Loading...
You are here:  Home  >  Opinion  >  Current Article

We do not need gun control. We need Crazy Control.

By   /   December 15, 2012  /   39 Comments

    Print       Email

the_weasels_by_wovenlines-d4vilefWe do not need Gun Control we need Lunatic Asylums.

If I can blame anything on Ronald Reagan and in due course Jerry Brown was the closing of the California Mental Health Hospitals.

We were told that caring for the bed bug crazy in our society was too expensive. Well the body count from those crazy sons of bitches on the streets has cost society far more.

 

We do not need gun control. We need Crazy Control.

 

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
    Print       Email
  • Published: 1 year ago on December 15, 2012
  • By:
  • Last Modified: December 15, 2012 @ 6:58 am
  • Filed Under: Opinion

About the author

Dan OBrien

Publisher

Cactus Thorns has been online in one form or the other since 2001. What started as a personal blog documenting the corruption and lack of Due Process of the 29 Palms Community Development Department has turned into over these many years into a hugely popular Independent Alternative News Media Outlet. We have partnered with other media including The Desert Star Weekly, Joshua Tree Star, other blogs, indie media and an incredible staff of volunteer Reporters, Commentators and Opinion Makers to create one of the most read, honest and dependable alternative to the Local traditional Media services in the country. Thanks to you the reader we are in the 5% of most read sites in the World.

39 Comments

  1. Dean M Gray Dean M Gray says:

    With lunatic asylums posing as city councils we are at a disadvantage they are not locked up to prevent them from spending us into oblivion.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  2. LINDAG LINDAG says:

    I agree with both of you....Dan, this is the first time I have heard somebody else (especially a R) point the finger at Reagan for the devastation of our mental health facilities/resources. The more people we have in this world the greater the number of crazy people there are who need, but are not receiving, help/institutionalization.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  3. Anotherpowergrab Anotherpowergrab says:

    Once again, the civilized world is laughing at the USA, just another forth world (yes, downgraded from third world) country. Joining the ranks of corrupt, lawless places like Somalia, Syria, Mexico, etc.

    Keep on buying your guns and barricade yourselves up, waiting for someone to come get you. Then come out shooting, killing everything in sight. The world is laughing and for good reason.

    We deserve everything we reap. Kill baby Kill, that is the Second Amendment. There is no reason for most of these guns, except for their purpose, to kill things.

    Have fun, the real crazy people are all gun owners !

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
    • Dan OBrien Dan OBrien says:

      Whew...... and here's your sign.... Lest I repeat myself.... We need Crazy Control....

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
      • Steve Spear Steve Spear says:

        oops your right Dan I left out semi. Of course when I was at the range last week I got to fire two modified weapons that were made into automatics. one was an AR-15 the other and M-4.

        Modifications were made by every day guys and gals.

        In any case easy to do and easy to have. Just saying.

        Again - I am not for gun control I am too for "crazy control" but "crazy" can be defined in many ways.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
    • desertrider desertrider says:

      Yes the civilized world... Where they rely on the government to protect them, where the criminals have guns the people don't, call a bobby he'll be there later to pick up the pieces.
      Places like Mexico where private gun ownership is virtually impossible, where the drug lords rule, where the bodies litter the streets, you know that place that was part of the "fast and furious" project of the current administration.
      There is no reason most of these guns???
      If there had been some law abiding citizens carrying concealed at any one of these incidents they would not have happened or at least not to the degree that they did.
      So stick your head in the sand and "hope" obama will keep you safe from those whack jobs clinging to their "bibles and guns".

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
      • Steve Spear Steve Spear says:

        Fast and Furious was started under the Bush administration.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
        • Jay Harry VIP1234 says:

          Fast and Furious was started in October of 2009 (Obama was president). Bush's gun walking operation was done with the knowledge and cooperation of the Mexican government. The Mexican authorities were informed when the guns were going to cross the boarder so they could be tracked and the smugglers apprehended. After the Mexican authorities lost track of the gun on one particular smuggling operation the program was stopped.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
    • Steve_In_29 Steve_In_29 says:

      Yeah Anotherpowergrab, those Founding Fathers of this country were all "crazy" huh??

      Washington didn't use freedom of the press to defeat the British....he shot them.

      Without the 2nd Amendment, the others are ALL UNENFORCEABLE.

      I agree that "crazy control" is needed but who gets to decide what crazy is? The Russians (and many others) deemed anyone that disagreed with the government to be crazy and locked them away. The current administration has already publicly stated that ALL former military members are ALL potential domestic terrorists (and thus crazy). They are also working on marginalizing those people that have the foresight to prepare for any kind of disaster instead of blindly waiting on the government to rescue them.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  4. Steve Spear Steve Spear says:

    Well really VIP1234,

    Try this on for size - a rose is a rose by any name that you wish to call it:

    “Two similar gun-walking operations, including one run out of the same Phoenix-area office that oversaw Operation Fast and Furious, were conducted under President George W. Bush. The first, Operation Wide Receiver, ran from 2006 to 2007, and tried to make use of the same chain of gun buyers, smugglers, and middle men who tossed deadly weapons up the ladder to cartel enforcers. Both Wide Receiver and the 2007 probe allowed guns to make their way across the border in a manner similar to Fast and Furious. “

    My point being is that the whole idea sucked. What I take exception to is the right wing trying to avoid any culpability and proffering that it is all Obama's fault.

    Do you get it?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
    • desertrider desertrider says:

      The reason Mr. Spear, to take exception with the obama administrations program is because it was done under the radar and for nefarious reasons, the left wing has an anti 2nd amendment agenda (I would hope you would be willing to admit that fact).
      The "right wing" has no culpability in fast and furious because it was a clandestine operation carried out by holder and obama. Why won't they release the records? Didn't obama claim he was going to have the most transparent administration ever? Hows that change workin' out?
      Wide receiver was intended to stem the supposed flow of guns into Mexico, fast and furious was intended to help further the gun control zealots cause in America.
      Your claiming I want to turn this into a political issue the left started that first, you are right the guns were perfectly legal, that does not matter, just look at what anotherpowergrab said "There is no reason for most of these guns, except for their purpose, to kill things.", they determine what guns we can have by the appearance or by calling them assault weapons and the media follows along lockstep
      And I am the "extremist"?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
      • Steve Spear Steve Spear says:

        Well as the headline says - we need crazy control.

        Excuse me while I go and buy a few M-4 automatic rifles in Arizona and about 10,000 rounds of ammunition.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
        • desertrider desertrider says:

          That's right I forgot that determination, if you have more than a box of ammo you are also considered a nut by the anti 2nd amendment extremists.
          And because of kneejerk laws you being a California resident you would not be able to purchase that M4 unless of course you planned on taking into Mexico.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
          • Steve_In_29 Steve_In_29 says:

            Yep. more then one gun and thousand rounds of ammo will get you labeled as having an arsenal if you happen to make the news for some (even non-gun related)reason.

            To put that in perspective they aren't just talking about some end-of-the-world guy with a house full of guns and ammo, a .22 pistol and a .22 rifle along with three bricks of .22 ammo fit the bill.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
        • Dan OBrien Dan OBrien says:

          Please tell me where in Arizona one can without a Federal BATF Permit and extensive background check can you purchase a Fully Auto M4?

          The civilian ownership... without Federal Permit ($750+ plus a extensive background check) has been illegal since 1934 Steve.

          The Feds if they are doing their jobs should be aware of every single Fully Automatic Weapon's owner and general location.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
        • Cora Heiser Cora Heiser says:

          Yesterday was Bill of Rights day. Why were the 10 Amendments added to the Constitution? The Founding Fathers, well the Anti-Federalists, wanted to protect the rights of the people from an inconsistent and oppressive rule. The Constitution was in danger of not being ratified without an expressive Bill of Rights, so the Federalists had to agree to a Bill of Rights, and on December 15, 1791, The Bill of Rights officially became a part of The Constitution.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
        • Steve_In_29 Steve_In_29 says:

          Steve, as a California resident NO reputable Arizona gun dealer will sell you ANY gun.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
          • Steve Spear Steve Spear says:

            Hi Steve,

            You sure about that? I believe I can't buy a handgun unless I purchase it in my State of domicile however a long gun can be bought and are bought every day.

            Again, I am not for gun control. The answer is not in that proposal is my thought.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
            • Steve_In_29 Steve_In_29 says:

              It is a felony for a resident of the state of California to purchase a non-C&R rifle/pistol/shotgun from any out of state source WITHOUT going through an FFL licesned to do business in the state of California.

              The proceedure is that whatever you are purchasing must be sent from the out of state FFL to a CA FFL that will then complete the tranaction according to CA laws. No matter what, magazines can still not exceed 10rd capacity and pistols MUST be listed on the DOJ Safety Roster.

              Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
            • Steve Spear Steve Spear says:

              I think we are splitting hairs here. My point was I can go to Arizona and buy a firearm. It will eventually end up In my hands even after all the FFL business.

              Then in 5 years when I decide to go ballistic the weapon I got 5 years earlier was perfectly legit.

              Again I can get one if I want to and all the rules that exist right now can't stop it.

              And in conclusion I do not support regulation.

              Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
            • Steve_In_29 Steve_In_29 says:

              The point was that you made it sound like you could somehow circumvent California's gun laws by heading to Arizona to make the purchase. Those are the kinds of implications that the antigunners use to convince the less-informed sheeple that more laws are what's needed.

              I agree that NO amount of gun laws will prevent a CRAZY from killing people.

              In fact the ONLY way to have lowered the death toll in this (and other) incidents would have been to allow more concealed (or even open) carry. If every teacher had a gun the killing would not have spread beyond a single classroom. If any were killed at all, as killers (like robbers/rapists/etc) always seek out the unprotected.

              Even at Ft Hood the killer knew he wouldn't be dealing with return fire because, except during live fire training, NO soldiers have live ammo in their weapons.

              Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
            • Steve Spear Steve Spear says:

              No easy answer and I am not about to even suggest that there is one.

              Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  5. Dan OBrien Dan OBrien says:

    And they let crazy people walk around everyday......

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
    • Steve Spear Steve Spear says:

      Well it was Reagan that started the reduction in services for the mentally ill. But none of the finger pointing does any good.

      Had there been gun control laws out the butt it would not stop a person that is so deranged to do what this guy did.

      I only ask that this not become political. It is a bad event that happened. the guns did not do it - the individual did. Plus the guns were totally legal.

      I only take issue with the likes of Desert Rider that want to turn a tragedy into a right versus left issue - it is not that way at all.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
      • LINDAG LINDAG says:

        We all need to recognize that the way we interract with one another should be different than the way we interract with the mentally ill. If they are on a rant and there is a weapon around in the middle of that rant..of that episode of losing control of themselves, then something bad will likely happen. Prevention is the answer, which includes medication and monitoring of those persons...and keeping their stress levels low. Getting them past this hormonal period in their twenties, which seems to subside as they enter their thirties then really slows into their forties, and then they just join the ranks of bizarre/strange old men/ladies, roaming the streets, but harmless. These late teens and twenty-somethings can be a dangerous time and we need to acknowledge this. You cannot ship these kids off to college and expect the problem to cure itself either...sometimes it does, but far too often lately, especially with very bright kids, it turns out bad. We need to provide resources for these families to deal with this issue and to better train our school administators and teachers to be more sensitive in managing these problems.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  6. Mike Hawkins Mike Hawkins says:

    Steve:

    I think in all fairness, I would “take issue” instead with Anotherpowergrab. It was he that prompted Desert Rider’s response.

    Did you not read the eight nasty lines demeaning our Nation, our Constitution and anyone with a conservative point of view?

    Seems obvious to me Anoyherpowergrab is the one who wishes to turn this tragedy into a “right versus left” issue. He and and his fellow anti-gun zealots are a distraction from any real solution.

    Excellent post LINDAG, thank you!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  7. Mike Hawkins Mike Hawkins says:

    Steve_In_29 is absolutely correct!

    – “Without the 2nd Amendment, the others are ALL UNENFORCEABLE.” –

    Think about it, the second amendment is the authority by which tyranny is denied and our Constitution is preserved.

    – “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” –

    The second amendment is the teeth of the very legislation that allows us to have this discussion.

    The Constitution gives us the power of self regulation. The right to bear arms assures that the power stays in our hands. Squander that right and we destroy everything America stands for and all the lives that were sacrificed for freedom will have been in vain.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  8. LINDAG LINDAG says:

    I have been reading the posts and we can all see what a problem this is...how to protect everybody's rights in these situations. If we arm teacher(s) then we need to train them to shoot first, ask questions later, when confronted with an armed threat. Especially for women, who may not have any experience with weapons or life-or-death threats, this takes a serious change in mindset to get to that place. You cannot just stick a gun in the hand of the school teachers/administrators and expect them to act aggresively, which is what this situation would have required. I really hate guns but so long as we have criminals with guns, we are going to have to better protect our citizens against the criminal users. So, I am leaning on the side of arming our teachers...in this case, it probably would have prevented this from happening as the school would not have been an easy target/prey for this guy. I don't agree with security guard at schools because it would provide just another opportunity for guy like this one to try to figure out how to outsmart the security guard, who as one person, cannot be all over the grounds of a school at one time. What a mess.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  9. Steve_In_29 Steve_In_29 says:

    For the record, I don't advocate simply giving an untrained teacher a weapon. There would obviously need to be some serious training needed to prepare them mentally to act and provide them the skills to do so.

    Also I am sure not every teacher would be inclined to participate (especially in Blue States) but even so there would still be someone "right there" to deal with a potential threat WAY sooner then responding law enforcement could ever hope to.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  10. Steve Spear Steve Spear says:

    Just for the sake of what I do not know.

    I would suggest that every movie theater have at least the popcorn vendor and maybe two or three ushers armed - with the proper training of course.

    All shops owners in malls need to be armed with semi-automatic weapons with at least 30 round magazines - with the proper training of course.

    All churches, mosques, synagogues and all places of worship need to have heavily armed ministers of the respective faiths or at least the deacons and such - with the proper training of course.

    Also all of this must only be allowed in "Red" States because we know that mothers and fathers in "Blue" states just do not have the care to protect their children as those in "Red" states.

    The list of atrocities in different places in America is long and illustrious.

    Again - no answers but as the article said "... we need crazy control". And this all goes back to what I was saying in the first place there is no room in this discussion for "Red" and "Blue.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
    • Steve_In_29 Steve_In_29 says:

      Blue state = Dial 911 from hiding as the police will protect us which is why we passed all those gun control laws.

      Red state = Draw from concealed (or open in some) carry and return fire, problem solved.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  11. LINDAG LINDAG says:

    In the process of discussing problems and looking for resolution, ideas are tossed around and many are tossed aside...so let's not discount one another's comments so easily. I hate guns. In a moment of anger, a relative of mine ws shot and killed by her husband. That was about 50 years ago. We are never going to eliminate guns in this country. It just is not going to happen unless there is a major event to force gun forfeiture. There is an estimate that 1% of our population have serious untreated mental illness. There is an element of evil among us. These people have access to guns. We need to stop kidding around and putting our heads in the sand about this issue of protection from the bad guys with guns and come up with some plans and solutions. It's only funny until somebody gets killed.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
    • Steve_In_29 Steve_In_29 says:

      Sorry for your loss but the gun wasn't the problem. Absent a gun he would have simple used a knife or anything else that was handy and don't forget the old standby of simply beating someone to death.

      Just like a knife or hammer (which have both killed quite a few people) the gun is simply a tool that has no will of its own.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  12. Steve_In_29 Steve_In_29 says:

    One thing I noticed earlier today is the lack of school massacres in inner city schools. They all seem to take place in whitebread suburbia where people are willing to depend on 911 for protection and much less likely to be carrying.

    Imagine how long a gunman would last in a Detroit school where they already have a problem with kids bringing guns to school (admittedly they kill each other individually but there are no outsider massacres).

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  13. Mike Hawkins Mike Hawkins says:

    Just another one of those unsolicited emails I get but I found it timely if not somewhat interesting. Have you seen this one?

    Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.

    Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun. Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as 'a clear mandate to do so'.

    He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals. Vermont’s constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent.."

    Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise."

    Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says.

    Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state .... it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

    " America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

    This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns.
    Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Sounds reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  14. LINDAG LINDAG says:

    Very little about this subject makes me laugh...but (I'm from Michigan btw)...the idea of some kid walking into an inner city Detroit school with a gun expecting to do damage to them, almost made me laugh (actually picturing it in my mind did make me laugh)... If you read my prior posts, I am leaning to the side of arming school teachers/administrators, in spite of my hate for guns. These are lunatic attacks, but I'm thinking now...although these guys are lunatics they are not so crazy that they pick on an inner city school...so how crazy are they really...conniving yes, evil yes. See this is what I mean about tossing ideas around and making people think...and btw, yes, he would have just beat her to death I'm sure....the gun was symbolic in this instance, as he resented my father and he stole the gun from my father's gun collection...how do you think my father felt that his sister was killed with his gun? He took his gun collection out in the field and destroyed all of them and buried the pieces.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
    • Steve_In_29 Steve_In_29 says:

      While I understand your father's pain, he took the knee jerk reaction of blaming the tool for the tool-users actions.

      There is too much of this going on in America today, where people fall all over themselves to pin the blame on anything but the person that did the crime.

      I am not blaming you and have noted your positive remarks, this is just a comment on society in general.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
  15. It's all about violence in America and the money it generates: it's about the horrible violence in youth gaming; it's about a war economy, it's about modern day perpetual warfare; it's about an nausium violence on TV, it's not just about every Tom, Dick and Jose owning military assault wepons.

    It's also about mental illness, and a drug culture at all levels permanatinhg society, and the pharms that sell pitch stuff like panty hose and popcorn on TV.

    It's all about us as a whole.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
UA-9539515-1 e0a5d0bb00574423a5afb96d6b854248