-33 votes

Mental Health & Guns-Which comes first?

Gun owners appear to approve death from gun violence over gun rights. The deaths are being used to ban guns and remove 2nd amendment rights.

Let me explain.

IF gun owners want gun rights, THEN gun owners must stand for appropriate, effective mental health care because otherwise mentally ill people will have guns and be committing murders. They do and are every day.

This logic IS an absolute.

From what I've seen, gun owners do not support effective mental health care. In fact, they will not even discuss the issue. They do not appear to care. This is illogical.

Now . . . all of that may be appearances created by cognitive infiltration of 2nd amendment activist groups.

Along the same line of logic we have this second amendment forum which does not appear to recognize that the first right of Americans is that congress call an Article V convention.

Which is it? Do any gun rights advocates understand this issue or are those in this forum pretenders that refuse logic?

If you accept this logic and support the concept that effective mental health care protects gun rights because it prevents murders or any reason for government to limit 2nd amendment rights, you must post and ask what mental health care providers can do to improve mental health care in order to demonstrate your sincerity.

Then, if such mental health care measures are shown to be reasonable, you must become an advocate for the best mental health care.

If you do not accept this logic then you cannot effectively defend 2nd amendment rights because you are not logical or accountable to your position in support of 2nd amendment rights.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

A conservative pointed out on

A conservative pointed out on the same day I posted this thread, exactly what I assert in the thread.

http://theconservativemonster.com/?p=1757
On July 21, 2012 at 2:24:

The media is painting James Holmes as crazy, because they want to cover the fact that he was a product of brainwashing by leftist professors. Liberal professors are pumping these kids up to be Revolutionaries, but the Establishment will blame guns instead so they can be banned.

Unfortunately they do not know that a California municipality has refused to provide effective mental health care when state laws define that it must be developed IF there is a chance of loss of life without it.

Unfortunately, again, gun owners are so easily misled that they are not acknowledging that IF there is no effective mental health care THEN, the possibility of mass murders increases.

When courts refuse to compel municipalities to follow state laws that require them to act to develop treaments AND the infiltration of social activism for gun rights invokes unreasonable fears such as this thread has elicited from users here; about screening and limiting gun ownership, while the Aurora shooting drops out of the media lens, THEN gun rights activists are sucked back into the (nwo) preferred attitudes that are easily controlled and misinterpreted for discussion.

Realize the analysis of the link at top is perhaps the only one while the media eye has abandoned the story meaning another mass murder has gone under the bridge without any real understanding.

Gun owners, you are being misled by the ignorant or the deceptive.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Set the example

Let us know how your exam goes...

I am doing something different-good example

My brother, a scientist used to say.

"If you always do what you've always done you'll always get what you've always got."

Sound like that is what you are looking for being so fearful of a treatment that has defacto approval from a Ph.D in psychology and a medical doctors approval. A letter on the stationary of Santa Barbara County mental health department.

http://i46.tinypic.com/1gook3.jpg

Your words are empty except unreasonable fear. What a man Scott Barber. At least you are not sporting an edgy "i'm soooooo social" username, like the fakish monikers that normally oppose with cognitive infiltration confusing perceptions of common sense proposing legal process.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Do you have an appointment to have your brain checked?

Or have you already gone through the mental examination? That was what I was saying.

Let us know the outcome of your mental examination.

What examination? This is about treatment

The idea is that if a person has a mental problem, they have some idea of the problem. In a few sentences they can communicate enough to give an indication of what treatment should consist of.

But psychology has no ability to effectively treat a problem, particularly serious ones. Why would anyone go to be examined when there was no hope of treatment?

I guess if they were lied to, and told that the psychologist could help, they would go. Otherwise no.

On the other hand, if there was a treatment, and it was all over the news about how many serious problems people had solved by undergoing the treatment, people would go get treated. They would be standing in line to get treated.

No examination. The afflicted simply describes the basis problem, the psychologist that can treat, actually understands the primary issue and then treats it. Now, some people cannot talk about their problems. In that case an examination type situation is probably needed.

However, most mental problems that are real are observed by others. People close to the afflicted can give, often a better idea of the problem than those afflicted with it. This I think becomes more common with more serious problems. This also shows us that the unconscious mind is where the problem resides.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Consider the Proportions of Conscious to Unconscious

mental capacity. Here is a graphic that shows it over 1 year.

http://i41.tinypic.com/a15nx3.jpg

Then, it is your unconscious which is behind the scenes while you are conscious making everything work well, without having to think about it.

Okay now let's discuss mental health care.

With the proportions shown, direct treatment to the unconscious mind is needed to begin effective, appropriate mental health care, period.

After that, then we will know more and more. Currently there IS NO direct treatment to the unconscious generally offered anywhere. It appears from what I've learned, that if you specifically asked for it with the logic of the graphic used here, they would have ZERO method for proceeding.

Uh, . . . with the facts of the graphic and the logic that the unconscious is going to be only real source of behavioral problems, how competent is the preceeding?

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

So what you are saying is

Everyone on one level, unconscious level, needs medication and government control?

No Medication No Government Control Needed-Self Control

Government is violating laws to evade the simple development. Once that is done then private psychologists can lose their fear of administering therapy when people come to them.

Media must be made to publicize the treatment and stories of its effectiveness. Then those who are tormented will know and seek help BEFORE resorting to violence. It could be done so there is almost no stigma.

Actually it could be done without a psychologist. A simple database of symptoms, thoughts, phobias, obsessions, fears could be used to source a large group of audio recordings and assemble a custom standard script to reorient the unconscious mind.

Then its simply a medical procedure. Very economical. Save mass $ for gov and people.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Have you heard of Kendra's Law or laura's Law?

What do you think about those laws?

IF CA is creating that law in 2002

and the letter I have showing a de facto approval in 1999,

http://i46.tinypic.com/1gook3.jpg

Then in 2000 I present a FOIA to get the "answer in writing" promised in 1999,

http://i46.tinypic.com/20atatx.jpgareas

Then CA in 2002 with lauras law is obviously evading lawful performance and instead creating illegitimate state control.

Any state that creates laws like that BEFORE having a treatment which addresses the 86% of the mind controlling the human, is basically evading.

Both of those laws are perhaps addressing people with more debilitating mental problems than the typical mass murderer buying up assault weapons and planning a shooting spree.

With those folks we are looking at fixed obsessions and fears that are unconsciously controlling an otherwise normal person. These are things of the unconscious mind and psychology does not treat that directly.

The issue is a matter of the state evading duty and perhaps inappropriately causing fear in psychologists relating to their administering treatments that address the unconscious mind directly.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Both, Kendra's Law and Laura's Law

were implented into State an county governments by people who were accused of employing assult weapens and murdered people.

It is being established by MSM articles that focus on murders blaming the perpetrator for having mental illness.

In my County, last year, Aaron Bassler was accused of murdering two high profile people. The first was Matt Coleman, a popular State Parks Interpreter, who was the president Mendocino Land Trust, where he found an illegal marijuana grow, a week later, another popular, ex-mayor of Fort Bragg, CA, Jere Melo, who worked for Campbell Timber Industry was called to the scene of not just a marijuana grow, but an opium poppy feild, that was when two witnesses saw Aaron bassler murder Jere Melo. The next week, another 20 miles North, another person was shot at an illegal marijuana grow and Aaron was again accused, and then when people asked how the hell he could run so fast, MSM dropped the third story.

The county, state and federal forces occupied a 60 mile area for a month seeking Aaron Bassler, who was living out doors. After a month he was shot to death, His father said he tried to get Aaron help but the mental health system would not help him.

Jim Bassler, Aaron's father, took a seat on the board of supervisors mental health committee, and with district wide comments and demands, Laur's Law was being forced onto the community with all opposition being snuffed out.

I sought a seat on the committee, still am, and wrote against Laura's Law, as I don't believe Aaron would have been eligible, and I don't like the law as it's about saving money, not saving lives, and it actiually doesn't save money, but puts the costs on the courts, as it puts inncocent people who are being accused of being mentally ill under court orders.

I agree with you that doctors, nurses, and patients and not being taken into consideration when it comes to mental health. Many options that should be available that would cost very little by compasision to hospitalization and prison, are being overlooked and underestimented.

This is a topic, many people, as your article and responses reflect, do not want to talk about it, which makes more victims of everyone concerned.

Of course the fight to implement Laura's Law in my community is ramping up by those who thought the Aaron Bassler case would make it a shoe in. Fourtunately, our Sheriff and DA are Ron Paul Republicans who appreciate resources from our community such as these working in the mental health feild that claim, Aaron Bassler was not mentally ill but a criminal, though he never had his day in court, so he's actually accused of something, he may not have done.

I am not too familiar with your study on unconscious mind vs consciousness, except my shallow understand of Id, Super Ego, Ego, and writing by those who experimented with psychedelics.

It's interesting and I'm sorry our government has gotten in the way of actually helping people administer better mental health care by those who have studied and taken an interest and found what could be solitutions.

Thank you for your contributions!

Wow, finally an intelligent & sincere gun rights activist!

Granger,
Thanks very much for that accounting in Mendo. I know the area and watched the Bassler case unfolding knowing that the treatment I proposed in 1999 was probably something very applicable to his psychosis. Hoping he would be captured so I could communicate with his father enabling him to work there to get that county to implement CHS 1370.4 as I tried here only to have state and federal courts blocking me by the deprivation of right and secret revisions of local court rules.
He was obviously a competent individual in his derangement, having evaded authorities so long, meaning a set of beliefs, obsessions, fears and angers, alienations etc. kept him behaving as he did. That mental competency is what made it possible to frame him as a criminal and execute him. And, I too wondered about the shooting a distance away attributed to him.
Imagine had the alternative treatment been available and publicized and he knew of it before his episode escalated to murder. We had 2 mass murders here by people in the same situation. One used a car rather than a gun, killing 4 in 2000. The woman with a gun shot 6 in the post office (2006) becoming the largest mass murder in history commited by a woman. Both sought help with the county MH DEPT. which could only medicate them, which gets old and they reject it, then get psychotic rather than be drug zombies.
I've had friends that were handled the same way here in Santa Barbara and they had been diagnosed as schizophrenic. Jailed over and over, never treated in any effective manner, they committed suicide.
Your recognition of "Id, Super Ego, Ego," is actually a more competent basis than psychology currently entertains on the face of what they do. Combining that with a comprehension of instinctual drives integrated into socialization is really all a person needs for their compassion to turn into effective understanding for a number of mental disorders.
Granger wrote:
"It is being established by MSM articles that focus on murders blaming the perpetrator for having mental illness."
Yes, probably the most on-topic statement in the thread. Meanwhile here in Santa Barbara, the "MSM" newspaper was bought by a questionable entity that proceeded to block publication of info about my lawsuit in aid of governmental evasion, neglect and deprivation of right by courts.
http://algoxy.com/law/no_free_press/sbsecretsofmedia.html
I know that meth is a huge problem in rural northern Cali, and that the treatment proposed can actually address that serious addiction in an effective way. Please share those 2 documents with activists for lawful government in your county so this aspect can be gotten out of the mix of issues.
The MH letter of de-facto approval.
http://i46.tinypic.com/1gook3.jpg
The FOIA
http://i46.tinypic.com/20atatx.jpgareas

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

I wil

And I thank you, as I have a meeting on Thursday.

I used to see the affects of Meth in Tulare County, where WalMart has a distribution center and 5 prisons.

I hear about it around here, but fortunately, I haven't seen it.

Maybe it's not right, but I do think that drugs are for sick people, in that they are self medicating. IOWs it's a medical situation not a police situation, and I believe the police state makes it worse, as people who do drugs think more about avoiding the police than getting the help they need to be well.

Thank you for that information.

Look. Here is the thing.

Look.

Here is the thing. Nothing is absolute.

People who say that "I have no obligation to pay for your mental sickness" are wrong, because then I can say "I have no obligation to honor your gun rights". You cannot be absolute in a society/system where certain absolutes are recognized.

Everything is on a degree. Look, if someone is certifiably insane, and the government has to lock him up and try and treat him, you could arguments from both sides.

1) What about that man's freedom? Shouldn't he be allowed to be insane?

2) Why should I have to pay(in taxes) for the government to take care of him?

Both are valid points. But ultimately, I am OK with that. Because the alternative is to have an insane man out on the streets.

Another example. Gun rights.

Should the government have prevented the sale of the semi-automatic that this crazy shooter used? Should they have forced the theater to allow people to carry guns inside? Or perhaps forced them to provide adequate security?

If you did those things, you may be a little safer. But the downside is that government gets to tell you what guns you can own, how you can use it, etc. It isn't worth it. That's not worth the trouble. I am willing to risk more violence, more gun problems, the risk of less safety, just so the government gets out of my life.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

"All or nothing thinking" is a cognitive distortion

Dr. NO wrote:
"Here is the thing. Nothing is absolute."

It is an absolute that you need air to survive. It is not "All or nothing thinking" to insist on that factor for human beings and other life. Life knows absolutes your statement distorts the fact.

Another statement of an absolute that makes exception IN TIME. "Every thing changes." That is what you are trying to say.

1) You've made a generalization (a distortion) and applied a label, "insane" and you've left out everyone else. What should we have to put up with? Some incoherent babbling or psychotic gun violence is my point.

2) I've never said that you should pay taxes to take care of the insane, although would would probably prefer that over getting shot.

You completely missed the point, which identifies you as a cognitive infiltrator OR one who has been influenced by distortions.

Accordingly, if you want to appear as a sincere American working to protect gun rights you need to post and support the basic thread topic which points out there IS NO EFFECTIVE mental health care. Meaning that people with mental problems have an actual option that can create relief for them BEFORE they go psychotic and violent creating events that are used by infiltrated government to justify diminishing gun rights.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Isn't it insane

Isn't it insane to stress over being shot by mentally ill people you don't know? I think it's called paranoia.

So you don't stress when people you know are going to shoot you?

This thread is about the fact that there is NO EFFECTIVE mental health care.

It is not about what you comment upon. In fact what you write DOES NOT COGNIT. Meaning you could be a "cognitive infiltrator".

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

No, I don't

I was brought up in a military family on military bases and raised around guns, knives, old war equipment was our favorite toys. "War" was one of our favorite games played in bunkers and gun holes... I like hunting, so, being I've spent my life around guns, they don't bother me, and I actually feel safer when everyone has one. When everyone has a gun, the idea of shooting someone doesn't pop into mind very often, no matter how good a shot you are, and I'm a very good shot.

Anyways, I have an issue with marginalizing and blaming mental illness as an excuse for gun control as that is what Stalin and Hitler did before saying the same were nothing but eaters and murdered them.

I hope that is not where you plan on going by ignorance of history or insensitivity to what mental illness is. MSM brainwashes people, who many get touched from time to time, just look at the sales of ant-depressents, mood elevators and balancers on TV.

I am not responsible for your mental health.

Life is full of danger from other people. Someone with an air born virus might sneeze near me; an accident prone driver might cross my path; a mentally ill person might attack me. I am not responsible for these people, but I am responsible for myself so I keep my immune system functioning well, buy auto insurance, and have weapons to defend myself.

Even these politicians like Obama who want protection for their families and themselves from the likes of James Holmes use guns for that protection. They just hire someone else to carry the guns instead of doing it themselves, yet they want to deprive me of the right to do it myself by infringing on my right to keep and bear arms.

I don't think mental health treatment is the answer. First of all, most of the current mental health care is bogus; it is just expensive, mind numbing drugging that cures nothing. Much of mental malfunction comes from industrial pollutants, dietary deficiencies, and horrible parenting which drugs do not address. Secondly, no matter how much of it is dispensed, there will always be people who are a danger to the rest of us, but until they act, they have the right to live in freedom.

There is no available solution that will eliminate these mindless acts of violence. The is a solution that will mitigate the damages, and that is widespread concealed carry, and insurance.

As long as government is in the hip pockets of drug companies and the polluters, they will continue their attacks on producers of healthy food, attacks on producers of supplements, and protection of polluters, and the level of mental health will be poor, no matter how much "mental health care" is dispensed.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Generalizations usually do not include details of solution

Henry wrote:
"I don't think mental health treatment is the answer. First of all, most of the current mental health care is bogus;"

Gee Henry, you must have only reading the replies rather than the OP.

I agree, the current mental heath care is bogus. My point has been, that government is unlawfully blocking the development of effective mental health care and psychology is too afraid. because of that, to step out on their own to demand it be done.

We are paying with lives and loss of rights.

Meaning your first premise for objection to this is resolved IF you really want to protect gun rights.

Henry wrote:
"Secondly, no matter how much of it is dispensed, there will always be people who are a danger to the rest of us, but until they act, they have the right to live in freedom."

Again true, but the generalization is not a reasonable argument against the development of effective health care, which is what I propose.

We need to see the results on mass media of effective health care, then those who might kill will be informed of alternatives. If it is effective, it will save immense amounts of public funds eventually.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Before you respond to this thread

Or go through the trouble of reading all the responses let me summarize for you.

This guy Christopher A Brown thinks that the medical field of psychobabble doesn't have enough ammo in it's arsenal to mess with peoples minds and claims that more "effective mental health care" is needed.

He thinks that HIS idea of putting people under the influence of nitrous oxide and hypnotizing them is "effective mental health care". Because if you get deep enough into their subconscious then you can make them accept society as it is http://i46.tinypic.com/1gook3.jpg ,

He believes that people who commit violence do so because they are being deprived of HIS "effective mental health care". Because mentally ill people know they are mentally ill and know that HIS "effective mental health care" is not available to help them. So they lash out at society http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2630904 and http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2630925

And he believes that the government is suppressing HIS "effective mental health care" so they can take our guns away. http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2631952

In short Mr Brown has a the idea that if the government would just allow his psycho brainwashing hypnosis as a form of "mental health care" then all the crazies will flock to the mindjobbers for treatment and our 2nd Amendment rights will be secure from further erosion because all gun violence will stop. Thus there would be no need for mandatory screening.

Perhaps Mr Brown is just a little angry that he didn't make a ton of money from the government off of his proposal. That's how these people work, get the government to back their "whatever" and then you have it made. And he has complained that he doesn't have enough money. http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2630892

Also, it seems to me, that if HIS method is capable of what he says then it would be the perfect tool to make some genius college kid go on a killing spree in a movie theater. Just pump a little nitrous oxide into his room and send in MR Brown to embed the orders into the kids subconscious. Kinda makes all those mind altering drugs look a little feeble in comparison.

anothernobody gets the distortion award

anothernobody wrote:
"He thinks that HIS idea of putting people under the influence of nitrous oxide and hypnotizing them is "effective mental health care". Because if you get deep enough into their subconscious then you can make them accept society as it is http://i46.tinypic.com/1gook3.jpg"

Please show where I think BECAUSE, then people can be made to accept society as it is.

anothernobody wrote:
"He believes that people who commit violence do so because they are being deprived of HIS "effective mental health care"."

Please show that people know they are deprived of this specific proposal for mental health care.

anothernobody wrote:
"And he believes that the government is suppressing HIS "effective mental health care" so they can take our guns away. http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2631952"

Please show where I believe that; because of the deprivation of right and violation of law relating to this proposal, government is planning to increase gun control.

anothernobody wrote:
"Also, it seems to me, that if HIS method is capable of what he says then it would be the perfect tool to make some genius college kid go on a killing spree in a movie theater. Just pump a little nitrous oxide into his room and send in MR Brown to embed the orders into the kids subconscious."

The though had occurred to me that the government is suppressing this treatment because it might be capable of recovering memories of such a thing being done by nwo operatives by any method.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Good Question

Mentally Ill cant execute contracts. A person must understand and be able to enact the duties that come with rights. Is it the obligation of government to test the individual's fitness to contract? Is there any precedent? Is there anyway to background check in contract law?

Let's see...

...I wonder how they would do this or how extreme they would get with it.

Let's say someone has bad behavior as a child and the parent gets him help. Would he be banned as an adult? Would someone seeking mental help because they went through a divorce be banned? Would a person that goes to an AA group or a grief counseling group be banned? Would everyone have to have their entire medical record searched first exposing information very personal that has nothing to do with mental health? The list goes on and things are always taken to the extreme.

What people don't realize is that people who are sick or criminals will always find a way to obtain what they are looking for. It would just be the 1st step in raping more privacy & rights from good people.

How far off topic can you go?

kron,
You can't seem to understand that this thread has nothing to do with banning people from gun ownership.

It has to do with the fact that America DOES NOT HAVE EFFECTIVE MENTAL HEALTH CARE!

Not at all. Your post amounts to unconscious evasion after the numerous replies I've posted attempting to explain to you that this thread is not about screening or review of medical records.

You, with your unconscious evasion are participating in the rape of rights as you refuse to recognize that without effective, appropriate mental health care, the gun violence is going to escalate as the sabotaged economy gets worse and the oppression of big government increases.

Psychology is DEEPLY negligent in dealing with the human unconscious mind, and THAT is what fuels the violence. To create effective mental health care psychology must work directly with the unconscious mind.

This graphic will give you an idea of how insignificant the human conscious existence is in proportion to the unconscious.

http://i41.tinypic.com/a15nx3.jpg

Not that the conscious existence is unimportant. The reverse, but IT IS ABOUT UNDERSTANDING. If you refuse to stay on topic and discuss the issue, then your unconscious is controlling your perceptions.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Okay, let's say I'm understanding...

...a bit of what you are saying. There is something that you may or may not consider. There are three types of people.
A) One who seeks help and continues to seek help, learns and keeps learning how to function as normal as possible with up and down success but never stops because of the desire to be "better".

B) One who seeks help, but goes on in their continual behavior doing things against the advice of their doctor, therefore deceiving themselves into thinking nothing works.

C) One who is too proud to seek help.

There also must be considered the "doctors". There are those who care deeply in what they do and who are truly skilled at helping the individual who desires it, and those who are in it for a paycheck(in which it can cause person A sometimes years to find the right help).

So what exactly are you proposing to resolve this? What are you proposing to enforce this(if at all). The only option would be for an intelligent individual to come up with a program to teach professionals and those attending school on how to deal with this.

And please, do not answer me in a pompous fashion, like I am a stupid human being. No need to address...Kron says: please, this is not a classroom with a bunch of idiots in which only you hold the key of truth. In speaking of psychology, your negative votes come from how you treat people and not always because one disagrees with everything you say. Be respectful & kind. In love brother=)

Perhaps 4 actual citizens post in this thread. You are one

kron wrote:
"And please, do not answer me in a pompous fashion, like I am a stupid human being. No need to address...Kron says: please, this is not a classroom with a bunch of idiots in which only you hold the key of truth. In speaking of psychology, your negative votes come from how you treat people and not always because one disagrees with everything you say. Be respectful & kind. In love brother=)"

The sincere work for accountability, the more sincere they are the harder they work. Your sincerity is showing.

Please accept an apology for riding roughshod over you earlier.

It is absolutely necessary because about 70% of posters anywhere popular are cognitive infiltrators. They use the votes, the sincere use accountability and text=:-) And, it takes time to test the group and find the sincere. I think there are perhaps 4 actual real citizens posting in this thread. The rest, no.

kron wrote:
"The only option would be for an intelligent individual to come up with a program to teach professionals and those attending school on how to deal with this."

Government does not want effective mental health care, so intelligence doesn't matter at that level. What matters is numbers of people simply understanding that government is violating laws to prevent effective mental health care from becoming a reality.

Psychologists and psychiatrists, professionals can learn this just like the Ph.D director recognized the validity of the treatment proposed. These were gov employees trying to follow the law.

http://i46.tinypic.com/1gook3.jpg

This FOIA disappeared from the clerk of the board records within 3 years after being unanswered as I sought the "answer in writing" promised in the letter . A violation of law.

http://i46.tinypic.com/20atatx.jpgareas

Your approach is correct but premature and presents complexity that disorients. The best thing to do now it get the public to realize the degree of negligence and malfeasance we are faced with.

By default, if we can unify in outrage, (the costs are immense in every way), and demand that municipalities in states with laws like California state health and safety code, 1370.4 immediately begin development of that treatment.

It needs to be open too. We have to watchdog gov with this treatment. They have proven the ARE NOT THE EXPERTS and they ARE NOT ACTING IN OUR INTERESTS. Therefor watch them very closely at each step. this will do our society huge good.

Seriously. The hypnotic scripts that are administered need to be made public. We don't know who they went to or why, but we know what went into their mind AND, if we can improve it in ANY way, we must be allowed to contribute and that would be enforceable by democratic action if need be.
Just having the public understand the script and what it treats is enough to help people to adjust their values an principles to become better people and Americans.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

I know you are a good-hearted guy...

...thanks for your response. And I so agree that most mental health care is garbage. I can also see that there are only a few individuals that truly have the heart to help those people. And the ones that find them are very blessed! Someone I know recently gained employment to help teenagers cope in their family lives. This person was doing this on they're own even while a teenager. A true heart for young people, even though the job is risky...going to the homes!

If you do not have a degree in any of these areas, you should! You seem to have a heart for it! I know a handful of people, some present, and some in the past...struggling for good help. Some took years and finally found it. Some are still searching. Some aren't doing as they should. That is why I said what I said, only because I know some people. They have been, for the most part, just very depressed. There is much of that in Michigan...if that makes any sense.

It is sad, and frankly, I don't know how it could be resolved. I also believe if Obamacare isn't put to a halt, it will get worse. However, I have never heard of what you put in that letter. That was 1999! Wow! Just goes to show you! They keep much help for us. Someone recently told me they have found something to completely wipe out cavities, but refuse to release that because of the loss of finances in the first place. I also heard the same with cancer.

Please forgive me, I am not as eloquent with my words as you are!

Tearing at the festering scab of truth by exposing distortion

kron wrote:
"...I wonder how they would do this or how extreme they would get with it."

Are you paranoid, or trying to create paranoia? Who is "they". Why generalize?

kron wrote:
"Let's say someone has bad behavior as a child and the parent gets him help. Would he be banned as an adult? Would someone seeking mental help because they went through a divorce be banned? Would a person that goes to an AA group or a grief counseling group be banned? Would everyone have to have their entire medical record searched first exposing information very personal that has nothing to do with mental health? The list goes on and things are always taken to the extreme."

Looks very much like you are trying to make people afraid of simply having effective mental health care available. That is all I suggest.

I made the proposal to government health care because they have reduced liability and private doctors are afraid.

kron wrote:
"What people don't realize is that people who are sick or criminals will always find a way to obtain what they are looking for. It would just be the 1st step in raping more privacy & rights from good people."

"Just-tify" your suggestion that the availability of effective mental health care would be a way of "raping more privacy & rights from good people."

Maybe you work for the nwo and the effect of this treatment is the exact reverse of what you suggest because occasionally people with mental health problems might remember things that indicate secret gov programmed them. And, of course, if such things are happening, secret government does not want people to know that deprogramming from depression, anxiety, anger, grief etc. actually works; because if it does, the reverse could work too.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?