By now most everyone has probably heard about Sarah Palin’s ridiculous attack on President Obama where she basically blamed the president for her son Track’s recent charges of domestic violence and possessing a weapon while intoxicated (he had threatened to commit suicide as well). She claimed that this administration has shown veterans no respect (which is complete and total b.s.), and that it’s left many veterans angry and without the proper medical care, which increases the likelihood of such violent outbursts.
It’s a charge that CNN’s Donna Brazile and some veterans were quick to denounce, condemning Palin for trying to exploit her own son’s behavior to levy a pathetic attack against the president. Though the truth of the matter is, she should have never been in Oklahoma to give these remarks in the first place. Maybe it’s just me, but I found it rather strange that a mother would learn about her son being charged with a violent count of domestic abuse and an apparent suicide threat – then go on campaigning the next day for Donald Trump in Oklahoma.
But when I was thinking about this whole situation today, it struck me how much gun regulations actually tie into this. In fact, listening to Palin’s remarks, she basically advocated for the fact that we need intense mental health screening for all gun purchases. After all, if her son is this mentally unstable, should he be legally allowed to own guns? In fact, should anyone who’s suffering from any sort of mental condition prone to violence or deep bouts of depression be allowed to own weapons?
In other words, isn’t this whole situation with her son a prime example as to why we need much tighter gun regulations in this country – especially when it comes to the mentally ill? It’s a hard question but one that needs to be asked and explored.
Does Sarah Palin really feel that someone in Track’s condition, and with his issues, should be in possession of firearms? Not only that, if she’s known he’s been suffering from PTSD, clearly aware that he’s had some violence issues, why the hell hasn’t she alerted authorities? Does she think it’s safe for someone she’s described as “hardened” and struggling with mental issues following his military service to be allowed to legally purchase and own deadly weapons?
Based upon the reports from what happened in Alaska, it’s clear Track has no business owning any sort of guns. Yet, even in his condition, he was just another “good guy, Constitution-loving American” who probably opposes the “un-American” President Obama for even daring to suggest that we need tighter gun regulations to prevent people who shouldn’t own guns from having them – including the mentally ill.
What if he had used the gun on himself or his girlfriend? Then would Palin and these other pro-gun Republicans be calling him a “good guy with a gun” who turned into a “bad guy with a gun,” blaming the violence on mental illness? Because that’s what they typically say whenever some sort of violent incident occurs involving guns. It could be argued that even without using the gun he’s a “bad guy” based on the alleged assault of his girlfriend and suicide attempt.
So, for me, it comes back to the question I think Sarah Palin needs to answer: Does she think her son Track, and others who are suffering from PTSD or other mental conditions that could be prone to violence, should be legally allowed to own guns? And doesn’t her son’s situation prove why we need tighter laws on the purchases?
While I’m pretty sure I know how she might answer these questions (a rambling incoherent word salad where she doesn’t make any sense, but certainly doesn’t advocate for any sort of common sense approach to gun control), the truth of the matter is, like it or not, the situation with her son Track is a perfect example of exactly why we need a complete overhaul on how we purchase guns in this country.