-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.

Comment viewing options

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

I would have to agree with the below.

betty wrote:
"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."

Because I agree with the above I accommodated possible attitudes that appreciate such a label (below) in trying to cross some barriers. I apologize to your sensibilities with my uses of that label.

betty wrote:
"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."

They are ill, and that is a problem that can only be dealt with by treating the unconscious mind. Over time, your methods do work better than AMA/Big Pharma but many people can't do it without lots of help and community.

These methods use the best instincts and have a history of use in these areas. Gov doesn't want us to have effective mental health care.

http://i46.tinypic.com/1gook3.jpg
http://i46.tinypic.com/20atatx.jpg

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?

Who is betty, and where does she get her facts from?

"People that do support the 2nd amendment on the whole are less likely to tend to be compassionate or understanding of mental illness,"

This makes me so angry! Did you do some polling? Assumed anyone with a gun is trigger happy and treats everyone as a target?

I am well acquainted with people with mental illness on a personal level, with heart-breaking experiences to boot, so don't sell me the line that gun ownership equates with a lack of compassion for those with mental health issues!

I could easy use the same logic and claim your lack of owning firearms means you are irresponsible and callously indifferent to protect your family and neighbors from harm!

But I can prove historically how one government confiscated all private arms from its citizens, and dealt with mental illness among its unarmed citizens with organized euthanasia as the Final Solution-- Care to guess which one I am referring to?

Conscience does not exist if not exercised

"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin

This logic IS NOT an absolute.

Just when do our inalienable rights have to be brokered or negotiated?

You might as well say we cannot have freedom of speech until everyone agree and learn to talk nice to each other.

There is not such thing as effective health care! Not in early detection of individuals at risk, not with prescriptions often neglected to be taken regularly by the mental health patients.

According to your logic, we should not have guns until the perfect mental heath care utopia is reached--which would be never!

Finally, what about testing the mental health of our government leaders who have access to nukes, bio-weapons, tanks, cluster bombs, Drones, and so on? Maybe they should be prevented from any authority to employ them, eh? We've already seen Congress removed as a critical check and balance by executive privilege to use force anytime and anywhere.

Sheesh. People who sweat about gun control really need a sense of proportion on who really has dangerous arsenal at their disposal to kill thousands or even millions of people at the touch of a red button! That we allow so much destructive force in the hands of a few is the real madness!

Conscience does not exist if not exercised

"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin

What helps soldiers heal can protect rights too

SemperFi wrote:
"According to your logic, we should not have guns until the perfect mental heath care utopia is reached--which would be never!"

That is a generalization. Effective does not have to be perfect and effective actually exists, but academia of medicine won't allow it and gov violates laws to avoid providing it.

http://i46.tinypic.com/1gook3.jpg
http://i46.tinypic.com/20atatx.jpgareas.

What about equal suicides to casualties in the middle east right now? I mean how do you feel knowing that the gov they fight for denies them simple treatments that can help recover fromthe psychological scarring of war?

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 said

"What about equal suicides to casualties in the middle east right now? I mean how do you feel knowing that the gov they fight for denies them simple treatments that can help recover from the psychological scarring of war?"

I have a better plan for preventative treatment--Stop the damn wars!

Otherwise all we are doing is paying for more expensive ambulances at the bottom of a cliff to retrieve an endless number of victims created by governments gone mad.

Conscience does not exist if not exercised

"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin

Restore the Constitution and We Can End War+Protect Rights

Restore the Constitution and We Can End War+Protect Rights
Like the 1st and 2nd amendments.

SemperFi wrote:
"I have a better plan for preventative treatment--Stop the damn wars!"

Agreed.

Consider however, that we have 60,000 returning veterans and the fact that some need help and there is no good help. It's improving but by no great measure.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margaret-stone/veterans-health...

Having effective mental health care helps them and protects gun rights by providing an alternative of relief without violence. Federal courts have secretly revised court rules to permanently make a way to "remove access to courts" by pro se plaintiffs in civil right cases. In a case I filed, the removal was to assist local government in evasion of state laws so that effective mental health care WOULD NOT be developed!

To end wars we need to restore Constitutional government. Article V is the only sure way to do it but congress is violating laws, their oath and the Constitution. A formal criminal complaint has been made.

http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmarks/2012/02/18/congress-re...

If free speech is so abridged citizens cannot inform other citizens about the law, and violations of it or about treason, then the soldier is the last line of constitutional defense. This BTW, has been reviewed by competent legal scholars and their only comment was, "ahead of the curve".

I'm looking for soldiers, active or otherwise, to review and comment upon it. So far, there is too much fear of command for any word from active duty. Vets have shown me with their reactions how that goes.

Those are social fears controlling the soldier not their oath. This is fully constitutional and legal, oath filled defense of the constitution from domestic enemies.

http://algoxy.com/ows/soldiers_inquiry_draft-2_14.pdf

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 respect your geniune concern

for mental health illness, particularity with returning soldiers traumatized from their tour of duty. but here's the flaw in your logic:

"Having effective mental health care helps them and protects gun rights by providing an alternative of relief without violence."

There cannot be any effective health care under the auspices of the government. For example, the VA has a terrible record of proving consistent care. If mental health services were supported under a government mandate, like Obamacare, Medicare, or a economic stimulus, it still would not meet the needs of mental health patients. Most likely, it would do worse.

I'm not saying we shouldn't improve and provide better resources. Too many unfortunates are merely handed a prescription of the latest guinea pig wonder-drug from big pharma and then left to fend for themselves. We need more volunteer and non-profit organizations to step in, not more government involvement with tax dollars wasted.

The government would use any excuse to exclude returning vets or anyone displaying milder, temporary forms of mental stress or depression from owning firearms. Go to a counselor for a couple of sessions to work out your grief over the death of a friend, or vent anger over a bad experience, and bang, you are labeled mentally compromised to own a firearm based on criteria set by the government, not the profession.

Government backed and sponsored mental health care would
come with a political agenda to remove any and all gun rights from a patient for the most trivial of reasons, back by a court order and men with uniforms and badges.

Conscience does not exist if not exercised

"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin

Then government wants the public to be mentally unstable

so they can regulate more completely, increasing their power over us.

SemperFi wrote:
"Government backed and sponsored mental health care would
come with a political agenda to remove any and all gun rights from a patient for the most trivial of reasons, back by a court order and men with uniforms and badges.

Government backed and sponsored mental health care is already a reality, and it is a JOKE (on us)

I do not advocate that such fraud be expanded.

I advocate that effective mental health care be developed and because of the fear that gov creates, psychology won't do it. Therefore government with reduced liability needs to develop it IN ORDER TO FOLLOW CALIFORNIA STATE LAW, CHS 1370.4.

Federal courts have made secret revisions of local court rules that violate the constitutional rights of citizens who seek pro se remedy in federal courts.

After it is developed, THEN private psychologists will lose their fear and the public as well as vets could receive treatment that works well for the "temporary forms of mental stress or depression" permanently preventing relapses.

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?

The problem isn't

a made up psych Dx. It's the brain damaging, mind numbing psych drugs that is the problem.

I think you're arguing for

more government spending on mental health care. The system is being built as we speak: scores of huge re-education camps, one to open near you soon.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

Effective is more economical-current system is a waste

Less spent on mental health care because what is spent is effective. Now it is ineffective.

Less spent on law enforcement.

Less spent on health care.

Less spent on welfare.

Less spent on prisons.

And you get to keep your gun because people are seeking treatment they know works rather than getting hopeless and going into the shooting mode in public places.

How wrong can you be?

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?

More effective means less spending on MH care and

no camps needed.

Less law enforcement needed.

Less medical.

Less welfare.

Why do you want them to take your gun because people are losing it and gov will not allow effective MH care?

Yea, right. Providers are afraid of providing anything that really works because it has to work with the unconscious mind and that is heresy. Church/state really cares about that.

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?

This might get interesting

if you'd get right to your point. You don't like the present mental health care system so what precisely do you think is most workable, meditation?

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

We don't have mental health care, we have fakery

State licensed psychologists have to ignore the unconscious mind so psychology is seriously incompetent. Problem with separation of church and state.

A major revision of therapy methods that starts with the below proposal has been proposed and these methods use the best instincts. There is a history of use in these areas. But gov doesn't want us to have effective mental health care. They violate a lot of laws to assure effective treatment is not developed.

http://i46.tinypic.com/1gook3.jpg
http://i46.tinypic.com/20atatx.jpgareas.

In 2006 all citizens in the 9th circuit suffered a major loss of civil rights as the district court in LA secretly revised their local court rules to stop the lawful development of effective mental health care.

If that treatment existed, how could they assure maximum gun control if the public wasn't going off shooting mass numbers on a regular basis?

People will seek effective treatment, but won't allow quack doctors to prescribe drugs that actually debilitate them and worsen the problem.

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?

In a Free Society....

.... oh, wait. This is not a free society and this is an exceptionally bad time for liberty. The statists on the left are calling for more "common sense" gun control while statists on the right are calling for government determinations of peoples future sanity.

This morning on the Sunday morning broadcast TV news shows I heard calls for citizens to report "suspicious" neighbors to the cops, restrict clip sizes, ban assault weapons, have professionals (read teachers) report odd students and have the government track and respond to internet activity. There was even one talking head who went unchallanged when he stated the Founders had no intention of citizens being allowed to own weapons comparable with those of the government.

Much of the narrative was based on scoffing at the idea that having other armed citizens in the theatre could have helped. All those against the idea spoke of how was one guy with a gun going to stand up to the arsenal the shooter used. They miss the point.

The shooter's actions are the acts of a coward. He purposely went to a place he knew people would be unarmed. He wore body armor. He smoked the room to obscure his actions. Face it, he didn't go to the gun range and do this.

What if prior to the attack the attacker had reason to believe a good portion of the people in the theatre could be armed? When this possibility came up the talking heads immediately jumped to the unpleasant picture of a fire fight in the theatre. Not one mentioned the deterrent value during the planning stage.

I have no idea what was going on in that young man's mind. I see many using the result of his actions for a political agenda.

Fallacies abound...

Logical fallacies abound... Let me address one issue and then you can distort my argument in your reply.

"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."

- For this to be valid you would first have to prove that mentally ill people commit a disproportionate number of murders compared to other groups. Even then, you would have to address the likely causation fallacy... whether or not they were considered "mentally ill" before or after the murder. If not, this is applicable to any group.

Example: THEN gun owners must stand for appropriate, effective economic and social welfare because otherwise poor people will have guns and be committing murders. They do and are every day.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

The batman shooter KNEW there was no effective mental

health care, so didn't even seek help. He just started killing.

TJ1776 wote"
""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."

- For this to be valid you would first have to prove that mentally ill people commit a disproportionate number of murders compared to other groups. Even then, you would have to address the likely causation fallacy... whether or not they were considered "mentally ill" before or after the murder. If not, this is applicable to any group."

No, I only have to show that crazies have committed mass murder.

I don't even have to mention that the economy is destroying families livelyhood so parents are killing their children and themselves in psychological desparation.

I don't even have to mention the drug/gang shootings that are basically another kind of mentla illness.

Your position advocates that this issue is controlled by the gun question and that Americans do not need effective mental health care.
'
That is the mark of an infiltrator that prefers secret treason.

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?

We're done here...

The fact that you don't understand the point I was making leaves me no choice but to write you off. I don't have the time or energy to explain to you why your response makes no sense whatsoever. I advocated absolutely nothing in my post but made an observation about your argument.

Your entire OP is a Red Herring and you're apparently not nearly as smart as you think you are. Your logic is flawed at best and nonexistent at worst. Less typing and more thinking might help.

I wrote, "Logical fallacies abound... Let me address one issue and then you can distort my argument in your reply."

At least you can follow directions.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

You never did address the issue-how can you be done?

You've failed. Okay, I can accept that.

The issue is that there is no effective mental health care in America, particularly care that can deal with temporary or even chronic extreme emotions, those that can cause gun violence.

Extreme gun violence is a temporary mental problem, a propensity for a specific form of mental illness.

TJ1776 wrote:
"- For this to be valid you would first have to prove that mentally ill people commit a disproportionate number of murders compared to other groups."

The specific form of mental illness I describe above is not even classified as mental illness by the inept industry of mental health care. They have NO WAY of dealing with it, . . . and I've shown there is a way and that government has violated laws to avoid it.

Smart has nothing to do with it. An ability to produce evidence in support of a position is everything. You've lost your position in debate because you've not addressed the evidence supporting my position. You are evading.

My point is that this incompetence needs to be addressed by gun owners and 2nd amendment rights activists otherwise those that would limit gin rights unconstitutionally will be able to do so increasingly as the economy deteriorates and the agenda of constitutional usurpation advances.

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?

Oh, so you knew the shooter

and did nothing to stop him? You didn't call the authorities to report his lack of mental health and his refusal to seek treatment? Then you are just a guilty as he was.

Is Christopher A. Brown your real name?

Evasion and illogic exposes you again

anothernobody wrote:
"Oh, so you knew the shooter
and did nothing to stop him? You didn't call the authorities to report his lack of mental health and his refusal to seek treatment? Then you are just a guilty as he was.

Is Christopher A. Brown your real name?"

The news informed me that the shooter knew psychology and was very intelligent.

He knew it was a waste of time to seek treatment and decided to lash out at society instead.

You need to comment on the fact that doctors approved of a treatment enough to carry it forwards to the state in order to follow laws and their oath in 1999. Then government over them violated the Freedom of Information Act when I tried to get the answer in writing as promised in writing.

http://i46.tinypic.com/1gook3.jpg
http://i46.tinypic.com/20atatx.jpg

When you do not do this and do it well you identify yourself as a infiltrator.

ON EDIT: I identify myself with my 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?

Hypnosis with nitrous oxide. You're crazy.

First you seem to think that everyone who has a violent episode is mentally ill which is totally untrue. And by spreading that ilk you do more damage to society than gun violence.

Secondly you say that mental health care is inadequate, misdirected and doing more harm than good so you propose new and equally dangerous methods of mind control. A drug induced direct mind control that could very well be used to create more drone attackers.

Third you say that our wayward society is responsible for the "mental illness" of the masses and is what is causing these people to lash out. But instead of advocating changing our corrupt society you instead advocate hypnotizing people using nitrous oxide in order to make them accept the shitty society we live in. Talk about mental problems, have you ever been treated?

Hypnotism which is nothing more than voodoo which likewise only works on the simple minded and ignorant. A witch doctor approach that if it really did work would make it the perfect tool for the control freaks who wish to take away our rights.

You sir are an idiot and your hypnotist scheme is lunacy. You think backwards and have no true grasp on reality just like most of you mind jobbers. And no matter how much you call your detractors "cognitive infiltrators" it doesn't make it true. You are not hypnotizing anyone here with your jedi mind tricks.

No substance and logic to your post-Explain "Idiot" please:)

anothernobody wrote:
"Hypnosis with nitrous oxide. You're crazy."

You are distorting, labeling and minimizing. People started using that gas in the 1820's for various therapies.

FACT-The PhD director of the mental health depart put in writing, signed by the chief medical doctor that they were going to carry my request forward to the state.

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

You are selective towards approving of lawless government. The FOIA request was unanswered, a violation of federal law. Then the record of the FOIA were removed from public keeping where they were entrusted.

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

But you don't notice. Your argument shows you are against reason and using it for protection of gun rights.

anothernobody wrote:
"First you seem to think that everyone who has a violent episode is mentally ill which is totally untrue".

You misrepresent what I say.

I say America has no effective mental health care.

anothernobody wrote:
"Secondly you say that mental health care is inadequate, misdirected and doing more harm than good so you propose new and equally dangerous methods of mind control. A drug induced direct mind control that could very well be used to create more drone attackers."

I would expect methods of public monitoring and video records to make that VERY dangerous to attempt.

anothernobody wrote:
"Third you say that our wayward society is responsible for the "mental illness" of the masses and is what is causing these people to lash out. But instead of advocating changing our corrupt society you instead advocate hypnotizing people using nitrous oxide in order to make them accept the shitty society we live in. Talk about mental problems, have you ever been treated?"

You've shown you approve of lawless government and are selective in your uses of information to do that. The procedure has defacto approval in writing which I've provided. Nitrous has been used for 60 years to assist hypnosis and it works.
I'm hoping to be treated for PTSD from legal abuse.

anothernobody wrote:
"Hypnotism which is nothing more than voodoo which likewise only works on the simple minded and ignorant. A witch doctor approach that if it really did work would make it the perfect tool for the control freaks who wish to take away our rights."

More cognitive distortions, labeling and "all or nothing thinking". The nitrous increases the effects greatly. It is a complex procedure that needs to be developed.
Government violates laws to avoid development of MH care and you approve. Hmmm, and you say you are for gun rights?

anothernobody wrote:
"You sir are an idiot."

I'm very certain you do not know the actual meaning of the word or its root origin. If you try to define it you will prove yourself one.

anothernobody wrote:
"and your hypnotist scheme is lunacy. You think backwards and have no true grasp on reality just like most of you mind jobbers. And no matter how much you call your detractors "cognitive infiltrators" it doesn't make it true. You are not hypnotizing anyone here with your jedi mind tricks."

Your distortions and illogic expose you as one not interested in law or 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?

Your fallacies also abound

The poster is calling for effective mental health practice as a way to prevent public shootings, not as a prerequisite to gun ownership.

Are you saying that shooting people in public is sane? Are you relying on current "mental health professionals" to tell us when someone is mentally ill or that as internationally sanctioned government monopolies they are the only ones who can provide "health care"?

A sane person is not part of that set that does senseless murders. Hitler was not sane. The "elite" are not sane. They may be cold and calcualting and highly efficient at "reasoning" but they perpetrate the most extreme insanity -- war.

If they are the major cause of trouble on Earth then and EFFECTIVE mental health practice would recognise that.

Many people used to get succour from ministers before communism started attacking religion and passed it onto the collectivists who now carry on its basic principles through our new world governments; and before ministers studied psychology which takes no cognizance of the human spirit and frequently denies its existence.

Gvernments have used the current "mental health" practices to imprison their opponents and as the justification for "ethnic cleansing". They also stir up religions against each other in the war on teror to protect their monopoly on mental health while suicide rates and international deaths soar.

deacon's picture

are you stating

that there should be stipulations to the 2nd
amendment?
are you saying that the government should
step in first with screeners to approve
anyone in order to get or keep their arms?
this post coupled with the many replies
make no sense
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

There should be no screening to get arms

And it is not credible that you would ask that after nearly every single post I've made states that I do not advocate screening for gun ownership. Therefore it is logical that you are an agent of cognitive infilltration.

Such activity of the secret government infiltrating is well documented.

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...

I advocate that America have effective mental health care so that people who are tormented and MAY commit mass murder have a real option.

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?

deacon's picture

do you have any data

that would suggest a mentally ill person would seek
that sort of screening?
it would seem to me that the ones who suffer,do so
in silence,meaning they seek no help,even if available
not do they talk to friends.family ect ect
i do not believe a general practitioner id qualified
to make that judgement,
if gun control and screening were not part of the post,then they
should not have put together,as if they were
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Common sense will suffice to understand

Consider that the mentally ill are tormented. They also are not stupid. IF there was effective mental health care that could end their torment, THEN they would seek it out.

This presumes media would inform them, which they will not, in fact our local newspaper was perhaps purchased by a billionaire woman for the express purpose of NOT publicizing the federal lawsuit filed against Santa Barbara county in 2006. There is solid circumstantial evidence of that.

http://algoxy.com/law/no_free_press/sbsecretsofmedia.html

Abridging of free speech and that of the press with $.

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?

Get a hat...

...on that straw man.

No straw man here-fact-crazies killing are used to limit rights

All one has to do is watch TV to know that crazies conducting mass murder are being used to compromise 2nd amendment rights.

Most Americans have no idea that the infiltrated government does not want effective mental health care because prisons would begin to empty and there would be no mass murders so they could not take our guns.

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?