Obama’s Gun Confiscation Plans Are a Prelude to Genocide
January 4, 2014
In the 1970’s, the civilized world criticized the Soviet Union for their designation of a new mental illness called “Political Schizophrenia”. Soviet style political schizophrenia was deemed to be inappropriate by ICD-9 because the Russians were labeling anyone who disagreed with the government as being mentally ill. And in Mother Russia, if you were deemed to be mentally ill, you were subsequently “treated” in the Gulag.
Obama Employs Soviet Style Mental Health Gun Controls
Under Obama’s new proposed gun regulations, anyone who has a diagnosable, or is potentially diagnosable for being mentally ill, can have their gun confiscated. Vice President Biden even feels that they can violate HIPPA privacy regulations in requiring the states to report who has been treated for a mental illness.
What is interesting to me is that the Obama administration is not even trying to distinguish between mental illnesses in terms of who should, or should not own a gun. In the eyes of the Obama administration, all mental illnesses are created equal. A person with a phobia is just as dangerous as a sociopath. One in six Americans have a “diagnosable anxiety disorder”. This is completely understandable given the economic and political times that we live in. However, under the new proposed guidelines, all of these people would be ineligible to have a gun in their possession even though there is not a shred of research which indicates this population would be inclined towards gun violence any more than any other population.
These New Regulations Are Aimed At the Veterans
For months, the Veterans Administration has been sending out letters to veterans for them to report to the nearest VA hospital for psychiatric evaluation due to potential Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). These same letters are demanding that these veterans turn in their gun or risk losing their veteran benefits.
Please allow me to point out the obvious. If you spend one to five tours of duty in Afghanistan, you are going to have some form of PTSD. Again, the Obama administration has not produced any replicable mental health research which suggests that people with PTSD are more likely than any random person to commit acts of violence with a gun. As an aside, what has been proven is that mass murderers are almost always on psychotropic medication. This brings up the notion that the “pharmacological cure” is more dangerous than the condition that is being treated, which is normally depression.
The veterans have already been under attack by being labeled as domestic terrorists by the MIAC report. I always thought that being a veteran of combat would make him or her a hero in the eyes of the government. Instead, they are demonized when they are done with their active duty service. This makes no sense unless this criminal government thinks that they are going to have to fight these veterans as the noose of martial law tightens around the necks of the American people.
There are 1.5 million veterans under the age of 35. They understand military tactics. They understand how to coordinate an attack. They understand guerrilla tactics and how to execute them. These veterans would be at the vanguard of any armed resistance against this criminal enterprise administration. Their numbers would be formidable because they know how to shoot straight. Add in 200+ command level military officers who have been fired by Obama and America could mount quite an insurgency force. These veterans must be disarmed and that is what underlies these ridiculous policies coming out of this present government.
This whole argument about disarming the veterans is based upon a fallacy. Was the Columbine shooting committed by a mentally ill veteran? Was Sandy Hook committed by a mentally ill veteran? Was the Batman shooting committed by a mentally ill veteran? No, they were not! What each of the murderers had in common is that they were on prescribed psychotropic medication. Perhaps the Obama administration should focus on banning dangerous mental health medication rather than guns.
New Psychiatric Guidelines to Judge Mental Illness
The Obama administration has a new partner in crime and it is the American Psychiatric Association (APA). The APA created the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (5th Edition) which was recently adopted. DSM 5 is highly controversial and has sparked outrage from the mental health practitioners. As many of these practitioners point out, the new DSM-V makes a pathology out simple and normal behaviors such as the grieving for the loss of a loved one.
Particularly disturbing is that the new manual targets internet users and conspiracy theorists. If someone is judged, by some vague set of criteria, to spend too much time on the internet, they could be judged to be mentally ill and ineligible to own a gun. How are you receiving this information? The chances are that you are, at least according to Obama and Biden, giving in to your internet addiction and reading this article. Under the new Obama guidelines this would be grounds for gun confiscation. The alternative media is predicated on internet readership and listenership. These would be among the first groups to oppose a martial law crackdown. Subsequently, this is just another backdoor method to disarm citizens who would oppose the abject tyranny being imposed upon America. And these facts sum up what is truly behind the Obama administration’s latest attack upon gun ownership because they want to prey upon a defenseless nation by disarming as many of us as possible before the purges can begin in earnest.
This is the new political schizophrenia. We will see confinements among the alternative media and the veterans for things like ADHD, grieving, normal anxiety, bad eating habits, etc. All of these behaviors and more have been categorized as pathologies under the Obama administration and a supportive American Psychiatric Association.
The Obama people are trying to take this country down a very slippery slope. They are seeking to disarm as many Americans as possible. The historical precedent, and subsequent danger, has been well-established. Therefore, I will not belabor a well-established point, that all 19 genocides in the 20th century were preceded by gun confiscation. Why should we consider Obama’s recent actions to be any less threatening?