It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Government Panel Recommends Depression Screening For Adolescents

page: 4
59
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimNasium
Does this mean that We get to keep our psychologist/psychiatrist if We like them?

hahaha



Edit: Whilst reading My reply there was an ad for FisherWallace™ and some Depression Release Tool... Is that the one I stick .....


The problem I see with this possibility is that the screenings would most likely be administered by general family practitioners that have never been educationally qualified to perform psychological evaluations. As a mater of fact, I heard somewhere that family practitioners are already being pressured to ask their patients about their mental state and if they have any and how many weapons . I do know the VA asked me repeatedly about my state of mind. I think they are being forced to report to other governmental agencies.




posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: jonnywhite

If they are going to put pre conditions on exercising a right, then what's to stop them from putting pre conditions when you want to exercise any other rights?

Bearing arms is also a responsibility, not just a right. As we learn more about how our mind works, we'll figure out more things, things which nobody in the past could have known. When the constitution was written, they didn't understand what makes people kill or become violent or dangerous. They could not have guessed without having access to the facts. We can't blame them for that. When and if we prove mental illness makes someone unfit to bear arms, it's on our shoulders to amend past laws to ensure people who do bear arms are responsible enough to do so.

Let me ask you a few things. Would you want a convicted murderer who's just been released from prison after 20 years to own a gun? Would you want a person living in an asylum--who's at least five different people and is never the same one day to the next--to own a gun? Would want someone who has an IQ of 50 to own a gun? I'm sure I could find lots of examples of people who you would not want to won a gun. And this is the case because owning a gun is a reponsibility and you know it!

EDIT: I know the convicted murderer served their time and should be clean slate and have the right to own a gun, but shouldn't htey also first prove they're not just going to be a repeat offender? Shouldn't they have to prove themselves first? (they're felons, you know. under current law, it's very difficult for a felon to own a gun.)
edit on 2/10/2016 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite

Um, ok. You honestly believe that this is a good thing.

I really don't know how else to respond.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 07:52 PM
link   
You know what will solve Depression????

A Government task force going home to home forcing screenings on all the "depressed" people, taking their Rights away because they have been designated as a unsavory and put on a list....

What are we looking at? Maybe 40% of the nation? Maybe half?

Ahhh yes, 1984...the answer to depression.

Now watch the Oscars and SHUT YOUR MOUTH CITIZEN!



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: jonnywhite
Let me ask you a few things. Would you want a convicted murderer who's just been released from prison after 20 years to have a gun? Would you want a person living in an asylum--who's at least five different people and is never the same one day to the next--to own a gun? Would want someone who has an IQ of 50 to own a gun? I'm sure I could find lots of examples of people who you would not want to won a gun.


A convict who has served his time should have all rights restored, unless you're giving him a life-time punishment.
Are any of the personalities violent?
We do have people with IQ's of 50 owning guns, we usually just call them congressmen.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   
If I was American, I'd be good to go.
I'm Borderline


But I can see why depression... it's most common mental disorder worldwide.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: Informer1958

Can we just impeach him now, preferably retroactively back to 2008, and be done with his nonsense?


Truth be known, he was never eligible to be president in the first place and every executive order he ever wrote should be rescinded and ripped to shreds. "The guy was born in Kenya, Barry Soitoro"!



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese




Are you being serious or trolling? Go look over the post you replied to and then go look up the definition of clinical depression.


I'm well aware of what I've stated... What type of depression is even being referred to in this thread? Clinical depression? Dysthymia? Bi-polar affective?

So what doesn't make sense about the classification of depressive mental disorders?



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958
Wouldn't the phrase actually end with the word "idea" being described as something, in your case very likely as "atrocious" or "scandalous"? Nonetheless it'd seem we agree.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   
If this is true, then I'm screwed, and I find that idea depressing!



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: roaland
once you allow a govt to get away with forcing Americans to buy healthcare, you can expect the govt to eventually mandate what the American people eat and do under the guise of helping to keep down the cost of healthcare. The govt forcing a citizen to do anything is a very bad idea IMHO


Some of the best ideas when given half a chance turn into an agenda driven criminal enterprise. History and many many whistle blowers validate that, year after year, and government after government world wide.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: jonnywhite

Um, ok. You honestly believe that this is a good thing.

I really don't know how else to respond.

If that's what you believe then I failed to communicate what I think. That's not your fault, it's my fault.

Recap. I believe if it's proven some mentally ill people are unfit to responsibly own guns then, like anything else of similar nature, we have to revoke that right of ownership. We make the same kind of value judgements all the time, so don't tell me this is anything new. Everytime daddy gives the keys to his prize truck to his teenager son he's make a value judgement. Is it right or wrong? Is my son capable of doing this?

AS the citizenry it's our responsibility to ensure the laws in place nurture freedom and represent us. Government doesn't have free reign to tell us what's fit and what isn't. Government OF THE PEOPLE.

I don't support mandatory screening. I don't like anything which is forced. It's only something you do as a last option. There's little else you can do which is more oppressive than that.
edit on 2/10/2016 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

The Charters of Freedom - A New World is at Hand

Declaration of Independence


IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

I'm not advocating anything here. I'm just reminded of this sacred document just now.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite

Thank you for the clarification.




posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

General Practice doctors (or as I call them, DSM-5 readers) are, for the most part, ridiculous and inept. They generally follow through process steps to make diagnoses, which generally amount to "How can I most quickly make the patient stop complaining." Most often this means drugs.

I could easily be prescribed speed (aderall), Xanax, anti-depressants and more if I answered questions honestly, the way they want me to answer them, yet I feel perfectly fine, physically and mentally. The questions are designed, mainly through the direction of the drug manufacturers, to fit as many people into the supposed diseases their pills "treat" as possible.

If I was feeling "actually" depressed, or unable to function due to ADHD, or overly anxious/stressed, I most likely would not seek treatment, because I can see the danger in being labeled with any form of "mental illness."


(post by Medicator removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




The Obama Administration has entered a new rule in the Federal Register.


I don't know about just the Obama administration, this has draconian regulations with terrorist fear mongering written all over it. I can easily see the republicans jumping behind this or passively letting it happen.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Medicator

I don't offer medical advice online, but this time I'll make an exception. Talk to someone, just to re assure yourself that you are fine and normal the way you are.

imho



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

I'd have to agree. I don't think republicans would complain too much about this.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Medicator




I would kill myself but it would destroy my mother.


First Sarcasm or joking like that in todays world is very destructive to those that really need help. Having said that.




I do think homosexuality may be a mental disorder and im not being mean because I am gay and it really really really sucks

I'm not gay but why would your sexual preference be a mental disorder. Would I have a mental disorder because I'm attracted to the female body?

So if you are gay , so what? Its what you are attracted too and as long as you are not raping people or forcing others to be gay I see no problem?




top topics



 
59
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join