Posted on 01/14/2011 6:41:42 AM PST by Brian_Baldwin
I kept getting phones calls the last couple of days from “Colstrip MT” (Montana) – I have the modern technological marvel of seeing the phone number or location of the call appear on my television informing me of the incoming demand for attention.
I was sort of busy planning and making phone calls around the “Big Game” this Sunday (New England Patriots verse the New York Jets), and being right next to the phone at the time, after such repeated calls from “Colstrip MT” of which were left unanswered expecting voicemail from the pesky caller which was never made, I just couldn’t resist anymore and picked up the receiver.
It turned out to be a survey call in which the first question was “Do you support the NRA?” – of which I asked if this survey was being made on behalf of the NRA and was told it was not.
This question was put into context of inquiries regarding whether I had followed the news events regarding the Arizona murders and such, and a lot of survey questions about gun control which you were expected to respond with “approve”, or “disapprove”, “support” or “do not support”, “strongly” or “somewhat”, “yes” or “no”, or multiple choice questions.
An example of the line of questioning was, “Would you support legislation that would make it a crime for anyone bearing a firearm from being within 1,000 feet of a Senator or Congress person and other such public officials?” – of course my response would be, and is, “no”, but I really hate such surveys because they sincerely deserve more than such a simple response.
The answers are never as simple in the context of the very minimalism of such obtuse questions as “which of the following choices do you think was the cause of the tragic events in Arizona?” (i.e. choose lax gun laws, political rhetoric, mental illness, or lack of police services), with the bulk of all of questions the focus of stricter gun control especially when you are limited to simply responding “yes” or “no”, “approve” or “disapprove”.
A little while into the survey gave me the impression that whoever paid for this survey was really hoping to collect data that implies America now wants strict gun controls in wake of the events in Arizona. I could be wrong, but that was a very probable agenda.
But even in regards to the one “multiple choice” question, being limited in the response does not afford a true response at all. I certainly understand that “time is money”, that there is really no measure for complicated responses, which is why such surveys are sort of useless. If using a canned and brief response (“yes” or “no”) or if allowing a rambling narrative, either case is pretty much non-productive.
Take the one question in which you were at least given some multiple choice responses which in themselves do not in any way afford a proper response at all - the so-called “cause” question.
I am no expert in much of anything, though I did do a university level student exercise into mental illness research that included direct contact with institutionalized mental patients – this was decades ago and the conclusions I made at that time were no doubt founded upon very simplistic analysis and shaky grounds in the least. The “deductions” surmised in brief were that:
* much of human brain activity involves chemicals
* that chemicals can effect, and are integral to much brain activity, and human reaction to such chemical stimuli can vary from between individuals from typical, to unique, to the bizarre, and exposure comes both naturally from chemistry within the human organism or naturally introduced to the human body through food, as well as chemical build up from unattended exposure from the environment or purposeful exposure such as in drug usage
* that exposure either unattended or purposeful can have long term consequences, not only to the individual but in the case of powerful drugs for example, may even impact and be unknowingly or ignorantly passed onto next generations, and there was some evidence of parental usage of such drug use among mental patients who were the children of such parents
* that the 20th Century has seen a notable increase in the usage of dangerous drugs, in particular hallucinogenic drugs (LSD for example), and I included marijuana into the commentary of dangerous drugs, psychotropic drugs and others which theoretical study alludes that gene composites and other birth development can be negatively impact by parental usage of such drugs which can effect extremely complex organisms of the human body into the next generation of those propagated from such individuals in obscure but even potentially dangerous result
* that many if not all mental patients themselves are reacting to some sort of chemicals that are hitting their brain and that they are not strong enough to manage the effect of these chemicals to a degree of maintaining normalcy within society, and to add to this downward cycle these same mental patients are often themselves involved in drug use which then only further adds to a dangerous cocktail of stimuli hitting the brain and responses throughout the body and to thought patterns of consciousness and in effect some are “dreaming while awake” – that while mental illness has been with our human circle since the start of time, that perhaps in large part there has always been a chemical component to the “disease” and which explains why observance of mental illness within a person so strongly resembles someone on drugs and in particular psychotropic or hallucinogenic drugs
* that when a combination of factors occur, such as something that would fire adrenaline or “fear, flight, fight” responses which are naturally built in and normal chemical stimuli of all human beings who for the most part manage such stimuli properly (e.g. someone is abusing another causing such stimuli within another), for those who are already chemically imbalanced this can have bizarre and even socially dangerous results as such individuals simply cannot manage response to the stimuli
At that time I was not making any excuse for the behavior, nor certainly any violent behavior, of individuals who are obvious cases of mental illness, and some of these “conclusions” may be totally off mark - but even to this day I am somewhat bias in favor of some of these assumptions having closely observed this as a student decades ago.
So yesterday, I heard on a radio broadcast, a recording (voice only) of the so-called “ex-girl friend” of the mental case who opened fire upon the Congresswoman and crowd at the Arizona tragedy, that this teenage boy, who, without wanting to build any defense on his behalf and of which if life in prison or the death penalty is applied I would not have a problem with, is without question in my opinion a mental case and has all of the typical physical and mental signs of chemically effected mental illness, that according to her this boy was also taking “mushrooms”.
Of course, this must mean he, in addition to having mental illness, was also adding to his instability by taking the drug psilocybine which can be found in, and produced from a large number of fungi species, in certain mushroom family and is a type of drug normally thought of as hallucinogenic that effects a person’s perception or any sense of time, that in fact lasts for many hours or even days in some cases, and can effect a person who appears (and is) totally awake but is in fact “dreaming on their feet”, can definitely and does cause hallucinations, is in my opinion extremely dangerous and has no medical benefit even though it is claimed to by some in the medical practice who are, again in my opinion, simply idiots and much worse so than the same idiots who say smoking in the chemicals of a marijuana cigarette has legitimate and mainstream medical use, and that in large part we can surmise a cause of this violent act simply stated as:
* you combine a mentally ill person with “shrooms” (mushrooms) and “pot”, and you are going to have big trouble in Dodge City …
So that is my opinion. Of course, among the “multiple choice” to the survey, I chose “mental illness” as the cause, but this simplistic “answer” in no way is the “cause”. Foundational, yes – but you have all these things surrounding the tragedy (is that word for it?), poor management within society of mental illness, that “tracking guns” isn’t really the issue here as much as perhaps “tracking signs of serious mental illness and drug abuse combined with projections of violence” (what a mouthful, but the world isn’t a simple place), tracking police records that perhaps need follow-up among such individuals, that society today seems to have to tolerate anything and everything among deviants, criminals, welfare cases, and such while at the same time the very defense mechanisms of the upstanding members of society are being taken away from them to leave them and their families defenseless, the police are blamed and deviants made into heroes, but when a crime so effects society is perpetrated against an elite or is so horrific that is screams headline news that too many simply what to use the moment to spin lies for extremist, and typically leftist, political agendas, who want to blame and neutralize the upstanding members of society because often these same extremists are themselves somewhat mental, deviants, and want to see the rest of us put into concentration camps either metaphorically or literally.
What is even more bizarre about these extremists, is while day to day the crimes and social upheaval that the rest of us must live among and which is in large part to be laid to blame at the feet of these same extremists and their agendas, plays havoc with our lives and our families, while these same extremists are very quick to blame police and make heroes of deviants for the “run of the mill” murders and mayhem perpetrated upon upstanding society, if by chance you get the screaming headline of tragedy they use the moment to in fact attack all of us, not just the police, to blame and neutralize and especially to make defenseless all of us – but be not surprised that the deviant who did the act, while not at first, is later is made a hero in so many ways by these same extremists after they “disarm” us.
Take the question regarding whether I would support a law that would make it a crime to be within 1,000 feet of Senator, Congressperson, President, or other such “public official” while “packing heat”.
That was not exactly the question, but basically that was the question.
And of course my only response, given that I can only “yes” or “no”, “support” or “do not support”, “strongly, somewhat support or do not support” – my only response would be “no, I do not support such legislation”. Which of course isn’t the adequate response at all, and certainly doesn’t encapsulate a public opinion either because so many other questions were not even asked.
So, pretend the measure is 1,000 feet. So would that mean that if someone was within one thousand and one feet and “packing heat”, that then this would be ok? It would be legal, right?
Before any such “public official” who actually goes “public”, or actually walks into the public, you have this “zone” – would that entail that someone draw a red circle around this person exactly 1000 feet, preferably a “mobile red circle” that moves as this “public official” moves around in public? And what exactly is a “public official”? The name implies “being in the public” perhaps, so when the person is not in the public is this person thereby no longer a “public official” but a “non-public official” or perhaps a “sheltered official”, or ???
How far does a bullet project when engaged by a mechanical device?
Less or more than 1,000 feet?
I do not know, so I took a quickie search on the internet. I am not sure if this is accurate, but I found information stating that a 22 caliber bullet if shot straight up into the air can travel 1 and ¼ miles. That a 270 grain can travel 3 miles at sea level, a 50 caliber can go farther and such, that a 9mm bullet can go 7,500 feet which I think is the type of gun used by the Arizona mental case.
So if this is accurate, this is farther than 1000 feet. So even under the letter of such a law, the nut case if following the law would have been legit to be within 1000 and 1 feet, and then kill a lot of people in the crowd right in front and also murder the public official 1000 feet away. Yes, being closer makes the horrific deed easier no doubt, but I am wondering if a mental case would even bother to follow such a law?
I mean the guy is out to kill, and it is already against the law to murder a public official. But being a mental case, maybe the guy would, for whatever confused reason, actually follow the “within 1000 feet law”, and come within 1000 and 1 feet – upon which being told that he is now legal, may be so confused as to believe this is the same thing as saying he is now legal and legit to open fire upon the public official. I mean if you are mental, and the law says you cannot be within 1000 feet of a public official and be “packing heat”, then that might mean to a mental case that you can be within 1001 feet of a public official and “packing heat” and interpret the law to also thereby mean it is legal and perhaps even expected to do a Dodge City since you are following the letter of the law about the 1000.
Yes, a confusing interpretation, but if you are mentally disturbed, you are also confused enough to be confused.
Now add “shrooms” into the mix (mushrooms).
You know, before I got that phone call yesterday, I was driving in my car. There was someone behind me, weaving purposely on a “public” street within the neighborhood, and in a “school zone”. This cretin was purposely making wide weaving to left and right of his car. From the car was the “boom, boom” of the rap music, and of course at the red light anyone within 1000 feet could hear the ugly, violent “lyrics” of the rap music about “f” this, “f”, “F!”, and about “deen’ I shot the f(-ing) faggot in the face” part of the “song” and such.
I really feel for our local police officers. Weaving the car is illegal. But to me, this boom boom boom and this F, F, F, and this celebration of murder was even worse and is perfectly legal. And I was sort of wondering, when it just became “ok” for such “hate crimes” to allow this sort of loud projection and “vitriol” to be perpetrated upon all the rest of us in the “public streets”?
When did this become “ok”?
Should we have a law that it is illegal to play rap music within 1000 feet of a public citizen on the public streets?
In San Francisco, you now have HIV positive “homeless”, who are also aggressive pan handlers, who threaten or try to intimidate money from upstanding citizens by threatening to “throw AIDS blood on you if you don’t give me a dollar”.
What about a law that it is legal to “pack AIDS blood” within 1000 feet of a “public official”?
We are now starting to see openly gay (assumingly) licensed drivers (assumingly – there are also a lot of illegal aliens from Mexico who are also openly gay and driving) in the City and County of San Francisco, driving around with those “DVD” screens in the back seat of the car mounted to the back side of a front seat headrest or mounted to the inside roof of the vehicle and draped open for “entertainment viewing”, from which cars and autos and vehicles driving behind them can see the “video” or DVD being played (especially at night), and what is being played is homo-sex acts to the preview of drivers and their families who might be in a car behind or adjacent.
How nice.
So what does this sort of “entertainment” have anything to do with the violent and tragic events of recent headlines? Well, only in the context again of how now we, in the “public” (but not “public officials”) have to, for some reason, tolerate EVERYTHING from freaks and pests and worse, and are told that child molesters will live right next door, and I get up in the morning in our neighborhood and there are four very strange looking and perhaps even dangerous individuals pushing shopping carts going from and rummaging into one residential garbage bin after another (oh, I suppose they want the aluminum cans right? nevertheless thank God I shred or burn all private papers), and at the same moment I see little children having to leave their home to walk to school and these total strangers are there and can “grab them”, and packs of illegal aliens of whom their names and backgrounds are total strangers are wandering around school zones, and on and on and on and the answer is always to take away something from us, and give it to them, and especially to make us ever more vulnerable to them.
We will always have the poor.
We will always have those with mental illness.
There isn’t an answer for everything.
Those who want to rule, may try to take it by force. Or if they have to be chosen by others, they will promise you all free bread. They can promise anything, but it won’t be bread, and it won’t be free.
And you will have a very difficult time taking anything back once they snatch it from you.
And be very careful out there. There are a lot of nuts. And they are on shrooms. And smoking pot.
Did anyone ask the parents of the shooter, if they were ever heavy into LSD during the 1960s?
You know, there’s a study that might be made. Research the parents of all these deviants to find out how many were into the drug culture of the 1960s. Chemicals are interesting things. They enter into the human body, and they never really “go away”. And maybe they even are part of what becomes the next human being.
Go Patriots.
Well, Mr. Baldwin, you certainly put a lot of thought and time into that post.
Well presented and may you have a good 2011.
Politicians will need warning sirens when they move around. That way people can evacuate the gun free zones that move with the politician. It will also be helpful for assassins to know there will be no countterfire from armed citizens when they make their attack.
Oh, and to answer your two questions - No and Yes.
I agree, the Patriots beat the Jets in a blowout.
Several thoughts come to mind.
1. If the 1000 ft law is going to protect Congressmen/women then why shouldn’t the benefits also extend to the average citizen (I support the 2nd Amendment fully, BTW)
2. If we are worried about protecting the most vulnerable to shootings start by asking the following: How many Congress members shot and killed in the last month, year, decade, century. Now how many taxpayers shot in the last month, year, decade, century.
Obviously many MANY more taxpayers at risk so the extra security should be extended to the TAXPAYERS...NOT the already well-protected Congress members.
There are a great many rifles capable of consistently hitting a human target at 1,001 feet.
Not too many people strung out on drugs are capable of making the shot, though.
Personally, I don’t participate in surveys because I don’t know who I’m talking to. But I applaud your courage in engaging the caller. And yes, Jesus said the poor would always be among us.
If they really need a law; it should be this...no congressman is allowed to come within one thousand feet of anyone having a gun; in the event a congressman should break this law; they will be arrested!
Very Good Post
Now watch the polling reports over the next couple of days and see if you can find the one that called you.
All public officials should have to wear the flashing light on their head.
They can behave quite normal and perform at top level otherwise ~ all that's changed is their frame of reference.
The Pima shooter was stopped by apparently the Fish and Game folks that morning ~ for speeding ~ not for weaving back and forth. He may well have been out picking 'shrooms, or "weeds". Yes, Pima County Arizona is the world capital of natural drugs ~ of the worst kind. This is Carlos Castenada country!
So, let's say this guy does his 'shrooms, and his frame of reference changes such that he can't drive his car to the gathering because he can't find his keys ~not that he can't drive but he now sees his keys as being a piece of pavement or something.
He calls a cab and is taken to the event and he shoots up all and sundry.
Despite the fact a couple of witnesses said "he was firing randomly" he managed to kill 6 and wound 13 with just 20 rounds.
That's not random. It's well within the range of what's been demonstrated to be possible under the influence of hallucinogenics.
I will defer to greater knowledge. However, I have some experience shooting, and I know consistently hitting a target at 350 yards is not easy, even when you aren’t hopped up on something.
The type of person who consistently uses drugs is a good deal less likely, IMO, to have the self-discipline to develop the necessary skill.
Oh, yeah, he was a gamer. He had 20 hours per day practicing ~ years of that.
I think the congress critters are letting their true beliefs slip through.
they are much more valuble than the people they serve.
their constituants are all psychotic killers.
they don’t like to be questioned about heir actions.
has nothing to do with guns or lack thereof.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.