'Three Strike' Mental Illness Violence Law May Have Prevented Adam Lanza Slaughter

   Adam Lanza's mental illness claimed the lives of  his mother and innocent school victims

There was a fear moving across the American heartland long before Adam Lanza stepped onto the nation’s stage and donned the dark murderous mass killer robe. This 20-year-old joined the unique club of notable mass murderers that used a gun as a weapon of slaughter. After his onslaught the gun control hysteria surrounding stricter legislation has risen to a fever pitch.

Why purposely avoid holding the gunman’s mental instability responsible? Should any dangerous behavior factors or legislation that could have been in place to prevent this terrible murderous outbreak be considered? What if there had been a 'Three Strike Rule' in place for Adam Lanza, which allowed automatic involuntary commitment by mental health authorities? Mothers, fathers and siblings need this kind of solution that will not make them the next horrific headline in America’s homes.

This rapid rush to judgment and instant condemnation of guns as the casual factor for the mindless killings by a disturbed gunman is just too convenient a straw man. Adam Lanza was the killer. Adam Lanza, according to Fox News reports, was upset that his mother was going to commit him for psychiatric treatment. And it was Adam Lanza that constructed the plan to destroy his computer to remove any evidence concerning his plan to murder.

Yet, it has been the mainstream media, along with the urgency of the gun control first responders to keep overlooking the obvious. This disturbed gunman may have used guns as weapons to kill, but it was his mental illness that was the true deadly assault weapon!

It is essential that the loss of such precious young children, teachers and Adam Lanza’s mother Nancy not be buried in the grave, while the true culprit to their senseless murders is ignored. Adam Lanza, a mentally disturbed young man, stole three legally registered weapons to commit his crimes the emphasis is on legal.

The actual crimes were formulated in his head and his conduct, unrestrained by possible intervention of law enforcement or mental health authorities, that became the deadly weapon.

So, why do politicians want to dismember the constitutional right to arm and protect the life of an individual or a family? These officials and gun control advocates are afraid to tackle the hard question and solution to this outrage. They absolutely refuse to hold the individual who had a mental illness, and has shown previous signs, of forceful dangerous behavior responsible for his actions.

Instead, this endless cat and mouse game is played on the national stage by congress, state legislatures, and mayors like Michael Bloomberg who hide behind their own protective guards and trained security. These first responders of gun rights denouncers are disingenuous. They purport to seek a conversation on what can safeguard society’s innocents, but denounce attacks on Hollywood movies and violent video games which savage the young minds of young children thousands of times a year.

These same gun control activists do not seek cooperation or genuine discussion but would rather demonize gun rights supporters and castrate the National Rifle Association (NRA) at every given opportunity.

On Friday, December 21st, when Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s Executive Vice President advanced proposals at the Washington D.C. Press conference, the mainstream media and gun rights opponents trivialized his comments.

( click to read more )

Views: 79


You need to be a member of Tea Party Nation to add comments!

Join Tea Party Nation

Comment by james stamulis on December 23, 2012 at 1:56pm

Well said Kevin i think you have encountered a troll. the government also has let out countless criminals early because of overcrowding and other stupid reasons as if they are going to behave for the kindness of releasing them. liberals will not ackowledge anything other than disarment. they care not for an adult debate. great article Kevin!

Comment by Kevin Fobbs on December 23, 2012 at 1:46pm

I mentioned that I have 12years of  professional experience administrating a community health county organization and have worked with countless families, and mental health providers who had their hands tied by liberal bureaucrats that would not allow them to have their child removed for mental health care, unless the action was criminalized.  So it has nothing to do with parental rights as much as insuring the safety and security of the family itself, as well as anyone else that comes into contact with dangerous behavior.

In regard to the Johnson administration statement in reference to 1965, that was indeed 47 years ago, when the process itself began.  The two dates were not intended to be synonymous.  

Comment by Kevin Fobbs on December 23, 2012 at 1:04pm

It is not interference when an unstable person can be prevented from killing a family member, or a neighbor or a child or teacher at school.  Liberals have been using the "rights" of the mentally ill as an argument since 1965, when President Johnson decided to empty out the mental institutions and not treat mentally dangerous patients, and mandated that they somehow should and treat themselves and follow their own meds.  It does not work, and 12 years of experience in the field of  supervising this liberal nightmare approach, only has left innocent people victimized.

So the reality is not government interference, it is making certain that dangerous unstable individuals are held responsible for their actions instead of pointing fingers at gun owners who have a constitutional right to defend themselves.

Tea Party Nation is a social network

© 2016   Created by Judson Phillips.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service