Michael Shellenberger reveals the parallels between the Lefts gender dysphoria affirmation and mental illness. “Abrosexual” is a relatively new sexual preference term that could require an editorial explanation according to the United Kingdom media outlet Metro.
Emma Flint, a freelance journalist, wrote an op-ed for Metro’s “Platform” section, a portion of the website dedicated to “opinions, real life stories and analysis from experts in their field.” In the piece, she explained how she came out as “abrosexual” in 2020 only to be confronted by a close friend claiming that “this doesn’t sound real.”
“For those of you who don’t know what abrosexuality is, in layperson’s terms, it simply means when someone’s sexual identity fluctuates and changes,” Flint wrote.
She noted that she did not know about the term until two years ago when she was 30 years old. Flint lamented abrosexuality was still not more well-known.
Emma Flint explains the term “abrosexual.” (Brett Coomer/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images/Fairfax Media via Getty Images)
“When I was growing up, I’d never heard the term abrosexual – you were either straight, gay, or lesbian as far as nineties society was concerned. Anything else was made up,” she wrote. “Of course, we know that’s far from the truth – but societal blind spots mean we learn terms much slower than if they’re readily accessible.”
Flint added, “When I tell people that I’m abrosexual, I’m often greeted by a blank expression, followed by a question of what the term means. And questions are fine, as long as they’re respectful. I’m not expecting everyone to know what it means – hell, I didn’t until two years ago – but you should always listen with respect.”
U.K. schools have reportedly been allowing students to experiment with “neo genders.” (Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images)
Dictionary.com reports that early versions of the term “abrosexual” came from 2013 with an abrosexual flag making social media rounds in 2016. The term, however, has still not found mainstream approval.
“Eventually, I hope that abrosexuality will be seen as normal, just another identity that someone might have, and not regarded as a way to be ‘on trend’, as some of the hurtful comments I’ve received suggest,” Flint wrote. “Acceptance can only come from education, and stepping outside your comfort zone to familiarize yourselves with terminology you might not know.”
“There’s a whole wealth of LGBTQ+ knowledge online that people would benefit from learning, so that ignorance isn’t the main language so many of us speak.”
A California district has suggested that there are at least 10 different sexual orientations. (iStock)
In June, there were also reports of United Kingdom schools allowing students to experiment with “neo genders” and identifying as non-human animals.
“Students in schools across Britain have been allowed to identify as dinosaurs, horses and moons, amid warnings that teachers should address such incidents as a safeguarding issue,” The Telegraph reported.
Lindsay Kornick is an associate editor for Fox News Digital. Story tips can be sent to lindsay.kornick@fox.com and on Twitter: @lmkornick.
If the veteran who restrained the homeless man is prosecuted, it will establish a right to terrorize subway passengers and help revive the ‘anti-racist’ assault on justice.
Daniel Penny is not going quietly to the slaughter. The 24-year-old Marine Corps veteran who took action when fellow subway passengers were being threatened by a maniacal homeless person has lawyered up and will need all the legal help he can get if he hopes to avoid spending decades in prison.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has assigned Joshua Steinglass, a veteran prosecutor who led the trial team in the case that prosecuted former President Donald Trump’s family business, to conduct the probe that will determine whether Penny will be put on trial for killing Jordan Neely. But the decision won’t be made in a vacuum. The liberal commentariat is already damning Penny as the civilian version of Derek Chauvin. Leftist politicians such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., are accusing him of having committed a “murder” and Democrat and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is saying Penny’s actions were unjustified and demanding that “justice” be given Neely’s family.
Neely, the 30-year-old homeless person who died during an incident on a New York City subway train on May 1, had a record of mental illness. He had been arrested 44 times for criminal conduct and had an outstanding warrant for felony assault. On an F train stopped at the Broadway-Lafayette Street subway station in Manhattan, he allegedly began acting in a threatening manner to other passengers. It was at that point that Penny restrained him and put him in what appears on a cell phone video of part of the incident to be a chokehold.
In doing so, it could well be argued that he prevented Neely from committing another crime against a fellow passenger. Video released Sunday also seems to show Penny put Neely in a recovery position after Neely was subdued and appeared to be OK.
But the reason this case is already a cause Celebre, leading to leftist demonstrations in the subways and an endless stream of articles in corporate media, is that Neely’s fate is blamed on the supposed indifference of the public to the lives of the homeless.
Broader Racial Ramifications
Penny’s fate will, as Peachy Keenan wrote in The Federalist, be a test of whether young American men should dare to act courageously when others are in peril. But there’s even more at stake in this case. With Neely being anointed as the new George Floyd, the questions of whether Penny was right to restrain Neely or if he used inappropriate force to do so are merely sidebars to a broader narrative about American racism.
Floyd’s death became a metaphor for a myth about systemic police racism. Floyd’s actions the night of his death, his criminal record, and the fact that his body was full of what might have been a lethal dose of fentanyl were dismissed as irrelevant. The only thing that mattered was that he was a black man and that the cop who had, in an act of undoubted callous brutality, snuffed out his life was white. In the name of a belief, however mistaken, that Floyd’s death was just one of countless incidents in which blacks were being slaughtered with impunity, millions took to the streets in “mostly peaceful” riots that shook the nation.
More than that, it set off a moral panic in virtually every sector of American life that elevated the woke catechism of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) to a new secular religion — since accepted by the Biden administration as mandatory for every government agency and department — that treats color-blind policies and even the goal of equal opportunity as forms of racism that must be eradicated.
Parallels to 1984 Case
Penny’s actions might, for those with a long memory of controversial New York subway criminal controversies, have more in common with those of Bernhard Goetz than of Chauvin. In 1984, Goetz opened fire on four black teenagers he said were trying to mug him on a No. 2 train. In an era of rampant crime, Goetz was largely supported by public opinion and acquitted of attempted murder, though he was fined and sentenced to six months in prison for illegal weapons possession. One of the people he shot, who was paralyzed in the incident, later won a $43 million civil judgment against Goetz that, as late as 2017, still hadn’t been paid.
As racially charged as that incident was, nearly 40 years later, we are living in a very different post-Black Lives Matter world. Any New Yorker who rides the subways knows how dangerous they have been made by authorities’ willingness to tolerate the presence of threatening people. But someone who isn’t a “person of color” is always going to be assumed to be in the wrong in any violent confrontation today, when the claim that America is an irredeemably racist nation is treated as inarguable by the chattering classes.
The prosecutor in the Kyle Rittenhouse case told him that “everybody takes a beating sometimes” and that he had no right to defend himself against lethal threats from armed BLM rioters in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Penny’s chances of winning a trial in a New York City courtroom in 2023 are immeasurably lower than were Goetz’s.
Leftist Campaign Against Justice
As such, and regardless of the facts of the case, the campaign against Penny must be viewed as merely the next stage in a long-running leftist campaign against the justice system in which pro-criminal prosecutors like Bragg, elected with the help of leftist billionaire George Soros, are in the forefront. The sympathy for Neely, which is framed as compassion for the homeless, is akin to the so-called decarceration movement that takes it as a given that too many nonwhite people are being jailed for crimes and calls to defund the police.
The prosecution of the ex-Marine will not just establish a precedent that there is a “right” of a deranged, drug-addicted person to terrorize others with impunity. It will also, like Floyd’s death or that of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, or a dozen other equally dubious cases, be routinely cited from now on as proof of American racism and a reason for doubling down on woke policies that will further divide and racialize the nation.
Talk about our indifference to the lives of the homeless is gaslighting, since it is the policies of the political left that have allowed such persons to camp out on streets or in subway cars rather than be taken by police to shelters and hospitals. The freedom for the homeless that has been established in New York — where the “broken windows” policing of the administrations of Mayors Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg has been abandoned — means the rights of other citizens to a livable city are abrogated. When people like Neely can harass people into buying their safety with donations in honor of performances like his Michael Jackson imitations or violent rants, then the rule of law is dead.
Leftists believe that, like Floyd, Neely died for our sins as a racist nation. That is why he is now being elevated to the status of secular saint regardless of or perhaps even because of his dysfunction and willingness to threaten others. The Floyd case led to de-policing throughout the country as cops, the only defense minority communities have against the black-on-black crime that afflicts their neighborhoods, have backed down in the face of prosecutions and demonization.
Penny’s prosecution will now pump new life into the BLM movement and ensure that public discourse about race and crime will continue to ignore the facts in favor of ideological myths that will send America’s cities into even greater squalor, violence, and racial conflict.
Jonathan S. Tobin is a senior contributor to The Federalist, editor in chief of JNS.org, and a columnist for Newsweek. Follow him on Twitter at @jonathans_tobin.
A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including NewsMax, Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Rep. Devin Nunes, Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Chris Salcedo, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and Presiden
It’s difficult to fathom that several families started their day with one less precious child around the breakfast table this morning. It’s also hard to fathom responding to that reality — caused by a transgender mass shooter who left three 9-year-olds and several adults dead in a “targeted attack” at a Christian elementary school — by confessing you misgendered the murderer and blasting your political opponents over the same tired gun-control talking points.
But behind all the partisan smoke and mirrors of the Nashville story is an unmistakable and unavoidable reality: Our modern mental health crisis is out of control.
You don’t even have to dig into the glaring transgender element of the case to acknowledge this fact. No mentally healthy person blasts their way into a building of defenseless children to murder them in cold blood, much less devises a detailed plan literally mapping out how to make it happen. Transgender perpetrator or not, this sick pattern has repeated itself with unsettling frequency.
And though President Joe Biden, his press secretary, and other politicians disgustingly spun the attack to blame so-called “assault weapons” and imply conservatives are complicit in mass murder, the simple reality is that over the past handful of decades, firearms have changed very little. Meanwhile, mental illness has proliferated and our culture’s conception of it dangerously evolved.
That’s why the transgender identity of the shooter can’t be fully ignored — not for those who truly care to understand the gnarly roots of this violence. Despite the protestations of LGBT apologists, gender dysphoria and trans-related narcissism are inextricable from America’s broader mental health emergency.
A Celebration of Sickness
The psychological pendulum has swung woefully far: Illness that was once stigmatized, often to the unhelpful point of suppressing it instead of encouraging the sufferers to seek help, is now celebrated and socially encouraged. If it isn’t teachers brainwashing impressionable kids with sexual confusion and instructing them to keep it secret from their parents, it’s parents catechizing their own children in fallacies. Spend just a fewminutesonTikTok, and you’ll get a glimpse of the affected masses — self-loathing, split personalities, nonsensical pronouns and sexual identities, desperate androgyny, narcissism, bipolar outbursts, and more.
Examples of encouraged mental illness abound — even medical doctors fuel delusion by pretending sex is “assigned” and asking for patients’ preferred pronouns — but here’s one directly in response to the shooting. A group called the Trans Resistance Network made the shooter out to be a victim, blaming the “avalanche” of legislation seeking to protect minors from chemical and surgical castration and accusing conservatives of “nothing less than the genocidal eradication of trans people from society.” Many trans-identifying people suffer from “anxiety, depression, [and] thoughts of suicide,” the group correctly noted, but then associated these struggles not with broader mental unhealth but with “lack of acceptance” of gender dysphoria from “religious institutions.”
Note the group’s promotion of mental instability:
It is a testament to the inner strength and beauty of transgender people, that despite the … constant anti-trans bigotry and violence, so many of us continue to persevere, survive, and even thrive. We will not be eradicated or erased.
The same can’t be said for the innocent lives that were snuffed out in an instant in the Nashville shooting. Where derangement is considered “inner strength and beauty,” mental sickness thrives, and now children, not angry activists, are the ones who have been erased.
At least in part. There’s more to the story for these Christian families, who can cling to the assurance that for a follower of Jesus to be absent from his body is to be present with the Lord. This violent and sin-marred world is not our home, and it’s the closest to hell Christians will ever get. No religious hatred, mental affliction, or targeted attack can eradicate that sure hope.
A Call to Action
Those truths aren’t just a comfort for the broken-hearted, however. They’re a call to action for redeemed sinners. With a focus on eternity, we’re still sojourners here, surrounded by tormented souls with not only deep spiritual needs but physical and mental ones. And so we must fight.
We must fight against the spiritual forces that discourage us and tempt us to doubt and deny truth, and against agents of the devil who seduce our children with sexual fantasies. We must fight for the beauty and sacredness of human life. For the mental and physical health of those within our care. And for the glorious truth of the gospel and the immutable nature of the sexes that leads to human flourishing.
This fight requires compassion. But it also requires that we don’t forfeit the definition of that word to medical professionals who profit from carving up children, or to Marxist ideologues, or to a bad-faith press. Instead, follow the only perfect example: When Jesus saw the “helpless” crowds, “like sheep without a shepherd,” He was “movedwith compassion” toward them. He engaged. He healed.
May He be the source of our compassion as we engage our modern mental affliction, and may He provide the healing we desperately need.
Kylee Griswold is the editorial director of The Federalist. She previously worked as the copy editor for the Washington Examiner magazine and as an editor and producer at National Geographic. She holds a B.S. in Communication Arts/Speech and an A.S. in Criminal Justice and writes on topics including feminism and gender issues, religion, and the media. Follow her on Twitter @kyleezempel.
Instead of always taking incoming fire, how about Republicans start sending some back? It’s great that they stopped HillaryCare, but if they had actually fixed health care by forcing health insurance plans to be sold in a competitive free market, there would have been no opportunity for shyster Democrats to foist Obamacare on us.
It’s fantastic that we caught the Boston Marathon bombers, but why don’t Republicans fix an immigration system that brings foreign terrorists and mass murderers to our country? Let the Democrats explain why we couldn’t make room for a Danish surgeon because we needed another Chechnyan terrorist.
And it’s terrific that Republicans have managed to block sweeping gun bans after every mass shooting over the past few years — opposition to new gun restrictions has more than doubled since Newtown — but how about they actually do something to stop the next mass murder?
All these shootings are united by one clear thread: They all were committed by visibly crazy people, known to be nuts but not institutionalized.
Mental illness was blindingly clear in the cases of Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech), Maj. Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood), Jared Loughner (Arizona shopping mall), James Holmes (Colorado movie theater), and a dozen other mass shootings in the past few decades.
But in every instance, Democrats’ response was: Let’s ban high-capacity magazines! Let’s limit private gun sales! Let’s publish the names of everyone who owns a registered gun!
Mass shootings don’t correlate with any of these things. They correlate with not locking up crazy people. We’re not worried about school kids being systematically gunned down by angry husbands, gang members or antique gun collectors. We’re worried about a psychotic showing up in a public place and shooting everyone in sight.
There’s absolutely no point in making it more difficult to buy firearms at gun shows — unless gun dealers have no trouble getting files on the mentally ill. Until we do that, we’re wasting our time.
Fixating on guns after a crazy person commits mass murder is like draining the ocean to find a ring you dropped.
Liberals can take the position that crazy people living on the street and filling up our prisons and homeless shelters are a necessary evil that is a consequence of their idee fixe. But then, when one of their pet victims shoots up a movie theater, they don’t get to blame it on guns.
In every one of these mass shootings, there was someone in a position to say before the attack, “Trust me, this person is a psycho.” Try getting Jared Loughner or James Holmes through any mental illness hearing in which they’re required to speak. (Though both might end up being offered their own shows on MSNBC.)
If someone was brought back from the 1950s to today, he’d tell us: “I couldn’t help but notice that all the people who committed mass shootings were batsh*t crazy. Why were they not locked up or forced to take medication?”
We’d have to say, “Because some people — we call them ‘liberals’ — get a warm feeling of self-righteousness by defending the right of the deranged to crap in a shoebox, carefully label it and put it in a closet.”
Democrats absolutely will not address the one thing that was screaming out from all of the mass shootings: a crazy person committing the crime. We can’t medicate them and we can’t lock them up because the ACLU has handcuffed society’s ability to deal rationally with the mentally disturbed.
Not only will Democrats refuse to address the problem of the mentally ill on their own, but they will fight to the last ditch to protect any crazy person’s right not to take his medication.
At some point in the 1980s, not being “judgmental” became the highest form of virtue — although the left is plenty judgmental about things they don’t like, such as white males, smokers, Christianity, Wal-Mart, Fox News, talk radio and NASCAR.
Liberals are so determined not to stigmatize anybody that their solution is always to make all of society suffer instead:
– To avoid hurting Muslims’ feelings, everyone has to strip to his underwear at the airport.
– So no one feels excluded, we’re not allowed to say “Merry Christmas!”
– To avoid singling out gays, the government and media lied to Americans for a decade about the coming explosion of heterosexual AIDS. (We’re still waiting.)
– To stop people from noticing patterns, the media bend over backward to avoid telling us the race of dangerous criminals on the loose.
– To prevent hurt feelings, everybody gets an “A.”
And to avoid “stigmatizing” the mentally ill, society has to live with the occasional mass murder.
These anti-stigmatization rules don’t even help the people they claim to be protecting. But defending ridiculous rules that ruin things for everyone else makes liberals feel heroic.
Rather than constantly playing defense on gun rights, why don’t Republicans force Democrats into taking uncomfortable positions for once? Make them choose between ticking off the ACLU or ticking off soccer moms — as well as all of sane America. (Don’t kid yourself: The non-insane are still a potent voting bloc in this country.)
Republicans should say, “We owe it to the memory of these kids to unclog the regulations that prevent us from forcing psychotics to take their medication.”
By Linda McKinney / 31 May 2013 /http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/05/gun-control-laws-judge-jury-and-executioner-of-rights/
In reading the article The Fat Lady Hasn’t Sung: Gun Debate Not Over, I was again struck by the idea of our judicial system being at risk via the gun control issue. What I am about to write will cause some consternation, but read it through to the end and then argue with me.
The article states:
“A host of logistical problems – including concerns about violating privacy, misunderstandings about which records should be submitted and a lack of money and training – has prevented federal and state agencies from submitting millions of mental health and drug abuse records to the database that’s used for background checks.”
In the U.S. Constitution is the Second Amendment that we are all familiar with. What we sometimes forget to associate with that is, within that Bill of Rights is the following:
“Amendment V”
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [my bolding]“
and
“Amendment VI
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. [my bolding]“
The current process of our way of denying someone their Second Amendment rights is in conflict with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. In the current system, anyone who has had mental problems of whatever sort has their problem reported to the federal government behind the person’s back, and they have no recourse but to immediately lose their right to bear arms.
Forget the whole idea of it being unconstitutional to testify against oneself — for is that not what mental counseling amounts to? — of the Fifth Amendment. Forget, also, finding any witnesses in your favor, the decision is made without that process and if you wish to appeal it, you may, but it will take a lot of work on your part, and possibly a lot of money as well. Attorneys don’t come cheap.
This affects the third part of the Fifth Amendment that is bolded: the right to “life, liberty, or property without due process of the law”. Liberty and property both include the right to keep and bear arms, do they not?
The Sixth Amendment is trashed by our current gun control laws (A.K.A. people control laws) via the fact that there is no witness against you to confront once you have sought mental help. Ever been diagnosed as ADHD? That’s a mental illness.
You lose your right to a firearm. Where is your witness against you? ‘Tis you. Fifth Amendment: allegedly it prevents you from testifying against yourself, but in talking to a mental health professional, you are testifying against yourself! And it is used against you!
Where is your right to bring a witness in your favor? Shall the psychiatrist who reported you testify for you? Don’t count on that, the psychiatrist is the one who turned you in.
That leads us to the last portion of the Sixth Amendment: the right to “have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence [sic]“. When was the last time you heard of anyone being offered a public defender in order to help them get their Second Amendment rights returned to them after they were denied the right to buy a firearm? Has it ever happened? Our Sixth Amendment says that it is supposed to be available. After all, this is happening in a court of law, is it not?
When the law is written in such a way that the law itself becomes our judge, jury and the executioner of our GOD-given rights (for such they are according to our Founding Fathers), then there is a problem with the way the law is written. Gun purchasing laws, as currently constructed, say basically, “IF A, then B and C.” “A” being the mental history, and “B” being your psychiatrist turning you in, and “C” being the loss of your Second Amendment rights.
The law itself has found you guilty of having a mental problem, has therefore removed your Second Amendment right, and you cannot now legally own a gun and are left defenseless in your own home. You cannot defend your life, nor the lives of your wife (or hubby) and children with a gun. You have committed the ultimate sin: you have broken the law of an untarnished mind.
In a nation of 305,528,358 (2008′s number to match the mental health stat) in 2008 approximately 8% of the population who were considered “severely mentally ill”. In 2011 the population was approximately 310,500,000; and 14,612 murders were committed; only 1,000 (6.843%) committed by those “with untreated severe mental illness“. That leaves 93.157% of the murders in America committed by those without mental illness.
For the rights of the many to be protected, we must start with the rights of the few. If one person is denied their Fifth Amendment right in a court of law and is forced to testify against himself is that not a declination of the rights of all of us? If they can do it one, they can do it to many.
In America, our justice system is based upon the idea of “Innocent until proven guilty”, apparently we need to add, “Unless you’ve had a mental health issue.”
In Part II of my article, I shall cover some new information from the world of psychiatry and the implications for those affected by the “mental illness” rules of gun control laws.
Obama has been draping himself in families of the children murdered in Newtown.
MSNBC’s Martin Bashir suggested that Republican senators need to have a member of their families killed for them to support the Democrats’ gun proposals. (Let’s start with Meghan McCain!)
In a bizarre version of “A Christmas Carol,” CNN’s Carol Costello fantasized about “a mother who lost her child,” showing up and knocking on Sen. Rand Paul’s door, saying, “Please don’t do this!”
The victims of gun violence are the left’s latest “human shields” — a term coined by me in Godless: The Church of Liberalism — for their idiotic ideas. At least it’s not the godawful Jersey Girls this time.
The one clear thread that unites all the mass murders currently being exploited by the Democrats is that they were committed by visibly crazy people who were unaccountably not institutionalized. But Democrats refuse to do anything about crazy people. Apparently, the views of families with relatives murdered by severely disturbed individuals are no longer relevant when it comes to institutionalizing the mentally ill.
If liberals had a decent argument for taking guns away from the law-abiding while doing nothing to prevent schizophrenics from getting guns, they’d make it. Manifestly, they don’t, so they send out victims to make the argument for them, knowing no one will argue with a person whose child has just been murdered.
This allows liberals to act as if Republicans’ only counter-argument to their idiotic gun control proposals is: We don’t mind dead children.
The truth is the opposite. Republicans are pushing policies that will reduce gun violence; Democrats are pushing policies that will increase gun violence.All the actual evidence — mountains of it, in peer-reviewed studies by highly respected economists and criminologists and endlessly retested — shows that limits on magazine capacity, background checks and assault weapons bans will accomplish nothing. Only one policy has been shown to dramatically reduce multiple public shootings: concealed-carry laws.
Unfortunately, there are no similar studies on the effect of involuntary commitment laws for the mentally deranged because no such laws exist anymore and therefore can’t be tested. But we do know that the number of mass public shootings has ballooned since crazy people were thrown out of mental institutions in the 1970s.
For most of the 20th century, from 1900 to 1970, there was an average of four mass public shootings per decade. Throughout the ’70s, as the loony bins were being emptied, the average number of mass shootings suddenly shot up to 13. In the 3.3 decades since 1980, after all the mental institutions had been turned into condos, mass shootings skyrocketed to 36 on average per decade.
Mass shootings don’t correlate with gun ownership; they correlate with not locking up schizophrenics.
Mental illness was blindingly clear in the case of Seung-Hui Cho, who committed mass murder at Virginia Tech. Jared Loughner showed signs of schizophrenia for at least five years before he shot up the Tucson shopping mall. James Holmes was being treated for mental illness long before his massacre at the Aurora movie theater. It was clear to Adam Lanza’s mother — nearly the only person who had contact with him — that he was mentally disturbed and had violent fantasies. (Three-quarters of matricides are committed by the mentally ill.)
We can add paranoid schizophrenic One L. Goh, who committed a mass murder at a Christian college in California last year, and the Muslim Army major, Nidal Hasan, known to be crazier than an MSNBC host, who killed 13 and injured 30 in a “gun-free” area of the Fort Hood Army base a couple years ago. For hundreds more examples of the mentally ill committing murder, read E. Fuller Torrey’s book, The Insanity Offense: How America’s Failure to Treat the Seriously Mentally Ill Endangers Its Citizens.
But Democrats simply will not address the one thing that is screaming out from all of these mass murders, which is that they were committed by crazy people.
As soon as the issue of mental illness came up at a Senate hearing on gun violence in January, Sen. Al Franken leapt in to say: “I want to be careful here — that we don’t stigmatize mental illness. The vast majority of people with mental illness are no more violent than the rest of the population.”
Liberals at ThinkProgress.org and The Huffington Post hailed Franken for his sensitivity. Can we check with the families of the children murdered by crazy people on the danger of “stigmatizing” the mentally ill?
Contrary to Franken’s claim, some of the mentally ill are far more likely to be violent. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, schizophrenics and similarly disturbed individuals are three times more likely to commit a violent crime than others.
The mentally ill are also more likely to be the victims of violence. Ask the sisters of the crazy homeless woman “Billie Boggs” how grateful they were to the ACLU for keeping Boggs out on the street.
Meanwhile, the only target of Democrats’ gun proposals — legal gun owners — are less likely to commit violent crimes than others. To the contrary, armed civilians justifiably kill about 1,500-2,800 felons a year, compared to 300-600 legal killings by the police. Responsible armed citizens protecting us from violent criminals should be subsidized rather than taxed and harassed.
After five mass shootings by deranged lunatics, even liberals know that the only policy — apart from concealed-carry laws — that might have stopped these shootings are laws permitting the institutionalization of the mentally ill.
That’s why they keep claiming their gun bills address mental illness. Warning: Read the bill. You will find nothing in any of the Democrats’ “gun safety” proposals that will make it easier to commit a crazy person or to prevent him from buying a gun.
The Democrats’ argument for doing absolutely nothing about the dangerously mentally ill, while disarming crime-preventing armed citizens is: Tell it to this weeping mother. If the Democrats’ “gun safety” bill passes, there’ll be plenty more weeping mothers to tell it to.
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
By: 
In reading the article 
— for their idiotic ideas. At least it’s not the godawful Jersey Girls this time.
.
.
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.