Who Should Be Denied A Gun Permit?

by JASmius

As one commenter asked, "Why is a scientist given money to study this?":





Duke University School of Medicine's Jeffrey Swanson is purporting to speak clinically, which he has to do to justify his grant, I suppose.  But in a propaganda sense, this is yet another round of preparing the political battlefield in advance of yet another gun confiscation attack by conditioning LIVs and NIVs with reasonable sounding rhetoric - "Oh, of course crazy people shouldn't be able to purchase firearms, no sane person could possibly disagree with that" - and then favorably contrast their "reasonable" and disingenuous selves with gun rights groups who recognize their tactic and intent and call them on it.  LIVs and NIVs are then persuaded that defenders of the Second Amendment DO want insane people - including those "prone to violence," and that would have to include those who oppose even "reasonable" gun restrictions - to have access to firearms.  Then all they need is another shooting gallery in another "gun-free" zone and off we go again.

It illustrates nothing except the Left's relentlessness about pushing every facet of their infernal agenda and the eternal questionability of whether the Right's vigilance is sufficient to match it.

Meanwhile, another commenter brings this link to the table:

Can the EPA run your property better than you? The Environmental Protection Agency says that its proposal to extend its regulatory powers over wetlands and waterways would produce economic benefits.

Read the rest at the link.  Suffice it to say, I wish the Regime would stop trying to justify their tyranny with such tiresome taknar droppings claims and just take what they want.  They're going to do it anyway, steamrolling the Constitution, the law, and public objections in the process.  There's no point in inflicting intelligence-insulting end zone celebrations on top of it.