As crazy does. And nobody does it better than the antigunners.
Like a twisted dream from which one wakes up, head pounding, mouth dry, the antis continue their illogical march to self destruction.
For to be defenseless is self destruction.
But one cannot tell them that. It is a sign of mental illness. Let me explain.
For openers, read Sarah Thompson's treatise on the instability of antigun people, Raging Against Self Defense:
A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality
As you see, it's available at JPFO. If for some reason the page goes TU, just type the title into asearch engine etc.
It's as succinct an explanation as anyone could hope for. I imagine it strikes fear into those who are not nuts, but manipulate the useful idiots/true believers.
Spread it around -s-.
I honestly find it hard to add on anything to Dr. Thompson's paper.
She dissects the internal workings of these sick folks and give us insight into what is mental illness and what is not.
She talks of the defense mechanisms that are common to all of us, but become bent in certain people. She also includes denial, the refusing to accept the reality of a given situation and reaction formation, when a person's mind turns an unacceptable feeling or desire into its complete opposite.
She mentions that the defense mechanisms are not mental illnesses. Some are healthier than others. 'A safe general rule is that a defense is healthy if it helps you to function better in your personal and professional life, and unhealthy if it interferes with your life, your relationships, or the well-being of others.' Amen. They can in other words, be indicators, depending on how applied.
Please read her paper and pass it around far and wide, high and low.
It inspires me anew to go back and get my PhD in Clinical Psych. It's proof positive that not all professional mental health folks are liberals.
She also has an interesting observation and disclaimer concerning said useful idiots/true believers and those who manipulate them:
(This discussion of psychological mechanisms applies to the average person who is uninformed, or misinformed, about firearms and self-defense. It does not apply to the anti- gun ideologue. Fanatics like Charles Schumer know the facts about firearms, and advocate victim disarmament consciously and willfully in order to gain political power. This psychological analysis does not apply to them.)
And there is where I say such as the aforementioned are evil. But we can leave that to another discussion.
In a classic reversal, there have been instances where these antigun nutters claim that progun folks are the sick ones. See Dr. Thompson's article for specifics re projection etc.
Take the case in St. Paul Minn. where a student suggested after Virginia Tech that the slaughter might have been stopped if students had been armed.
Hamline University is the place. And the position of the administrators is a disgrace.
They first tried to lure him with 'dialog'. Then they suspended him and said he had to undergo a 'psychological evaluation' by a University approved source that would deem him 'fit' to be readmitted. Talk about a professional 'twist'. The antis have plenty of lib shrinks to mark a person as 'unfit'. Shades of Every Good Boy Deserves Favor (about the Soviet mental health system).
The kid has refused to have the evaluation and has gotten legal counsel. Good for him!
A more detailed account is here at WND:
It is like the case in Oregon.
The admin at Western Oregon University had Jeffrey Maxwell, former marine, arested for legally carrying on campus. Yes Oregon law says he can. The admin says he can't.
This is the summation of the puff piecers:
1) Suspension from Weestern Oregon University until the end of spring term 2009.
2) Satisfactory written evidence from a licensed mental health professional that you do not pose a threat to yourself or others
3) A minimum TEN PAGE PAPER with references, citing, but not limited to:
•the importance of following the law, even through civil disobedience
•the importance of accepting responsiblity for one's actions
•and recognizing the impact possession of weapons on college campuses has on others
1984 comes to mind and the aforementioned Every Good Boy Deserves Favor.
For ref go here: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89280
Charges were summarily dropped.
But, the big but, is the psych eval.
From the WND article:
'Nonetheless, a Western Oregon University student disciplinary panel has determined that Maxwell may not re-enroll at the college until a mental health professional determines that he is not a threat to himself or the public. The panel consisted of four unnamed students and one university staff member. Maxwell asked for a public hearing, but his request was denied.'
"These were children on the panel who were judging him," Starrett said. "These people were in elementary school when Jeff was serving his country in the Marine Corps. I looked at these kids thinking, these kids are judging this guy?"
Kids playing dressup.
One last note re Sarah Thompson's paper.
Not only does she talk about the wrong reasons to be a victim, she suggests ways to approach these nuts.
Note them in detail.
We are the side of reason. We are the norm.
Let us not lord it over them as they would do us.
We're the Only Ones Exhibiting Enough
12 hours ago