Ok, Ok, let me say it again…..IN CONTEXT!

Recently, a few radical souls on the left have taken a HEADLINE about a story I did the other day and made me the object of scorn over it. And as they are prone to do, they did  it by placing their focus on the headline itself, rather than the actual words I spoke within context.  The “context” of one’s words can make a real difference!

The story was about a new diagnosis from the American Psychiatric Association.  I forget exactly what the new, “out of the blue” diagnosis was called.  But the essence was that to be overtly anxious about an actual, physical ailment could get you classified as mentally ill.  In other words, say you had lung cancer (what took the life of my dear father!).  And because of that condition, you were overtly focused on it, you were too consumed with your treatments, with your pain, with your future.  So to be overly consumed with anxiety over this physical condition you have would qualify you for this new condition, this new “mental illness”.  You would now be mentally ill because they say so, if you meet these qualifications!

That was the context of my discussion.  IN CONTEXT, I was relating to how they now have a “disease” that was easy to pin to someone as an actual, mental illness simply because you were concerned or anxious about a real disease!  That’s truly scary.  It’s not out of the question to worry about how mental illness being diagnosed inappropriately these days if you listen to the President’s plans for gun control.

In those executive orders he suggested he would implement,  was much about Doctors asking patients about their gun ownership, and consequently the reporting of that ownership to the Centers for Disease Control.  Now, if the doctor is going to start asking you about your gun ownership, and the police are going to start coming into your home to see how you are storing your weapons (another law presented in Washington state this past week), it’s NOT a giant leap to think that they might tie a diagnosis of mental illness to someone based solely on some aspect of them being gun owners!  Maybe someone has “too many” guns, or “too many bullets” in their home. Does this now mean that they could be mentally ill?   Well, if they are now calling anxiety about a physical illness a mental illness, then anything is possible!   I guess if the Psy doctors declare in some paper that a new mental illness exists if you are someone who has too many guns, or love your guns, or have too many bullets, etc, then “mentally ill” you are!

That was the context in which I said, “The government could one day decide to diagnose Christianity or radical conservatism as a mental illness”.  I did NOT just blurt out, “Obama’s going to call us Christians mentally ill and throw us in an institution somewhere to get us out of the way!”  I actually had a reasoned discussion about a new, easily diagnosed mental illness to start with.  That was the CONTEXT that a negative headline wouldn’t show!

You see, when you get the CONTEXT, the assumption about my words doesn’t sound quite so sinister!

 

2 thoughts on “Ok, Ok, let me say it again…..IN CONTEXT!

  1. Please STOP! Your comments and those by other so-called Christian leaders in mass media are degrading the name of our Savior and turning people away from Christianity. Comments such as yours do nothing to further the Kingdom. They are simply another variation of “turn or burn” fear-mongering, serving only to feed your sense of self-aggrandizement and enlarge your bank account.

  2. Let me first say, I have support points for both sides. Let me explain.
    First, I fully understand the angst of the officer. Here’s a man walking down the road with an AR, and a .45 strapped to his side. Quite an armory to just be hiking for the Boy Scouts. BUT, Constitutional he has every right. And not knowing the public display laws in Texas I can’t answer on the legality of what he was doing. You see, we don’t change bad constitutional laws by breaking them in anger. We change them by the legislative, protesting, challenging, etc, ways. Breaking the, just gets you in jail and gets you a record. UNLESS you are a high profile personality like Glenn Beck, you aren’t going to move the missives with your speeches from the jail.

    I would be supportive of the officer asking the man to explain what’s going on, and to present his cc permit. You HAVE to allow officers to determine their safety exists. I just offered the prayer at our regions memorial for fallen LEO’s. we have far too many getting killed each year. They aren’t God, nor do they have super powers that will help them know the good guys that are open carrying from the bad guys that open carrying. So, I’m sympathetic with the officers need to know.

    And from what I saw on the video, the man, decorated or not, got too argumentative for the situation. Offers are trained to elevate in force (verbal or otherwise) as their detainees elevate. The vet certainly elevated! I’m not disagreeing, I’m simply stating that I understand why the officer elevated his approach.

    You can’t, just because a citizen starts yelling about the particular laws, stop what you’re dong, IF you are indeed following the law. You can’t imagine how many people shut the “law” at you on the street and they in fact haven’t a clue about the actual law.

    BUT, I am completely in disagreement with how the officers handled the,selves.

    Now, again, if you’ve never been on the street trying to detain or question someone that’s shouting at you, interrupting you, etc, then you will have n idea how difficult some make it for the officers. However, there are a couple of things these men did wrongly.

    1) trying to take the man into custody and disarm him in the first place. Legally, you cannot detain someone unless they are going to be held for questioning or they are under arrest. WHAT THIS OFFICER, IF WELL TRAINED SHOULD HAVE DONE, is to speak calmly to the man and explain to him,”We’ve had a 911 call about you. I am here to see if there’s a problem. However, I’m facing a man with two weapons that I don’t know. So, would you mind, so that I could feel safe until I can ascertain that you’re not a threat to me or anyone else, place your weapons here on my car? Then if you have a cc permit, as you’ve stated you do, ou are required by law to present upon request.” Let the officer get to a point where he is not threatened. IT IS MY BELIEF THAT ALL ARMED CITIZENS SHOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM DEMONSTRATING TO LEO’S THAT THEY ARE NOT IN ANY MORTAL DANGER FROM THEM EXERCIZING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Now, I agree, there are a lot of bad boy rookie officers out there who don’t care about carry laws and will take the need for officer safety to the extremes. That’s why I offered the verbal exchange that I did.

    2) once the man proved he was no threat the officer should have let him go to live out his constitutional rights.

    3) the man should have cooperated more. His shouting and demanding that his rights are being violated are partly to blame for the escalation. I’m sorry. You won’t find a more gun rights supporter than me. I am carrying g every day and at all times! But the man was belligerent and uncooperative. To trained officers, this is partial indication of a problem citizen that you cannot relax with. It is NOT A VIOLATION O F MY RIGHTS TO COOPERATE WITH AN OFFICER WHO SIMPLY WANTS TO KNOW THAT HIS SAFETY IS NOT IN QUESTION. Even Glenn Beck acknowledge that he wouldn’t have acted the way the vet did.

    4) You cannot illegally arrest a citizen and then charge them with the ONLY charge is resisting arrest. I’ve seen it a million times. Stop a individual for questioning, and when they resist in some way, charge them with resisting. You can not be resisting something g that ain’t happening!

    5) Instead of carrying the vets kid home, they should have called the other parent to pick him up either there or at the police station! I’m stunned, STUNNED that this sgt. Detained this minor and then ILLEGALLY DETAINED HIM FOR QUESTIONING WITHOUT A PARWNT OR GUARDIAN FROM THE COURT PRESENT!! This is an absolute abuse of power and should be addressed in the stro get of terms.

    You asked if I agreed with the illegal confiscation of this mans weapons. I disagree with how the whole affair went down and advise that this tape should be used in training not only officers but legally carrying g citizens as well.

    Thanks for asking and I hope this answer has helped.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s