By Testing the Gun Lobby, Obama and Biden are Launching a Broader War on the Other Party

It's been Washington's worst kept secret: Just what new gun regulations will Barack Obama and Joe Biden recommend in the wake of the Sandy Hill Elementary mass shooting?

  • Share
  • Read Later
image: Time Magazine Cover, Jan. 28, 2012
Photographs by Nigel Parry—CPi for TIME. Michael Bloomberg: Jan. 11 in New York City; Gabrielle Giffords: Jan. 13 in her home in Tucson, Ariz.; Joe Biden: Jan. 15 in the White House.

It’s been Washington’s worst kept secret: Just what new gun regulations will Barack Obama and Joe Biden recommend in the wake of the Sandy Hill Elementary mass shooting?

From the beginning, the White House telegraphed its plans in public statements and private conversations with stakeholders. Obama even listed the biggest measures recently, claiming there was a “growing consensus” around a new assault weapons ban, expanding background checks and banning the sale of high-magazine clips. In the weeks that followed, Biden dropped even more hints, talking about freeing up federal agencies to conduct more gun research, while aides made clear that a new federal gun trafficking statute was in the cards.

(Archive Gallery: TIME’s Gun Covers, 1968-2013)

The Biden process, with dozens of meeting over several weeks, has been enormously productive, just not in the way that it has been described in most news reports. That’s because it has been largely focused on building a broad coalition of advocates from diverse segments of American society to press for the measures once they are announced. Biden met with cops, gun control groups, victims groups, clergy, mayors, educators, and other law enforcement and medical professionals. Anything that passes Congress in the coming months or years restricting gun access will depend heavily on the public pressure that these groups can bring to bear.

For the National Rifle Association, which opposes most if not all of the Biden proposals, this new coalition, and the outside money pouring in to fund it, is a primary concern. The group can be confident that in the short-term the most controversial proposals have little chance of passing Congress, where House Republicans cannot even agree on their own leader’s legislation, much less bills coming from the White House. But if the public pressure continues, there is a real threat of that bulwark breaking down. “They for the first time have money and coordination that they did not have before,” NRA President David Keene tells TIME in this week’s cover story, which will be published to Swampland Wednesday afternoon, and arrive on newsstands Friday. “They see this as their best shot, and it is a shot that they are taking, and they are coming right at us.”

That story will focus on the contours of the coalition that is being built to reset the gun debate. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire who has long advocated of new gun restrictions, has promised substantial resources to stand behind members of Congress who take difficult votes. “The NRA is only powerful if you and I let them be powerful,” he tells TIME for the story. Former Rep. Gabby Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly have also launched an effort to raise money to defend members of Congress who may earn the ire of gun-owner groups like the NRA. ““If a representative wants to vote their conscience, we are not going to allow you to bully,” says Steve Mostyn, a Houston trial lawyer who has already given $1 million to the effort with his wife. “We will counter.”

(2012 Cover Story: ‘How Guns Won’, by Joe Klein)

For the White House, the announcement of President Obama’s gun control priorities marks the beginning of a much bigger effort that many inside the White House hope can be a model for putting outside pressure on Congress to enact the President’s legislative priorities. “It falls into the larger context of the Republicans fighting rear guard battles on immigration, and the role of government and on this,” said one administration official about the coming gunfight. “That’s going to be hard to sustain over time.”

That strategic insight is the most revealing, and potentially most consequential part, of the Biden recommendations that will be announced Wednesday by the President Obama.

The full cover story will be posted to TIME.com later Wednesday, available for download to tablets on Thursday evening and on newsstands Friday.

226 comments
Spiderpug
Spiderpug

Ok... all these people are complaining about the banning of assault weapons. I will dumb things down for all you gun loving maniacs. Assault weapons e.g. Ak-47, M16 etc - Designed to kill people. Normal guns e.g. mossberg pump action shotgun, most centrefires - Designed to kill and hunt animals. What is the point of having an assault weapon? It was designed to kill people, you don't go rabbit hunting with an assault rifle which is fully automatic, so why do you need it. Jesus! There are some real drongos in America.

charlescutta
charlescutta

Am I surrounded by brainwashed, crazed, uneducated, drugged up sheep? Gun grabbers are obviously creating the "strategy of tension" the same way GW did to lead us on the search for WMDs and people in caves. This is what the mil refers to as PSY OP. Go google "SSRI Violence lawsuits" and you'll see that this is all politics, guns are only a tool, the true danger is SSRI drugs. Are troops and nation are suicidal and manic because of these chemicals. More people die from medical mistakes and pharmaceutical drugs than all violent trauma including guns, the medical industry has bamboozled people for a long long time. Medical big business, like the energy and defense lobbies, have Washington by the throat. A little history on the Freedom to bear arms. I ask myself over and over; why would you take the liberties from all for the acts of a minority? Politics...

via Michael Scheuer "In creating the 2nd Amendment, the Founders — through James Madison‘s pen — took their cue from the British Bill of Rights (1689) which recognized that an unarmed populace could not protect its rights, liberty, and economic welfare against a king backed by a standing army, and so it allowed for an armed populace. The Founders also recalled that when London cracked down on New England’s resistance to the Crown, one of British General Thomas Gates’ first moves was to try to seize the munitions and ordnance the colonists had stockpiled around Boston. One reason for the British Army’s ill-fated expedition to Lexington and Concord in April, 1775, for example, was to capture the colonists’ stores of cannon, muskets, and munitions.

Even before Jefferson’s declaration, therefore, what in today’s parlance is called “gun control” was seen by Americans for what it was and is, a policy instituted by an oppressive government that fears its population and therefore aims at ensuring that citizens cannot arm to resist its will. The 2nd Amendment is meant, in part, to make sure that if the federal government created by the Constitution turns oppressive, Americans will have arms with which to defend their liberties and welfare.

And this right is much more important today than it was when the 2nd Amendment was drafted because the federal government has over time deliberately and probably unconstitutionally eradicated the 2nd Amendment’s other anti-oppression provision, the one that made sure the several state governments had well-regulated — that is, well-trained — militias at their command. The state militias were of course meant to assist the U.S. government’s standing army in case of foreign attack or domestic insurrection, but they also were meant to defend the states and their populations if the federal government used its standing army to willfully violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, or acted in a manner harmful to the peoples’ security, economic welfare, and/or their society’s social cohesion."

ADDITIONALLY THE ROOT OF THE MATTER IS THAT PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS (SSRIs) ARE THE CAUSE OF THIS MANIA, NOT GUNS!

Psychiatric Drugs, Not A Lack Of Gun Control, Are The Common Denominator In Murderous Violence 

Lawrence Hunter, Contributor Forbes (only found in web cache as original has been deleted from forbes site)
1/14/2013 @ 8:00AM

In 2000, New York legislators recognized the ubiquitous and unambiguous connection between violence, especially gun violence and mass murder, and the widespread prescribed use of psychiatric drugs. Senate Bill 7035 was introduced in the New York State Senate that year requiring police agencies to report to the Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) on certain crimes and suicides committed by a person who is using psychiatric drugs, including assault, homicide, sex offenses, robbery offenses, firearms and other dangerous weapons offenses, kidnapping and arson. The preamble to the bill read, in part:

There is a large body of scientific research establishing a connection between violence and suicide and the use of psychotropic drugs in some cases. This research, which has been published in peer reviewed publications such as the American Journal of Psychiatry, The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and The Journal of Forensic Science, has shown, among other things, that: certain drugs can induce mania (a psychosis which can produce bizarre, grandiose and highly elaborated destructive plans, including mass murder);. . .and certain drugs can produce an acute psychotic reaction in an individual not previously psychotic.

The bill died in committee. Since that time, there have been at least 12 additional high-profile mass murders linked to the use of psychiatric drugs, about one a year. And, in virtually every mass school shooting during the past 15 years, the shooter has been on or in withdrawal from psychiatric drugs. Here is a partial list of 24 such horrific events that occurred since 1998, not including the Virginia Tech shootings and the recent Sandy Hook shootings where the authorities continue to suppress information about whether and to what extent the shooters were on or in withdrawal from a psychiatric drug.

These examples are not unique. According to the Citizens Commission On Human Rights International (CCHR), between 2004 and 2011, there were 12,755 reports to the U.S. FDA’s MedWatch system of psychiatric drugs causing violent side effects including: 1,231 cases of homicidal ideation/homicide, 2,795 cases of mania and 7,250 cases of aggression. Since the FDA admits that only one to ten percent of all side effects are ever reported to it, the actual occurrence of violent side effects from psychiatric drugs is certainly nine or ten times higher than the official data suggest.

Yet, federal and state governments continue to ignore the connection between psychiatric drugs and murderous violence, preferring instead to exploit these tragedies in an oppressive and unconstitutional power grab to snatch guns away from innocent, law-abiding people who are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution the right to own and bear arms to deter government tyranny and to use firearms in self defense against any miscreant who would do them harm. Therefore, it is pharmaceutical makers, not law-abiding gun owners or gun manufacturers, who should be held to account for the series of “lone-wolf,” mass shootings that have occurred since the widespread use of psychiatric drugs began.

Although it is doubtful any single variable can explain what causes someone to commit such unspeakable acts as we saw recently at Sandy Hook, one common denominator surfaces time and time again, in hundreds and hundreds of cases where a “lone wolf” commits violence, murder and mayhem for apparently no reason: Prescribed psychiatric drugs, which are well documented to induce mania, psychosis, violence, suicide and murder, including mass murder for no apparent reason by otherwise non-psychotic people.....

The gun snatchers such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg all shamefully exploit the bloody murder of children as a pretext to nullify the Second Amendment and short arm the American public with their so-called “assault-weapons” ban and ammunition/clip restrictions. The fact is, the kinds of guns used by mass shooters are far less relevant than the kinds of drugs they were prescribed.

shepherdwong
shepherdwong

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

-- Mitch McConnell

Who launched a war on whom...again?

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

Side Topic: Why can't Lanza's HIPPA records be released?  To whom in his family do the privacy rules protect?  You mean to tell me we'll never know if he was ADHD or strung out on meds or undergoing psychiatric treatment or was abused as a child or tried to get into his mother's gun closet?  Never??

outsider
outsider

This is what desperation looks like. And it’s ridiculous.


It wasn’t that long ago that the NRA seemed too big to fail. Too powerful to take on. So mighty a force that the words “gun control” could not even be uttered in the course of the presidential campaign, lest they set off an avalanche of screaming over the Second Amendment. Then came Sandy Hook.


In the brief few weeks since the massacre in Connecticut, we’ve experienced a massive cultural shift. We’ve had our most serious – and direct – national conversation about guns in decades. New York has already signed into law tougher gun control measures – a move the NRA has predictably already deemed “draconian.” And in a week in which it’s already embarrassed itself by releasing an ill-timed ”Practice Range” app for kids aged 4 and up, on Tuesday the NRA upped the ante with its dumbest, most nonsensical move in oh, hours.


In a new ad designed to expose the obvious double standards of – dun dun dun! – Barack Obama, the NRA asks, “Are the president’s kids more important than yours? Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?” Um, because they’re the daughters of the president of the United States? The ad goes on to call him “just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security.” Yeah, in the words of Rick Santorum, what a snob. We look forward the NRA’s next line of searing inquiry: Why does Obama get to have an office that’s oval shaped while the rest of us have to settle for rectangular? Why do members of the Supreme Court get to wear cool black robes and we regular Joes are forced to wear pants? The people demand answers!


Just on the off chance you find yourself in a conversation today with Wayne LaPierre, or someone else who honestly doesn’t understand why the immediate family of the person with the highest office in the land might need a security detail, here are few guidelines. Feel free to ask him the last time someone was nabbed for making death threats against his own kids. Then ask when the last time someone was nabbed for threatening to kill Obama. Answer: Sunday. Ask him if he’s seriously suggesting we need a rethink of the Secret Service, or if he believes the gun-toting “local volunteers” Wayne LaPierre suggests we let roam our children’s school hallways are on a par with the trained professionals who protect the president’s family. It is to laugh! Or just quote Joe Scarborough, who on Tuesday called the ad “frightening and over the line.“ Better yet, quote the NRA. So confused is the organization about what it is doing that on Wednesday morning NBC’s Mike O’Brien reported that a spokesman had announced, “Whoever thinks the ad is about President Obama’s daughters are missing the point completely or they’re trying to change the subject.” Because the real subject is how unfair it is the president’s family get special treatment? Or that you can’t be in favor of saner gun laws and be protected by people who carry guns? Even though that reasoning eliminates everyone who lives in a town that has a police force? You know what, I give up.


http://www.salon.com/2013/01/16/the_nra_takes_a_shot_at_obama/

MementoMori
MementoMori

"I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses" 

-  Karl Frederick, president of the NRA, 1934

bokeh9
bokeh9

If the Tea Party is functionally a third party (or an independent subsidiary of the Republican one), perhaps it comes down to how lasting a coalition between Democrats and Rational Republicans can be.  Maybe the response from the NRA and other TP nuttery will create enough separation for these RRs to feel secure in actually governing.  </fullpartofglass>

grape_crush
grape_crush

> "By Testing the Gun Lobby, Obama and Biden are Launching a Broader War on the Other Party"

How about this being about something other than inter-party political maneuvering? Your cynicism is coloring - and not in a good way - your writing, Scherer.

Maybe this is more about trying to work around obstacles in order to solve a problem. You know, actually get something done.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

Kevin: arguing against Obama's fascism (that doesn't exist) in this thread while cheering for an NRA add suggesting we have armed federal guards at all of our schools in another.

Herp a derp.

PeterKunka
PeterKunka

@Spiderpug I'm gonna drop some knowledge real quick. As you are correct that the AK-47 and M-16 are selective fire fully automatic assault weapons built for military use they are also highly regulated by the ATF. The process to acquire one of these firearms in states that allow them is an extensive, expensive process. Costing thousands of dollars in fees and taxes, as well as taking a minimum of 1 year of heavy screening by the FBI and ATF. Even when a person is allowed to buy these weapons, the guns themselves are incredibly expensive. The guns that are the target of the ban are not "assault weapons" they are semi-automatic (meaning on trigger pill per round fired) sporting versions of the military rifle. Just because they look like the military version doesn't mean they are. Never judge a book. They are no way shape or form the full auto machine guns you speak of, and cannot be transformed without extensive knowledge of firearms and gun smithing without blowing up in ones face. So, before ranting please do yourself a favor and do a bit of research, you are clearly not a gun owner and have no clue as to what you are talking about. 

MementoMori
MementoMori

@charlescutta "Although it is doubtful any single variable can explain what causes someone to commit such unspeakable acts as we saw recently at Sandy Hook..."

I can give you one single variable.

Guns.

jmac
jmac

@charlescutta THe Civil War nullified the Second Amendment.   You want your state to have a nuclear weapon?  Ain't gonna happen.  

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@charlescutta

I'm pretty sure all these cases of psychopaths killing people under some drug influence - shockingly - killed far more people than they could have otherwise through the use of firearms.

sacredh
sacredh

The republicans were upset that a majority Americans got to decide on who won the White House.

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

The ultimate goal of the NRA is to continue to feed congressmen with $ to do the bidding of Glock, Ruger et.al. 

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@outsider2011 

When marketing to gullible, fearful saps, it's best to use double standards and contradicting nonsense.

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

So, somewhat rhetorically, how'd we get to this??

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@MementoMori 

Not surprising.  Either way, most Americans also voted for Obama and supported tax increases on the wealthy  but that hasn't stopped the right from pretending that the left doesn't have a mandate.

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

That Oregon sheriff who said he ain't doin' nothin' that bla-- president proposes surely doesn't want to encumber the wrath of another bla-- guy: Eric Holder.

bokeh9
bokeh9

When a national organization calls the President an "elitist" because his daughters have Secret-Service protection, they show how completely out of touch they are.  When Tea Partiers climb on board, they're leaving the mainstream and relevancy behind.  Maybe that leaves Rational Republicans some security against being primaried.  How much will the gun-safety "debate" form the economic legislative efforts that follow?

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@bokeh9 

When they run around misquoting the founders like Jefferson, calling their opponents Nazis (as evidenced below) and generally misinterpreting the second amendment, they're certainly not helping their case.  I would love for some sanity to return to the GOP; they're certainly due for a wake-up call to how nutty they've become.

MementoMori
MementoMori

@DonQuixotic Oh that's an easy one. Just tell Kevin that the guards will be unionized. He'll be against the idea by the end of the week. We can't have union thugs protecting us from inner city thugs, after all.... It's against his religion.

charlescutta
charlescutta

wrong... SSRI drugs influence action and create the will to do self harm and mass murder, mania. Guns are inanimate and do nothing without the will and hand of a human.

Wake up, these politicians are not interested in public safety you are being played! Millions of Americans die untimely and preventable deaths because of medical mistakes and pharmaceuticals and we are told to resolve it in the court. Montsanto makes toxic food, nuclear reactors leak fallout, and alcohol kills people and is more of a public nuisance than legally owned and used firearms. This public safety argument is complete BS!

SSRIs influence behavior and guns are only the tool...  SSRIs prompt suicide and mania, this is not a theory this is fact. Senate Bill 7035 would have stopped this back in 2000.


I predict that no amount of gun legislation can prevent mass murderers from doing sick things

charlescutta
charlescutta

Gun grabbing divides the people when we need to stand together. Truth is that maniacs will always find a way to mass murder. There are millions of ways to harm others and millions of laws going back throughout time that have done nothing to prevent violence and mass murder. There are billions of firearms that have done no harm, yet the small percentage that do are used to manufacture consent to change the law. The only point that "We the People" should realize is that firearms are a Constitutionally protected form of liberty enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Just as free speech, there is freedom to bear arms, and to regulate State militias. There is no debate that the Bill of Rights protects States and American people from federal government. Guns are central to that unless you plan on spitting on your foe.

Remember the president’s “touching“, tear-filled statement after the shootings? Weeping crocodile tears over the deaths of those 20 youngsters, Obama played his scene with actor-like skill and sincerity. All act. He kills more kids daily with his pakistani drone wars! This is fact. The federal governments eagerness to use the deaths of the Connecticut youngsters to further an ideological quest to destroy the 2nd Amendment is sickening and treasonous. The Oath is to protect the US Constitution, not kids in school, is the standard for POTUS. School safety is a local law enforcement issue. Every Marine and soldier who has died or risked it all in Afghanistan has died for absolutely nothing if we loose our liberties for the perceived safety! Protecting the freedom we hold as America is an honor to most service members and we will not take treason against the Constitution lightly! Our service member's lives were wasted to further Barack Obama’s political career.

EXPLAIN THIS?! In the war in Iraq, our military forces expended approximately 70 million rounds per year. In March 2012 DHS ordered +750 million rounds of hollow point ammunition. It then turned around and ordered an additional 750 million rounds of miscellaneous bullets including some that are capable of penetrating walls. This is enough ammunition to empty five rounds into the body of every living American citizen. Is this something we and the Congress should be concerned about? What’s the plan that requires so much ammunition, even during times of civil unrest? Has Congress and the Administration vetted the plan in public. 

FACT: Medical errors kill way more people, albeit less violently, than firearms. Why no interest from Washington? Follow the money...  

Don - PLEASE look into SSRI induced violence, simple answer. 

What is it about the pharm industry that no one can regulate? 

ALL I ASK HERE! Do us all a favor, google "SSRI violence suicide legal settlement"

outsider
outsider

@DonQuixotic @outsider2011


Here is more on it:


On the eve of President Obama announcing his gun control agenda, based on Vice President Joe Biden’s task force recommendations, the National Rifle Association needed to go big: to remind Americans that the organization protects their gun rights, and to remind politicians that they’re a smart and formidable political force they’d be unwise to cross.


Instead, they showed us the truth: They’re part of the vast and increasingly incompetent right wing conspiracy that’s sacrificed its own effectiveness for the pleasure of hating Democrats generally and our first black president in particular.


You’ve either seen or read about the ad: A narrator intones: “Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” (Huh? you might say.) “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their schools? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security.”


Of course, the NRA ignores the common sense answer to its own question: Every president’s child is protected by armed guards. They’re called the Secret Service. Outside of the fever-swamps of anti-Obama hatred, no one could possibly have a problem with that, let alone call it hypocrisy.


Just the way Fox News’s insularity and reality-denial has been a form of media and political malpractice, harming its viewers by shielding them from the Obama victory to come in 2012, the NRA has disabled itself by wallowing in anti-Obama hatred and paranoia.  On the eve of the president’s big stand, when they most needed to show their supposedly formidable political muscle, instead they showed that they’re completely tone deaf and politically silly. That’s because they’ve been marinating in the bile of Obama’s enemies, where the president’s modest moves on guns, in the wake of the Newtown massacre, are a trigger to call for his impeachment – thanks, Ed Meese, Mr. Iran-Contra! – or worse.


And on that fringe, of course, everyone knows the president is just a big fat elitist hypocrite. Over on that fringe, Sasha and Malia Obama don’t elicit feelings of tenderness and protectiveness like they do in the rest of the country. They elicit feelings of contempt, as the children of “elitist hypocrites,” if they provoke any feelings at all.


In the real world, we know that our first black president has faced more assassination threats than any president in history, and that the Secret Service has a particularly tough job protecting him and his family.


http://www.salon.com/2013/01/16/has_the_nra_lost_it_entirely/

Diecash1
Diecash1

@nflfoghorn Probably the same way they used lies and revisionist history in an attempt to elevate Reagan into a right-wing deity.

bokeh9
bokeh9

...Except for the Tea Partiers who were elected in 2010 and/or reelected this past November.  They continue to obstruct.

sacredh
sacredh

 "I would love for some sanity to return to the GOP; they're certainly due for a wake-up call to how nutty they've become."

.

I don't want to see that happen until the Supreme Court has been swung to the left.

rabbitwocky
rabbitwocky

@TyPollard @DonQuixotic And are there background checks and waiting periods to buy gorillas? I don't THINK so. It's dadgum discrimination is what it is.

charlescutta
charlescutta

@grape_crush google "SSRI violence akathisia" there are millions in settlements going out to people all over the world.

Akathisia is but one in a long list of side effects that SSRI makers were able to keep hidden, as they settled thousands of lawsuits out of court, by obtaining court orders to seal documents produced in litigation. For instance, a 1984 Eli Lilly document showed akathisia occurred in at least 1% of patients long before Prozac was approved.

In a paper entitled, "Suicides and Homicides in Patients Taking Paxil, Prozac, and Zoloft: Why They Keep Happening - And Why They Will Continue," Dr Jay Cohen points out that, as soon SSRI's arrived on the market in the late 1980s, reports of sudden, unexpected suicides and homicides by patients taking the drugs began to come in.

The DSM-IV acknowledges the association of akathisia with suicidality and states: "Akathisia may be associated with dysphoria, irritability, aggression, or suicide attempts."

According to Dr Cohen, SSRI's can create a combination of side effects that reduce impulse control and cause severe agitation or restlessness that may become intolerable. He says, impulsive behavior coupled with impaired cognitive functioning can be dangerous.

A 1998 article on akathisia associated with Prozac and its link to suicidal ideation in the Journal of Psychopharmacology, by Roger Lane, who was working for Pfizer at the time, states in part:

"It may be less of a question of patients experiencing fluoxetine-induced suicidal ideation than patients feeling that 'death is a welcome result' when the acutely discomforting symptoms of akathisia are experienced on top of already distressing disorders.

Some GHOSTWRITTEN article is no proof to me.

MementoMori
MementoMori

@charlescuttaThe UK had 14 Firearm-related murders last year; the US, with a population only 5 times that of the UK, had 9,369. 

Are SSRI drugs legal in the UK? Yes.

Are handguns legal in the UK? No.

Anything else you need clarified?

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@charlescutta So restrict alcohol and  antidepressants, censor Hollywood and Video Game manufacturers, but do nothing about the thing that actually spit out the deadly metal projectiles. Sounds reasonable. Palm to Face!

grape_crush
grape_crush

> SSRI drugs influence action and create the will to do self harm and mass murder, mania.

Back that statement up, please. There have been studies that have shown that is not true. Here's one:

  • "This meta-analysis assessed aggression and/or hostility-related events in children and adolescents treated with fluoxetine (n = 376) compared with placebo (n = 255). Aggression and/or hostility-related events were identified in 2.1% of fluoxetine- versus 3.1% of placebo-treated patients (p = 0.588). This analysis fails to support an association between fluoxetine treatment and increased risk of aggression and/or hostility-related events in children and adolescents compared with placebo."

> SSRIs influence behavior...

Well, yeah. Duh. That's what the purpose of these types of medication. For that matter, a Prozac tablet is inanimate and can do nothing without the will and hand of the human that swallows it...

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@charlescutta As a former combat veteran, I have nothing but disdain for clueless tools like you. Go spout your lies and conspiracy theories elsewhere.

Diecash1
Diecash1

@shepherdwong @charlescutta The number of right wingers spouting this 'false flag' nonsense is ridiculous (and scary).  A bit of paranoia may be healthy but this is seriously over-the-top.  These idiots sound quite similar to the 'new world order' buffoons from the 90's who spent their time attacking Clinton.  Same crazy, different angle.

grape_crush
grape_crush

Way too much Alex Jones in your diet, Chuck. 

shepherdwong
shepherdwong

@charlescutta"This event may have been a false flag hoax..."

If you aren't currently under the care and observation of a qualified mental health professional, I would suggest that you seek one out immediately.

sacredh
sacredh

I think ads like this are a good thing. They appeal to the crazies and kill their support with everyone else.

outsider
outsider

@DonQuixotic @outsider2011 


I agree; but it speaks to the desperation and fear the NRA is feeling, just that they'd say that. 


I mean seriously  - the first family shouldn't be protected now, because they're elitist???


That's insane!