Anti-Gun Double-Standards

So Joyce Foundation Shill Baldr Odinson has his first blog post up in a month, you’d think with that posting rate this one would be solid gold. Instead its a loosely held together screed of talking points from his Joyce masters. One point is that what he claims as a person with a “long history of severe neurological problems” bought a handgun at an FFL and passed a background check. Now first I’ll point out in Baldr’s story this “Mentally Ill” person was simply a straw buyer for a convicted felon, this person did not go nuts and start shooting people.
Bob chimes in in the comments section.

You focus on the fact that a mentally ill person had access to firearms. I do have a problem with that.

Let’s discuss it.

First, define mentally ill and the conditions associated with that that causes people to lose their rights?

Second, What methods are available to determine when a person is a danger to themselves or others?
Please be specific and include a discussion of the accuracy of those methods.

Third, If those people are a danger to themselves or others, what do you propose to do about it — other than stripping them of their right to keep and bear arms?

Bob makes a great point. What is “Mentally ill”? I was diagnosed with ADD as a child. I haven’t taken any medications for it since I was a teenager, I don’t feel impaired in any way. Am I mentally ill?

Several of my friends have clinical depression, they’re very well controlled both through medication and therapy. Are they Mentally ill?

Just about every woman I know has a noticeable shift in their mood and personality in on or around their menstrual cycle. Are they mentally ill?

I get cranky when I’m hungry or over tired. Am I mentally ill?

Baldr Odinson constantly uses the fictional metric of “Gun Death” and claims that somehow that is more relevant than “Death” or “Violent Crime Rates”. Is he Mentally Ill?

We need definitions of mental illness, the law currently states that involuntary commitment is that magical line you need to cross to be so mentally ill as to lose rights. Makes sense, if a respected legal authority (a Judge) says you have such mental problems that you are going to be treated, even if it is against your will, that sounds like a nice line.

Bob’s point about what else should be done is a VERY good one. You see anti-gun activists are obsessed with the object of a gun, and they look at nothing beyond it. Pro-rights activists look at the problem…violence, and don’t get obsessed with the tool. You see we want to curb VIOLENCE, they want to curb GUNS.

But what else? Let’s say the lady mentioned in Baldr’s article was declared “Mentially Ill” under the NICS check and could no longer buy or own guns because of her medical history. Is that it? She can’t be trusted with a gun because she may go crazy and shoot somebody, or in this case give it to somebody dangerous. Can she be trusted with a knife? How about behind the wheel of a car? Should she be able to buy a can of gasoline and a book of matches? Can she walk onto a school campus?

If somebody can “Just Snap” and do violence, a gun is not the ONLY tool we need to be worried about. Why is it the only tool Baldr, and his organization are worried about? Well because they want to ban them, and they really don’t think that the people they would strip of their rights are all that dangerous….I mean they walk on the sidewalk while they drive by in their cars! Its just all about restriction, and restriction of ONLY one thing. GUNS. Baldr’s response?

Goodness, Bob, you must think me a psychologist! Are YOU qualified to deem her safe enough?

Oh yes, since Bob does not have a psychology degree (neither do I) we obviously can’t talk about such things.

I’ll leave the determination of “danger to self and others” to a licenced psychologist. Newspaper reports cite her has having had a long history of schizophrenia and erratic behavior, combined with reduced mental capacity that required her to work with the Pearl Buck Center to adjust to society. Is this severe enough to warrant removal of her second ammendment rights? Seems pretty clear to me.

He’ll leave that determination up to a licensed psychologist….but it seems clear to me she’s a danger! Not a hint of irony! This is much like the Brady Campaign protesters at the convention where chanting on a megaphone “We Wanna Talk!” over and over again. Ummm well you ARE talking, and you are saying “We Wanna Talk!”….if you want a dialog its going to be mighty hard if you’re spamming the air with a megaphone….

And just because I’m on poor old Baldr, I thought I’d post this quote.

There is hardly a line you have writ­ten which can’t be refuted with log­i­cal thought or a truth­ful rep­re­sen­ta­tion of peer-​reviewed pub­li­ca­tions, and you have bent the truth to suit your faulty per­cep­tions.

Go over and have a look at the whole quote, and the great post by Patrick, you’ll note that despite what he says there is no “truth­ful rep­re­sen­ta­tion of peer-​reviewed pub­li­ca­tions”. What’s even better is I know that said publications aren’t a bluff, they do exist, and they are ALL paid for by the Joyce foundation. Kinda odd that the only time the data that Patrick speaks of is refuted the “researcher” is working under a Joyce grant, or its simply being cooked up by somebody like Josh Sugarmann using not only suspect but laughable “scientific” methods.

Baldr has only put up one post a month because he’s too busy with his Twitter Account. Really the anti-gun people are more brand advertisers than they are political activists. Too bad slogans like “cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs”, and “King of Beers” really don’t do all that much to thinking adults. Frankly they don’t seem to do a whole lot for young children either. I ate Cocoa puffs because they were filled with chocolaty goodness. I don’t eat them anymore because I prefer my cereal less sweet these days.

Twitter is best for them, as it gives them just enough space to push a sound byte, not enough for them to support it….which is convenient.

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Anti-Gun Double-Standards

  1. Bob S. says:

    Great take down of Baldr’s post. I’ll reference it later when I talk about the subjects 🙂

    I find it ironic that Baldr insists he is no psychologist

    Yet he makes such statements as :

    Severe depression is just as deadly as other mental health disorders, and should also be grounds for temporary suspension of gun rights if diagnosed).


    Is this severe enough to warrant removal of her second ammendment rights? Seems pretty clear to me

    He’s not a licensed professional but is willing to make the determination of what warrants the removal of her rights….oh excuse me…only her 2nd Amendment rights. He is perfectly fine with her being able to drive, buy gasoline, diesel fuel & fertilizer though.

    I also think it highly important to point out that he wants to turn the concept of due process upside down.

    He wants a mechanism available for rights to be removed then it is up to the citizen to have them restored.
    That is scary folks, really scary.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      You got it wrong, Bob. WE’RE not licensed professionals, so WE can’t speak to this issue. HE can talk all he wants, and if a law gets written, you don’t think that Joyce won’t buy a few Psychologists to claim that guns are too dangerous to be available to ANYBODY (except Police and Military, they have the magic rays)

      And of course they don’t care about due process, as they are planning on banning guns, but make no effort to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

      If you want to ban the right to own and carry guns, you can do that, but you need to repeal the 2nd Amendment. They aren’t trying that because they don’t care about law. The same reason why they don’t care about gang violence, and the crimes committed by their prohibited people.

      • Bob S. says:

        This is another area where I’m surprised the RKBA advocates has dropped the ball.

        Repealing the 2nd Amendment won’t do jack — there is that other amendment to deal with.

        Amendment IX
        The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

        Sorry folks, while the 2nd Amendment can and should be used to protect our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, it isn’t the ONLY amendment protecting that right.

  2. alcade says:

    I have generalized anxiety disorder and had trouble sleeping. The doctor gave me a prescription and it pretty much solved everything. However when I visit another doctor I’ve been asked “So why are you depressed?”


    “You’re taking medication for depression.”

    “I am?”

    I knew a lady with a similiar issue. She was prescribed an anti depressant for help with recurrent migraines. I’m sure that people like Baldr would love to have blanket bans on firearms ownership for anyone who takes X, Y, or Z medications “Just to play it safe.”

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Most anti-convulstants also work well for treatment of psychosis, including Bi-Polar disorder.

      Besides my wife I have a few other family members with seizure disorders who are controlled with medication…medication that is also prescribed to bi-polar people as well as psychotics.

      Does that make them mentally ill?

      Great point!

  3. Linoge says:

    The “mental illness” angle is just another back-door attempt at broad-spectrum firearm registration/regulation/confiscation. First we get the definitions of “disqualifying” mental illness expanded to the point where just about anything qualifies, and just about anyone can diagnose it; then you just get some part-time “shrink” with a mail-order certifcation declare that anyone who would want to possess a firearm is obviously mentally troubled.


    Thank you kindly, you cannot purchase a firearm.

    Yeah, that is a little conspiracy-theorist, but it is not like they have not attempted similar things in the past.

    On a related note, the whole “just snap” argument is really starting to get on my nerves – any male could “just snap” and become a rapist. Shall we lock us all up and be done with it?

    • Sendarius says:

      Didn’t someone write a novel about that sort of thing?

      “Of course you can get out of combat flying – you just have to be crazy, and ask to be relieved. Unfortunately asking to be relieved is proof that you are not crazy. This is called Catch 22.”

      Ironically the author’s name was Joseph Heller – the novel was Catch 22.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Not such a conspiracy. Have you noticed all the anti-rights groups are in favor of dumping the “Terrorist Watch List” into the NICS “unsuitable person” file, and despite the CONSTANT news stories of boyscouts, little old ladies, and down-home country boys getting flagged as terrorists (not to mention Ted Kennedy was on the list for a spat) none of them seem to have any desire to discuss cleaning out the list, or given good people a reason to petition the government for proof or removal from the list. Because they don’t care about terrorists, potential or otherwise, they care about people NOT BUYING GUNS!!!!

      Of course there’s that whole due process thing, and the sticky wicket that somebody is on a watch list, but not charged with a crime, and also on a watch list so vast, and so vague that if a “Potential terrorist” walks into a gun shop there aren’t a cadre of FBI or CIA hiding out in a flower delivery van waiting to nab him?

      And of course given that its just some stupid bucket that an algorithm or somebody in the Pentagon just tosses names into, and they never leave, what’s to keep an anti-gun, but otherwise spineless President from having the phonebook dumped into the bucket under the cover of darkness.

      Sorry sir, you can’t buy this gun today, you’re flagged….and come to think of it, I can’t own this shop full of guns because I’m flagged. I guess Paul Helmke was right, and we should just give up! 😉

  4. Pingback: Collin Goddard: Audio-Fisk | Weer'd World

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *