Yes, we know. And yet, this woman does nothing to address the real issue involved with every mass murder– mentally disturbed individuals. She goes on and on about the signs of mental illness, recognizes the core issue, yet she still wants to ban guns. The argument here, ostensibly, is that there’s nothing you can do about the mentally disturbed so we’ve got to ban guns. As Obama’s regime says, never let a good crisis go to waste. One of the other major, and deadly, problems with believing in that phrase is you will always need another crisis. Perhaps this is why they do nothing to really solve this nation’s problems, which would include smashing political correctness and making it easier for parents and others to commit those they know who are obviously disturbed so they can get the help they need.

This section is for comments from's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
5 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. RosaLee says:

    Be careful what you wish for.

    While keeping guns out of the hands of the “mentally ill” my truly serve to reduce the incidence of mass shootings we have to pay close attention to who gets to define what the term “mentally ill” means and who gets to determine whether or not a person is mentally ill.

    You may think that “mentally ill” means someone who has been diagnosed by a psychiatrist or psychologist, or perhaps even adjudicated by a court of law, as a danger to themselves or others. Liberals and statists will undoubtedly want to define the term more broadly (as in the Grand Canyon is broader than a rain gutter). Liberals would probably like to define anyone who actually wants to own a gun as de facto mentally ill.

    Will someone who has been prescribed an anti-depressant be defined as mentally ill? What about all of those people who were prescribed Wellbutrin (a mild anti-depressant) for the off-label purpose of assisting in smoking cessation?

    This is a slippery slope that we had best examine carefully before stepping out on it.

    The only “gun violence” prevention program that has ever worked was called Project Exile. It reduced the crime rate in Richmond, VA by 55% in less than a year. The program essentially focused law enforcement and prosecution on those who illegally possessed firearms and those who used firearms in the commission of a crime. They received long sentences which removed the relatively small number of criminals that were responsible for the bulk of “gun violence” from the streets. It really worked.

  2. Kitten says:

    When I was a kid in school, I used to hate the teachers at would punish everyone in the class for the actions of one bad kid. As a child, I thought “that stinks”. I’m sitting over here obeying the rules and yet I have to miss recess because that kid over there won’t obey the rules. This is the same thing. Not only are the law abiding citizens being punished because of the actions of a few crazy people, they’re treating us like children.

    Feinstein repeatedly states a background check would not have prevented the Newtown murders, but that doesn’t matter because (you see) we must be punished.

  3. strider says:

    Banning something based on its form rather than its function seems mentally suspect.

  4. Vintageport says:

    Feinstein: Background Checks “Would Not Have Prevented Newtown” but my assault rifle ban amendment would…ooops, another FAIL.

  5. ancientwrrior says:

    Sounds like she needs a competency check to verify that she doesn’t have more than a few screws loose or missing. (IMHO, I think that she has more than half of them gone)

You must be logged in to post a comment.