« August 2012 »
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
and now, Benton?
Economy, what's left of
General politics
general rant/rave
Kennewick Illegal
Legal actions
Richland illegal
Seattle illegal
WA Illegal
WA media anti 2A bias
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
Dave's 2A Blog
Thursday, 2 August 2012
secret anti gun agenda
Topic: Constitutional


"reportedly tried to discuss the man with members of a campus behavioral and security committee about a month before the attack but the group never convened."

but Corporations think they are God and no one tells them what to do, especially if it might imply they have failed in any way. Typical for arrogance at Universities, especially State Colleges who think they are Government. Been there, seen that, challenged that. These people that run, especially State connected institutions, think they have power of Government over students who are CITIZENS and PAYING them to run their skool. They get extremely bent out of shape when you tell them where the sun rises and sets. Try it some time.

And along comes an EXPERT and tells them they are 'wrong' - they the gilded god-like institution of higher society can not be wrong, it is always someone elses fault. No one dare challenge or criticise them. They could not possibly have made such a mistake that would tarnish their god like image.

OK , enough rant from experience as to the corruption in the Ed system , hows any of this relevant -about what the college did or didnt do, or the psych did or didnt do?

IT ISNT. It's smoke screen. Neither party had anything to do with the incidence.

THERES AN AGENDA behind it, recall from a couple months ago what it is?

Psych testing of college students to eventually deny them their Right to Bear Arms.

Which points to this being a setup.

And heres a TROLL pushing that agenda:


Pretending to be pro gun. Beware of these supposed gun advocates websites, they are a favorite target for anti gun rights activists to pose and pro gun, but to dilute the topic and muddy the waters.

 My response to the anti gun Troll on USAcarry:


INTENTIONAL slippery slope. Rayb.

OP (original poster) reads like an anti gun activist. Anti gun, and anti Constitutional groups like MAIG have members who specialize in subverting topics like this on websites. They slip in and pretend to be on-board with gun rights, then subtly advocate undermining them. Thats what OP is up to.

This post is red-herring, an attempt to evade the topic.

First, the post starts with "in light of some connection between shooter and college" which is a lie. There IS NO CONNECTION, the shooting did not happen at the College. It was a matter of an ordinary Citizen, a movie theater Patron, bringing more than popcorn money. The college has no connection, and if you dont believe that statement, try to accuse them of it and watch the dance they attempt to do to evade any connection.

Analysis of these evasive and deceitful statements, in order:

""The recent mass murders might be averted if........"

[[lying right off, this was not a "mass murder" This is framed the same way as the lie that a small explosion (maybe a small pipe bom b was a "WMD".
ITs an attempt to manufacture hysteria and blow the event up into some giant proportion that it isnt. The previous weekend to this, 8 people were shot to death and 40 injured in Chicago, is THAT mass murder?]]

    "Since at least the last three out of four mass murders"

[[thats a play on a cognitive error of "familiarity breeds acceptance" or "availability cascade" OP is playing that the Reader accepts him/her as credible and will fall for that lie being repeated]]

" were committed by college students, "

[[False and un founded statements. Holmes was not at the theater in the capacity of a "college student"- this is an attempt to project blame back on the College to try to hold them responsible, and is a slick underhanded attempt to invoke the political idea that was floated lately about denying NICS checks to anyone at a college who failed a psych exam. "un founded" statements means OP didnt prove this statement, just threw it blindly out there, WHAT shootings? Prove a connection. No connection was proven or given and thats a sign of a false argument]]


[[All sorts of false positions are floated on "maybe" and "can" or "might be" - con artists selling merchandise and phoney pills on TV always use "can do" as in "this pill CAN help your condition." Snake oil, in other words. "Maybe" indicates no proof, else the statement would be "this has or will happen based on this evidence. 'May be' is a sign of a deceptive argument.]]

 "it might"

[[repeating the pattern from above, repeat it to attempt to get people to accept the argument is true, without any evidence]]

" be prudent to require new students to have a psychological evaluation alongside of their physical for admission?"

[[But not existing Students? Holmes wasnt a new student, he was a GRAD STUDENT. So this is a false argument. This will also get colleges sued out of existance when they deny admission based on a phoney evaluation. What level of supposed mental deficiency is the bar to deny admission? More exactly, WHO will determine that, especially in light of the false argument being replayed that the exam is about "college entry" when its not, its an under cover sneak attack on gun rights and is intended to deny a NICs check, which BTW, already exists. so whats the point of this phoney exam procedure?]]

"Since the onset of mental illness typically occurs between the ages of 17 - 26"

[[ANOTHER fraudulent premise, presented with no proof. Sociopathy/psychopathy are diagnosed with respect to being 15 years of age, and I can cite a source for that claim, OP can not prove anything, just offer opinion (http://compuball.com/Inquisition/sociopathappend.htm not as any particular source from authority but its a LOT more than OP provides) . OP is inventing a connection with some non existant group of mental illnesses, attempting to project them on others he doesnt know, pretending to be an expert when he isnt (what background in psych does OP have? NONE) and is making a shallow argument of taking Holmes age group and inventing some connection with a general set of mental illnesses, IOW, hes LYING]]

"an early diagnosis may prevent"

[[theres that deceitful "may" thing again, notice the pattern of OP repeating ideas and phrases. thats a slick psychological game to program the reader to accept his baseless claims. May also means "may not"]]

" the student from living with an untreated mental illness"

[[thats the ONLY credible thing OP has written, but its shallow opinion, its clear op has no psych credentials and any fool can post an opinion]]

" and certainly will flag the student through NICS preventing them from purchasing firearms."

[[THAT is a bald faced lie. Here, from an AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE is the definition of "mental illness" in CONTEXT of a NICS check, not a fabricated context as OP presents - ( http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=qa&iid=428 ) and a generic, inaccurate "test at a college" DOES NOT QUALIFY.]]

"    Also since most colleges do have an on campus clinic or nurses station, students diagnosed with early onset mental health issues could be monitored for medication compliance."

[[More false over-generalizations with another use of "might". What colleges do or do not have is red-herring (an evasive attempt to go off topic), the topic is RKBA.]]

    Your thoughts?
[["shall not be infringed" requires no thought. Evasion, deceit and traitorous acts against the Constitution DO take thought..]]

PS CC permits are un Constitutional too. Is there some part of the command "shall not be infringed" that is unclear?




And more on the NICS check:


Ps the false flag argument is that some phoney college evaluation test can be the basis for denying a NICS check, and it is a bald faced LIE.

THIS is the basis in LAW, not the opinion of anti gun activists:


Notice the question revolves around - not the mental condition of the person, but WHO HAS CARE, CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THEM.

The law establishes that the person is not able to manage his own affairs:

" Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs."

which is not about HIM, its about who has CUSTODY of him, therefore LEGAL LIABILITY for him.


Posted by Dave at 9:54 AM PDT
Updated: Thursday, 2 August 2012 10:35 AM PDT

View Latest Entries