bones. The horns are a dead giveaway.
    They are the skulls of bison.
    I don't know how Pol Pot fits with the picture I posted, but...

Similar Threads

  1. The Democrat Party’s White Voter Problem
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-25-2014, 11:32 PM
  2. WHITE HOUSE INSIDER: America doesn’t have a racial problem – It has an Obama problem
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-27-2012, 09:45 PM
  3. MEX: Guns from U.S., not illegals, are the real problem
    By ShockedinCalifornia in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-23-2010, 08:00 PM
  4. Is White America the Root of our Immigration Problem?
    By miguelina in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-25-2010, 02:04 PM
  5. Guns are not the Problem: Crooks Are!
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-15-2009, 04:04 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •