We all get it, "crazy" is a word used to shut down anyone who disagrees with our view because by definition if something's crazy it's not reasonable, and therefore, we need not engage. Since "crazy" is used as a prejudicial label designed to discredit and marginalize, in order to incorporate reasonableness as a standard, we must require strict standards of what is "unreasonable."
While President Trump himself uses the word, the Dems and their biased application of the word to anyone who disagrees with them and their promise to enact law based on their unreasonable partisanship presents a clear and present danger to us all.
I am not a gun person, so I actually would love fewer guns. I also have no knowledge of a hunting culture, a collector's culture or the rest of it. Guns are not part of my world view. However, in January, 2016, the Dems also had a plan to use a mental illness component to gun control that was as bad as today's proposals, (See http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2016/01/obamas-vile-plan-for-mental-illness-gun.html, "Obama's Vile Plan for Mental Illness: Gun Control through Suicide Control.")
The Dems, who have shown themselves to be the party of recycling ideas, now have more of the same, as Democrats promote gun laws with red flag provisions, sketchily drawn prohibitions to gun ownership by people who are a danger to themselves and others, giving government the right to decide whether or not a person's mental status justifies denying that person's right to own a gun.
But they're not addressing the obvious, that such a red flag provision could easily be tested out on veterans who are diagnosed with and collecting disability payments for mental issues. Theoretically, the fact that each of these vets is collecting money for a mental illness disability means they have such mental disability and should justify an immediate assessment as to whether they must be prohibited from gun ownership henceforth.
Obviously, such a program would not only deter people from getting needed help, because of the stigma, already a huge issue in addressing mental illness, but would exacerbate this issue because a right would be at stake, but would theoretically not allow for managed mental illness, or mental illness that was episodic and overcome.
There is NO reasonable way to defend a mental health guideline for gun ownership as long as our politicians are using the "crazy" word. Until we get a grip on our use of the word "CRAZY," there can be no gun control law that focuses on governments deciding who's too "crazy" to own a gun.
The problem with our current use of the word crazy is evident in just the past four days.On September 9, 2019, THE ATLANTIC published a long-winded UNREASONAABLE article by Peter Wehner and Wehner's judgment of President Trump's mental state though Wehner is admittedly an unqualified, untrained, inexperienced individual in the assessment of such matters. (See https://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2019/09/dems-and-dangerous-relentless.html, "Dems and Dangerous Relentless Suspension of Disbelief Politics."
Naturally, NY MAGAZZINE's got their own version of the "crazy" rant as Frank Rich compiled his "evidence" in his spurt of hatred and contempt in "Sharpiegate and Trump's Escalating War on Reality," 9/6/2019. Like every advocate he started with his strongest evidence: President Trump's use of an early hurricane path map that was incorrect.
President Trump's frustration with media and responses to their using the map error as "evidence" that he modified the map or whatever other unreasonable thing Dems gleaned from the mistake suddenly became evidence of "crazy." Here's a tip, see how you react when you're wrongfully labeled something and the lie is repeated and repeated…There's virtually an OBLIGATION to respond with a denial, explanation to the smear or else, the vicious liars might even deem that you accept their accusations, because you don't argue it. False accusations are a no win for the victims.
Interestingly, when Obama ruined the life of a videographer after the Benghazi catastrophe and his Administration's complete screw-up, there were no assertions that he was "crazy" with his fanciful voyage into unreality. It certainly didn't get the same attention as the provision of an early and outdated hurricane path map that was given to President Trump. But we digress, back to this unreasonable windbag Frank Rich.
Frank Rich then brings in his second argument, the tweets between Debra Messing and Donald Trump. Again, this is Rich's evidence that President Trump is crazy, not that Debra Messing and Eric McCormack's attempts to "out" Republicans in Hollywood for the purpose of exposing them to ridicule and job discrimination should NOT be what this country is about. Instead the President of our country responding to such calls for violence against individuals because they chose the "other" political party, not the Democrats, is deemed "crazy" by Rich.
But when Obama, in 2010 decided to publicly criticize the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, lecturing at the State of the Union Address, which even CNN characterized as a "breach of political etiquette," it wasn't deemed babyish, petty, inappropriate, or "crazy." That decision by the Court was not supported by all, including Obama. Some argued it opened the way for corporations and unions to use money to support campaigns, which many people to this day feel is unfair as enabling the "spending of unlimited sums of money to influence voters in political campaigns," an undue influence argument, very similar to an industry seeking to use its power to shut out those who disagree. Yet, Obama was not called "crazy." But we digress, back to the unreasonable manipulations of Frank Rich.
Rich goes on to the photo of the Iran missile site President Trump released that people are arguing about as to whether the photo was "classified information." Remember arguing about, there has been no determination made that it was or wasn't, but for Rich, it's evidence of "crazy." So, exposing possibly classified info is "crazy," whereas disseminating established classified information as Hillary Clinton did never earned her the "crazy" label.
Rich then goes into his next example of "crazy," when Trump stated: "I just want to congratulate Poland. It's a great country, with great people," on its 80th commemoration of its Nazi invasion. Suddenly the always clever Democrats were unable to understand commemorations and how we DO congratulate people for surviving a misery, whatever that misery was. Much like Poland surviving the Nazis, we "celebrate" Memorial Day which is a commemoration of people who died in war. We celebrate things like The Battle of Gettysburg, that had casualties of over 50,000 Americans. But the thick-headed deliberate misunderstanding of Trump's remarks is necessary to perpetuate the false narrative of guys like Rich.
Rich then uses his "evidence" to remind everyone that President Trump is a Nazi. Remember, there's only two narratives, crazy, Nazi, crazy, Nazi. So Rich brings in Charlottesville, and President Trump's "good people on both sides," comment ALSO interpreted by Dems as President Trump's Nazism. Of course, the comment was taken out of context and luckily for those who don't want to be ignorantly angry can be read on the PolitiFact website which includes the full transcript. Interestingly, today the crystal clear anti-Semitic remarks of Dems has not earned a one of them the title of "crazy."
It's curious that when Obama went to Cuba and lectured Castro on human rights, it was Castro who reminded Obama that at least they, Cuba, had universal health care, which is true and did not earn the hypocritically self-righteous Obama the label of "crazy." When Obama won the award for telling the lie of the year in 2013, he wasn't dubbed "crazy," just a liar. When Obama ruined the life of a videographer because of the Benghazi debacle, he wasn't dubbed "crazy" but was allowed the "error." When Obama cost the lives of who knows how many in the provision of guns to criminals in Obama's botched Fast and Furious gun debacle, no one accused him of "crazy," and no one noted the corruption in his Administration, even when Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress and "resigned." But we digress, back to Rich and his "evidence."
Inartful language is not evidence of "crazy," or else every Democrat who has used the word crazy or Nazi when it comes to President Trump would in fairness also have to be deemed "crazy." Disagreement is not "crazy" or else every Democrat who disagrees with someone else would have to be deemed "crazy." Error is not "crazy" or else every Democrat who's made a mistake would have to be deemed crazy.
Rich ends with Trump's comments about a "CRAZY INVERTED YIELD CURVE," when predictions about recession were made. Yep, as I said, both sides use the C word too easily and too readily for us to blandly allow some rushed law about gun control that includes red flags and empowers government to preemptively deny people's rights based on the "crazy" definition in use today.
