Is This Really All The President Said?

[Carl N. Brown]

Did anyone else notice the definite lack of applause when the Pres mentioned gun control during his speech?

Dare I attribute that to the Colorado Recall Effect?

 

[siglite]

Many who heard the SOTU speech and noted that Obama only mentioned gun control for one line viewed this as a concession.

Rest assured it is not.

Joe Manchin is still pimping Manchin-Toomey in WV. We think Pat Toomey considers it all plutonium now, but Joe has not gotten the message. The thing is, Joe Manchin believes the following:

1. The next Sandy Hook will happen.
2. When it does, America will be faced with a choice
a: A bill by Feinstein
b: Manchin-Toomey II.

Manchin truly believes that he was working FOR gun owners by presenting a bill that wasn't our worst nightmare. The man truly believes this. He is still pulling WVCDL members into his office and trying to explain how great the bill is. The last time this happened was last week. And this is in the face of a great amount of political pain we have, and continue to cause him in his home state.

We believe there is a very slim chance he may be made to see reason. But we're not sure it's 2a groups that can do it. Ironically, we think it may be mental health and veterans groups that may ultimately get his attention and turn Manchin-Toomey II (and remember, it *is* coming) into something that isn't horrible.

The reason for that, is that the second largest interested demographic in WV is veterans. In a state with 1.8 million people, we have 205,000 veterans. It's a high ratio, and they are active at the polls. And as a demographic, they value their 2a rights. But they feel as if they're between a rock and a hard place.

The rock: Obvious 2a restrictions
The hard place: Potential mental health reform.

As gun guys, looking to pull of the focus off of guns, we're quick to say "go after mental health!" But as with most policy issues, it's not that cut and dry. There are quite a few pitfalls to avoid when addressing mental health reform.

1. Stigmatizing veterans
2. Discouraging veterans from seeking needed treatment due to fear of loss of rights and stigma
3. The fact that it may not work any more effectively than gun control.

Some of you are surely scratching your head at #3. But I have what seems to me to be a bit of a unique resource. That resource is someone close to me who's been boots on the ground in the mental health system for more than 15 years in multiple states. This is a real veteran of the system, and as a rule, that system is an antigun demographic. My resource is one of the rare highly pro-gun workers in that field. Her commentary on mental health reform as a means to curb Sandy Hook type massacres:

(loosely paraphrased) "The problem is that the kind of mentally ill individual who is likely to commit such an atrocity will never seek help. In their mind, they are not the problem. Everyone else has failed to recognize their greatness. The massacre is a final attack on a world that's failed them over and over again, despite how great they are."

Further, one of the psychological criteria for mental health diagnosis is called "subjective distress." This means that the mentally ill person must feel that their functionality is being impeded by their problem. An example might be a guy that, as a symptom of PTSD goes into an extreme state of hypervigilance after hearing a loud, surprising noise. But he just rolls with it, chills himself out, and goes on about his day. If that person does not feel like it impacts his life negatively, then there's no mental health diagnosis to be made.

The people who do these things will never admit subjective distress. They will never admit that their mental illness impacts their functionality, because they believe it is not them who is wrong, but society/the world. They do not believe they have any sort of mental illness at all, and you could never convince them that they do.

So these people will likely continue to slip through the cracks, rendering mental health reform useless as a tool to combat situations like Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Columbine, and most of the others.

The veterans are terrified of mental health reform, because they (perhaps reasonably) feel that their treatment from the VA can only go south. The VA can rubberstamp them now as prohibited persons. Joe Manchin said, "look how much I care about veterans! I put a 30 day window for them to petition for the restoration of their rights!"

I couldn't believe what I heard. My response, "Senator, a man who's convalescing in a VA hospital with Traumatic Brain Injury might spend a year learning to speak again. It might be two years before he's anything roughly approaching who he was before. For an amputee learning to cope with the loss of a limb, the abstract idea of his 'rights' is going to be pretty low on his priority list."

Manchin conceded "Maybe it should be 90 days." I just blinked at him. The vet groups want that window to be infinite, and my view is that the VA shouldn't be able to rubberstamp away their rights to begin with. If they want to strip them of rights, take it in front of a judge. And not a military judge, either.

Perhaps I've rambled too much, and too wide, but the takeaway point is that Obama's one-line commentary on SOTU is *not* a concession of defeat on gun control. They are biding their time and waiting for the next tragedy. Whether we will see some sort of "improved" (ugh) Manchin-Toomey, a full-out semiauto ban proposed by Feinstein, or both, is anyone's guess. But do not think for a minute that this administration has given up. Joe Manchin is still beating the bushes in WV pushing for more federal gun control. And he's doing it at the bidding of Michael Bloomberg and Barack Obama.

 

[Apachedriver]

Many who heard the SOTU speech and noted that Obama only mentioned gun control for one line viewed this as a concession.

Rest assured it is not.

Joe Manchin is still pimping Manchin-Toomey in WV. We think Pat Toomey considers it all plutonium now, but Joe has not gotten the message. The thing is, Joe Manchin believes the following:

1. The next Sandy Hook will happen.
2. When it does, America will be faced with a choice
a: A bill by Feinstein
b: Manchin-Toomey II.

Manchin truly believes that he was working FOR gun owners by presenting a bill that wasn't our worst nightmare. The man truly believes this. He is still pulling WVCDL members into his office and trying to explain how great the bill is. The last time this happened was last week. And this is in the face of a great amount of political pain we have, and continue to cause him in his home state.

We believe there is a very slim chance he may be made to see reason. But we're not sure it's 2a groups that can do it. Ironically, we think it may be mental health and veterans groups that may ultimately get his attention and turn Manchin-Toomey II (and remember, it *is* coming) into something that isn't horrible.

The reason for that, is that the second largest interested demographic in WV is veterans. In a state with 1.8 million people, we have 205,000 veterans. It's a high ratio, and they are active at the polls. And as a demographic, they value their 2a rights. But they feel as if they're between a rock and a hard place.

The rock: Obvious 2a restrictions
The hard place: Potential mental health reform.

As gun guys, looking to pull of the focus off of guns, we're quick to say "go after mental health!" But as with most policy issues, it's not that cut and dry. There are quite a few pitfalls to avoid when addressing mental health reform.

1. Stigmatizing veterans
2. Discouraging veterans from seeking needed treatment due to fear of loss of rights and stigma
3. The fact that it may not work any more effectively than gun control.

Some of you are surely scratching your head at #3. But I have what seems to me to be a bit of a unique resource. That resource is someone close to me who's been boots on the ground in the mental health system for more than 15 years in multiple states. This is a real veteran of the system, and as a rule, that system is an antigun demographic. My resource is one of the rare highly pro-gun workers in that field. Her commentary on mental health reform as a means to curb Sandy Hook type massacres:

(loosely paraphrased) "The problem is that the kind of mentally ill individual who is likely to commit such an atrocity will never seek help. In their mind, they are not the problem. Everyone else has failed to recognize their greatness. The massacre is a final attack on a world that's failed them over and over again, despite how great they are."

Further, one of the psychological criteria for mental health diagnosis is called "subjective distress." This means that the mentally ill person must feel that their functionality is being impeded by their problem. An example might be a guy that, as a symptom of PTSD goes into an extreme state of hypervigilance after hearing a loud, surprising noise. But he just rolls with it, chills himself out, and goes on about his day. If that person does not feel like it impacts his life negatively, then there's no mental health diagnosis to be made.

The people who do these things will never admit subjective distress. They will never admit that their mental illness impacts their functionality, because they believe it is not them who is wrong, but society/the world. They do not believe they have any sort of mental illness at all, and you could never convince them that they do.

So these people will likely continue to slip through the cracks, rendering mental health reform useless as a tool to combat situations like Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Columbine, and most of the others.

The veterans are terrified of mental health reform, because they (perhaps reasonably) feel that their treatment from the VA can only go south. The VA can rubberstamp them now as prohibited persons. Joe Manchin said, "look how much I care about veterans! I put a 30 day window for them to petition for the restoration of their rights!"

I couldn't believe what I heard. My response, "Senator, a man who's convalescing in a VA hospital with Traumatic Brain Injury might spend a year learning to speak again. It might be two years before he's anything roughly approaching who he was before. For an amputee learning to cope with the loss of a limb, the abstract idea of his 'rights' is going to be pretty low on his priority list."

Manchin conceded "Maybe it should be 90 days." I just blinked at him. The vet groups want that window to be infinite, and my view is that the VA shouldn't be able to rubberstamp away their rights to begin with. If they want to strip them of rights, take it in front of a judge. And not a military judge, either.

Perhaps I've rambled too much, and too wide, but the takeaway point is that Obama's one-line commentary on SOTU is *not* a concession of defeat on gun control. They are biding their time and waiting for the next tragedy. Whether we will see some sort of "improved" (ugh) Manchin-Toomey, a full-out semiauto ban proposed by Feinstein, or both, is anyone's guess. But do not think for a minute that this administration has given up. Joe Manchin is still beating the bushes in WV pushing for more federal gun control. And he's doing it at the bidding of Michael Bloomberg and Barack Obama.

Interesting write-up. Here's what stuck out to me:

What do Vet PTSD issues/concerns have to do with causing or preventing Va Tech, Sandy Hook, and Columbine, etc? Or with Gun Control for the country as a whole?

Based on the write-up, that's the question I would have asked of Sen Manchin.

He cares about Vets? That's not what I see in this write-up. He comes across as just another leftist, issue-twisting individual. People like that make it near impossible to have rational discussions on separate issues like Gun Control and Combat Vet issues.

If some Vets are terrified of mental health reform, it's because some politicians pat them on the back, all while setting them up as scapegoats. Their double-talk says they are America's best and strongest, while simultaneously making them out to be extremists and/or incapable of ever functioning sanely in society again. They use Vets as stepping stools to carry their agendas forward. Is it any wonder some Vets might become stigmatized and discouraged. The VA mental system is managed by the rules these people lay out.

My takeaway point is these issues may never get resolved because liberals, leftists, and anti-gunners continuously spew whatever, and abuse whomever, they want to get their way.

Pitiful state of affairs…

 

[goon]

Along with Siglite's post, it's important to note that most people who suffer from some kind of mental illness don't harm themselves or anyone else.

I personally feel that they're being made into just as much of a scapegoat as gun owners.

Something that would have helped in many cases, such as the Navy Yard shooting, would have been if police had actually dealt with attackers properly when they had the chance.

 

[BigBore44]

First off. AT ALL COST, keep government the hell out of mental health issues or we are in for the fight of our lives. I'm more sure of that than I am that the sun is coming up in a few hours. I work in this field. I know how easy it is to be diagnosed with any one of a thousand "mental disorders". And how once labeled, you might as well have a tattoo on your forehead that reads "Mental Patient".

If .gov gets involved, they will simply do what they have done with the interstate commerce. Everything will fall under it "somehow".

I too think that the offensive is the way to go now. When we had our last panic, we increased the numbers of new gun buyers/shooters drastically. Yes, some but guns just to make a profit. And they did. But some bought because the were afraid .gov would take away that right (Ignorance). But that ignorance introduced thousands and thousands of people into our sport. And it also increased the number of voters we have on our side. The Left is in a controlled panic right now. They are putting on a confident front, but they know how bad they screwed the pooch after Sandy Hook and Obamacare. The problem is we still have so many House republicans reluctant to do anything because it will get smashed in the Senate. But I think introducing a barrage of 2A attachments to bills is a step. Our voice is much louder than it was. Just look at the Colorado repeal election.

 

[siglite]

Apachedriver,

It's a confluence of issues that draw a seemingly unrelated connection. When congress looks at mental health reform as a means of curbing violence, veterans fear they will be caught up in it and lose their rights. And given the VA's track record, that is certainly a reasonable fear.

However, from what I've been hearing in-state, they actually want mental health reform. They want vets to be able to seek and receive services without fear of having the VA submit their name to the FBI for denial in a NICS check.

And to tie this back to the OP, I expect the next "compromise" gun bill to be heavy on mental health reform. Obama will absolutely use this as a vehicle to the same end.

A lot of gun owners scream, "it's mental health, stupid! Anyone who shoots up a school is crazy, and crazy is the problem!" And it's an obvious truth. It's such an obvious truth that it could easily gain popular traction. Few will look at the points raised (above) by my associate in the mental health field, and realize it probably won't do a thing to prevent the next Sandy Hook.

But Obama is an ideologue to his core. And if he is allowed to do so, he will twist this oversimplified concept into yet another avenue for rights denial. Vets and the rest of the populace should be wary. And the White House's assault on our rights is far from over.

They are biding their time.

 

[gym]

Much has changed from when he was in a position of much higher ratings. Now it's about him getting out with some kind of a defining legacy. These are politicians you are dealing with, snakes have better morals.

 

[bubba15301]

actually he said he would circumvent congress if he doesnt get his way