-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.

Excuse me!!!???

I was speaking of government checking out each individual's health records before they pertain a permit! I have nothing against people getting mental health if they need it!!!!!!! Exactly the opposite! I don't think people should be classified as having a ban because they have had the help! Are you for real!? Think you need to re-read what I wrote.....DUH!

For what, being off topic, for entertaining

the misrepresentations so badly you are defending the relevance of your erroneous off topic post?

This thread is not about screening, its not about health records, its not about a ban.

Its about the fact that there is no real HELP.

That is "effective mental health care", America doesn't have any-DUH!

Trying reading the original post rather than all the cognitive infiltrators trying to get you so confused you'll contribute to the reasons to confiscate your weapons.

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?

Try explaining yourself better...

...because I am not the one with the minus 26!

The vote rating is used as a tool by

the cognitive infiltration and their false groups. Notice none are actually addressing the op reasonably.

You've been doing what they want, accepting their misinterpretations, so actually understanding the original post and realizing that perhaps 3 posts are actually on topic and addressing the issue meaningfully is what needs to be done to protect gun rights.

The fact that America has no effective mental health care generally is going to cause increased regulation of guns compromising the 2nd amendment.

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?

just some simple questions for supporters of this idea

1. would police be screened for mental illness?

2. are there known videos circulating depicting police with behaviors so violent that they imply some form of mentality instability? if yes,

3. are some of these police still hired?

i think i have made my point.

in the end, when you federalize mental screening, it's going to come down, just as usual, to who has better connections. unions and police and those who can apply pressure to the government administrative more closely will 'manage' to find more loopholes, where citizens will get the most severe check. and criminals? they just won't fuking care.

i lived in a gun-ban country for 10 years. criminals rule the street. gangs stop people for a road side check and if you have money in wallet that you don't give voluntarily pre-check, you are in huge trouble. people with guns? they are just kings, taking hostage everywhere as police chase them, because people on the way can't resist.

this does create lots of jobs for shrinks.

Oscar Grant had no choice

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/09/oscar-grant-oakl...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmJukcFzEX4

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?

Bad Taco Combo Plate Rant

Betty making a sweeping statement that "people who have guns are de-synthesized to those with mental health problems" and Christopher agreeing is enough for me to determine that this thread knowingly or unconsciously is dialectic babble.

1. Only in the last ten years have a felt a need for a gun for protection. Every day I am more certain of this. In the probable event of financial collapse which will result in much more crime and very angry people on the street, breaking into houses, stealing at first necessities and then anything they can get their hands on, I would be crazy (mentally ill) not to have a means of protecting my family.

2. As my government takes more of my rights away and sets in motion the means to label me a terrorist because I believe in the Constitution and do not believe in surveillance tactics and elitist wars, I feel every day more certain that the day may come soon when I may need a gun to protect myself from my own government and law enforcers.

3. As my government continues to hire *anyone* to frisk me at an airport and perhaps later go on a power kick that feeds into their inner rage and feelings of inferiority, I feel more need to have the means to protect myself from citizens empowered to exert their will over mine with impunity.

4. As more and more *contractors* are hired as thugs to kill overseas with impunity for the pocketbooks of the elitists, I feel uncomfortable with them returning to the US streets still on their power kicks and experiences of being above the law.

5. As more kids are trained to kill and return from insane wars against civilians and children and suffer dissociative behavior disorders while finding no jobs and inundating their too much spare time with lethal video games replicating their war experience while listening to violent rap and heavy metal music, I feel uncomfortable about their ability to re-enter society.

I could go on about how my attitude toward guns has changed in the last decade.

I *care* very much about people of all ages sent overseas for the first time to commit unspeakable atrocities and the state of their mental health when they return.

I care very much about people pushed to desperation as they can't feed themselves or their families because there are no jobs.

I feel rage toward a sick profession (those who *treat* the with psychotropic medications and render *many* mentally ill and dangerous while robbing them of any chance for a normal life0.

I despise the public school system that bows down to the pharmaceutical lobbyists and continue to push *testing* of all little children and, then, drugging them for life.

So-called mental illness did not use to be the problem it is now. Create the problem...provide the solution...destroy society.

If the mixed bag of apples and oranges presented in this thread held water, I would recognize that those in government, contractors for government, pharmaceuticals and mental health doctors and others who deliberately and with fore-knowledge maim, destroy, debilitate and kill innocent people are the most mentally ill of all. And, no, I have no compassion for them.

So Christopher and Betty, tell me just what you think would be *appropriate* mental health treatment? At this point, by design, we are all a bit mentally ill to have allowed it to get to this point. P
Protecting ourselves from the mentally ill government and health care industries we have allowed to grow like a cancer is both appropriate and necessary.

Yes, the Aurora incident like so many others is insane. But not just because someone lost it (whether psy-ops , drugs, manchurian mind control) really doesn't matter so much as this is yet one more incidence where logic goes against what is being said, done and acknowledged.

By design, it encourages people *not* to think straight to the point where they *might think* they have two choices: (a) take away the guns and there will be no violence by *citizens* or (b) address mental illness by more testing and labeling...more psychotropic drugs...more corralling.

One person in that theater with a gun who loved his little family would have reduced the number dead. The shooter...knowing that there would be many with guns...would quite possibly have thought twice before going to a theater and killing people. THAT is the reason he or his handlers chose Aurora where there would be no guns. JMO.

fonta

More To This Issue Than History Records

Makes it very difficult to see the true problem thus the true solution as well.

fonta wrote:
Create the problem...provide the solution...destroy society.

Media and semiotics + dumbing down + corporate exploitation+ invocation of primal instincts = destruction of society and make lots of money off the prison system.

fonta wrote:
"dialectic babble."

Hmm, that is a cognitive distortion of labeling. Betty is correct in many ways, but generalizing as well. I see the attitudes she describes. In my reply to her I apologize for fitting in with the label "crazies" that I use to try and appear as though I think that way as well. I do not. More natural methods of living and healing actually work.

fonta wrote:
So Christopher and Betty, tell me just what you think would be *appropriate* mental health treatment?

This is a scan of a letter ordered by the senior director of the Santa Barbara County Mental Health Department which provides a defacto approval of a proposal for mental health care that addresses the 86% unconscious mind.

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

Ph.D's in psychology do not "carry forward requests to the state" that they do not approve of.

Below is the FOIA used to try and get the answer in writing promised int he letter above.

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

By 2004 that letter was gone from the clerk of the boards files and the specific supervisor in charge of the hospital district. This but scratches the surface of the violations of law gov is guilty of to evade law and the creation of appropriate mental health care.

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?

That has Nothing to do with my post

...just nothing.

fonta

It answered your issues completely

While pointing out your labelling attempting to make the issue go away without understanding it.

Now you indicate with your refusal to reason with the information in support of your position that you are dissociating.

Ya gonna' lose your gun behaving like that man.

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 if I want my rights I have to do what you tell me?

Horse shit.

I have rights because.

Period.

They are not subject to your requirements.

Too bad if you don't like it.

Guess you haven't figured out that government

is working to take your rights.

To do it they are allowing extreme mental illness by refusing to allow psychology to make effective mental health care.

When the mentally ill resort to mass killing of the public, government says they have reason to justify denying you your right.

If you can't understand this you will likely have to use you gun to protect your rights, wherein you'll probably lose your life.

Why not use your brain now and keep both?

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 only if I agree with you and do as you say, am I "using my

brain?"

Ludicrous!

The government is busy doing lots of things it isn't supposed to be doing, and little or none of what it is supposed to be doing.

The government can claim any justifications for whatever it wants to do.

Even if we had "effective mental health care" in America (presuming we don't now) they will not suddenly stop and say, "Damn! We HAD them almost! But now, we lost every means to steal the guns because now everyone is SANE and can prove it!!"

Really?

Really?

You're a hoot!

Unity requires brains

Maybe the notion of Americans agreeing escapes you. Maybe their agreement on obvious factors of our society in unity is not understood. Maybe their agreement upon the simple fact that effective mental health care will provide an option for desperate people and prevent random mass murders when such murders are being used as an excuse to increase gun control.

samadamscw wrote:
"The government can claim any justifications for whatever it wants to do."

Correct, and it has the actual power on the ground to just come and take your gun, and everyone else's. Recall the DHS just bought 450 million rounds of 40 cal hollow points with your $.

"Even if we had "effective mental health care" in America (presuming we don't now) they will not suddenly stop and say, "Damn! We HAD them almost!""

True enough, but if you can use your brain to understand that stopping the behaviors that lead to mass murder and the justifications for gun control it brings, then others can too.

Remember, this is the "United States of America", and contempt for unity or the mental requirements of agreement is dispicable because unity is needed to defend the constitution. It makes us strong and able to resist unlawful government.

If you watch TV you are probably influenced to consider yourself different and divide yourself off from other Americans and wait for the government to use its justifications to take action, "for our safety" and surround your home demanding your gun. They want you to think like you do. Then you are weak and we are weakened.

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 I should provide free mental healthcare to people in case

they decide to buy a gun? Isn't that a little extreme? Who gets to say who's crazy? By what criteria? What if they decide the very desire to own a gun is crazy? I don't think the government should have any role in deciding if anyone is sane or if they can own a gun. It is the government's job to recognize and support my right to protect myself from crazy people with guns.

Yet one more poster that misinterprets the original post

This has nothing to do with gun criteria for gun ownership.

This is about America haveing some kind of effective mental health care. Now it has none and gun rights will suffer.

Serious gun rights activists take notice of the constant misinterpretations. These posters are not real. Cognitive infiltration.

http://politics.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-oper... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/09/1024519/-Threats-fr... http://boingboing.net/2011/02/18/hbgarys-high-volume.html http://revolutionmessaging.com/2011/09/21/how-to-weed-out-as... http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/16173.html http://veracitystew.com/2011/02/25/astroturfing-the-season-o... http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/04/25/cv-electi... http://www.infowars.com/cognitive-infiltration-an-obama-appo... http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Infiltration-Appointees-Unde...

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?

You made the connection my friend

If you don't expect an answer with both elements maybe don't include them both in the topic. Should people be allowed to own guns while taco bell continues to make bad tacos is the important question here.

Some people don't know what they are doing(?)

MikeLawson wrote:
"So I should provide free mental healthcare to people in case
they decide to buy a gun? Isn't that a little extreme? Who gets to say who's crazy? By what criteria? What if they decide the very desire to own a gun is crazy? I don't think the government should have any role in deciding if anyone is sane or if they can own a gun. It is the government's job to recognize and support my right to protect myself from crazy people with gun"

Above you falsely attempt to make criteria for ownership of a gun a part of what I'm saying. It is not, I tell you so.

Chris wrote:
"This has nothing to do with gun criteria for gun ownership."

MikeLawson wrote:
"If you don't expect an answer with both elements maybe don't include them both in the topic. Should people be allowed to own guns while taco bell continues to make bad tacos is the important question here."

Are you saying that gun ownership cannot be influenced by the actions of psychotic people?

I'm pointing out that psychotic people do not want to be psychotic but psychology is too inept to provide any relief. Therefore eventually may resort to extreme deadly actions that are then used by government to justify increased limits on gun ownership.

All I'm saying (proving)
http://i46.tinypic.com/1gook3.jpg
http://i46.tinypic.com/20atatx.jpgareas.

is that gov does not want effective mental health care because IF it existed, they wouldn't have the excuses they need to create the emotional reasoning in the public to get the masses to agree to increased controls.

You are acting as a cognitive infiltrator whether you know it or not by refusing to reason here. Pretending it cannot be reasoned. Evading the fact that America does not have effective mental health care at all. Selectivity.

By default saying, "I don't care, gov and medicine can neglect all they want, a peaceful and free society does not matter, or at least I'm not going to contribute to it by recognizing that effective mental health care is a pre requisite."

Is Mike Lawson your real name?

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 don't think healthcare or gun ownership is the government's

business. I can't really get past that point with this one.
Why does my screenname concern you?

Government Licenses Psychologists

and they are afraid to develop the most effective treatments because the church doesn't approve of the needed methods of interacting with the unconscious mind that actually work.

For these reasons no effective mental health care exists in America.

Just checking your basic fear levels.

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?

"America" is not a system, machine, patient, person, or any

other "entity" that you can control or manipulate or remake in whatever image you want.

It is a collection of INDIVIDUALS.

What they need and want is EACH their OWN business and NONE of yours.

You would do well to mind your own business.

That is - tend to your own needs and wants and leave the rest of us alone.

If someone needs help, certainly, offer it if you can or care, but if they refuse - accept that refusal and back off.

We share needs and unity in meeting them is natural

But the confusion on this subjects causes rejection of simple facts. Media has cultivated that confusion for decades to reduce our capacity for unity. Maybe, because of that you fit into a plan to weaken us by rejecting unity and the United States of America as something the people control. Or those using logic to unify as another group doing what they want.

Individuals share their needs. Needs are very much the same across the spectrum. Wants on the other hand are infinite and everyone has their own.

A human being always wants what they need, but does not always need what they want.

Placing wants over needs creates problems. Entertaining false needs creates problems.

Perhaps you don't realize it but the new world order loves your way of thinking, because it wants power over all of us, and we need unity to resist it. Individuals will not matter in that.

Use your brain, keep your life, your gun and your freedom.

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?

Guns!

Guns, definitively.

I stopped reading at the Subject. I did not read the post. It is *that* much black and white topic.

"Guns" is the answer to "which comes first - Mental Health or Guns".

We already have gun rights, they aren't going away unless . . .

government finds a reason to show Americans are too out of control.

These shootings are doing that.

If you can't understand this you will likely have to use you gun to protect your rights, wherein you'll probably lose your life.

Why not use your brain now and keep both?

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?

They aren't going away ever.

Anyone who thinks they can succeed in taking away the right to bear arms, will die trying.

It is a fool's errand, and a despotic and evil one at that.

We are in no danger of losing our right to keep and bear arms.

What we are in danger of is having to put this government in its place since it seems to be itching to test my claim that it is a fool's errand.

This could all be resolved quite amicably and peacefully, but people like you don't want it to. You want to keep telling other people what they need and must have, and thus what they have to pay for so others can have it too when they can't provide it for themselves.

Nope, you folks just can't leave the rest of us alone in peace. You have to meddle and try to control others.

You could back off. But you won't. Just like the morons in government won't. Instead, all of you are going to force a bloody revolution on this nation. You will lose.

And then we'll get on with our lives. Those of us that are left.

i will take the necessary collateral of incidents like these

twice a year over the expansion of authority to use these as excuses for *any potential infringement on our ability to keep the government in check with civilian armament and self defense, any single day.

and why the f aren't you retards talking about the company with zero security measure? one company's failure means mental screening for 300 million people? how about we start with you? your brain needs scanning, obviously. watch these feminine brains out with their baby step compromises again, every time something creates a tiny shell shock in their small cerebral capacity.

Do you live in a corporate fantasy?

jtstellar wrote:
"and why the f aren't you retards talking about the company with zero security measure?"

Gee another poster that that goes along with the misinterpretation that the infiltrators prefer over the actual topic. Effective mental health care, period.

You are thrice removed from being on topic which is protecting our 2nd amendment rights by seeing that people have effective mental health care available . . . somewhere. And it ain't there yet.

Read the OP.

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?

Your attempt to inextricably tie our rights to YOUR unqualified

assessment of the mental health of ANYONE let alone over 300 million people is the misdirection here.

YOU are trying to subvert liberty by claiming it lies on the precarious foundation of what YOU determine is our mental health or lack thereof.

That is absolute nonsense.

My rights are inalienable.

They are not dependent on YOUR diagnoses of my mental health. They are not dependent on my mental health at ALL.

The path you have laid out is doomed to failure and to bring about the very destruction of liberty you claim to want to avoid.

It could most likely be described as a Trojan Horse, as if your effort succeeded, it would be the very undoing of what you are using to rally others to support your cause for - the right to keep and bear arms.

Can't take them away, but if you can't enforce them

they don't mean much.

samadamscw wrote:
"My rights are inalienable."

samadamscw wrote:
"YOU are trying to subvert liberty by claiming it lies on the precarious foundation of what YOU determine is our mental health or lack thereof."

If mental health depends on the unconscious mind and ultimate secrecy does too, is it logical to deny effective mental health care to a nation to keep secrets?

That is why we don't have effective mental health care and there is a secret agenda to take your guns and ignore your "inalienable" 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?

I think there is a kernel of truth to this post

People that do support the 2nd amendment on the whole are less likely to tend to be compassionate or understanding of mental illness, while those that oppose guns on the whole tend to propose the AMA/Big Pharma route which is sometimes worse than doing nothing. There are a few people out there that have figured out that mental illness is best treated holistically, specifically with orthomolecular medicine and family support. But, our state's department of health always promote what? Big Pharma/AMA! Our non-representatives promote what? Big Pharma/AMA and total denial of any family rights at all. They isolate the individual and drug them. OMG!!! What a bunch of idiocy!

You know until people catch a clue we will still be having these problems.

Furthermore, I really don't appreciate seeing the word "crazies". This shows that this person has totally dehumanized these people. They are people and they are ill and deserve to be treated with compassion and effective care. How dare they not be! How dare we turn out backs on them! How dare our non-representatives legislate to isolate them and promote toxic medications. How backwards are we? It is a national embarrassment!

betty