Who's crazy? What defines mental illness?

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74


I think it's important to not jump the gun (ha) and start stating what will be considered mental health grounds for revoking a citizens 2nd amendment right.


The same out of control Govt, which the 2ndA was designed to defend against, will draw up the guidelines for determining and enforcing the removal of guaranteed rights?

This is truly insane.




posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   
the wild west all had guns, drinking problems and mental disorders. yet along came the law. But they didn't take guns away then. They had gun fights like real men. At least then it was a fair fight.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


My point was more after that sentence. We need to find out the details of what's changed because while it may feel good to make assumptions and sound alarms, it isn't going to help us... all that will achieve is allowing them to control the conversation, if they can put out separate reports on each false claim it stalls or halts what we really want which is a list of who what how.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
I'm a developmental neurobiologist.


James Holmes was involved in a very similar field.




posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthermantwo
the wild west all had guns, drinking problems and mental disorders. yet along came the law. But they didn't take guns away then. They had gun fights like real men. At least then it was a fair fight.


Actually, those 'gun fights' rarely happened as Hollywood has shown in movies.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by macman
 


My point was more after that sentence. We need to find out the details of what's changed because while it may feel good to make assumptions and sound alarms, it isn't going to help us... all that will achieve is allowing them to control the conversation, if they can put out separate reports on each false claim it stalls or halts what we really want which is a list of who what how.


They control the conversation by me saying they should have no business doing what they propose?

That is not assuming anything really.
Look at the past history of the current and past Govts.
It is very clear what the end goal is.

But, I guess that these people were ok with the idea of being separated for their own good.


Many saw it coming and many went along with it, because it was for their own good.
edit on 18-1-2013 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
While there are physical conditions, (mental illness is a bit of mislabeling), that create inabilities to function in life, (which is normally what we call mental illness), the real definition should be lack of love and ability to harm others, and addiction to power. I think its pretty obvious which group is mentally ill. As in a prolongued condition of harming others, the PTB.

Whereas, trauma, and post tramatic stress syndrome are not permanent and are normal, normal people experience this from harsh situations.
edit on 18-1-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99

Whereas, trauma, and post tramatic stress syndrome are not permanent and are normal, normal people experience this from harsh situations.


In that case, if you can define what is normal, and what can be considered a 'normal' person then you can more easily define mental illness, and answer the question "Who's crazy?"

How many normal people commit random acts of violence?

The truth is, you can't accurately label people as either normal or mentally ill in every case, the best any professional can do is to establish criteria for assessing risks. Once you have a check list you can make a risk assessment and then possibly classify a person as presenting a high risk to harm themselves and/or others.

I think that is something they can do, and should do.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


You say the sky is gray and I say it's cloudy... that's literally what we're doing here. I can't post the petition I just started on We the People but I've started one, only 99,999 signatures to go. I've petitioned the administration to disclose the details of the executive actions signed on the 16th.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I like heterosexual sex but now I am considered a freak in today's society where men much be women and women must be men, and since I not engage in homosexual activity I have a problem. I must have impulse control issues since I enjoy sexual pleasure and desire to please. Looks like we all have some kind of mental illness. God forbid you are ever unhappy one day, or drink cola or eat hot dogs.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
All government officials need to do, to see who is violent, is to look in the mirror. I believe that 99% of them are mentally ill, or at least criminally ill. The most destructive weapons today being used are drones. Let's outlaw them because the people using them are mentally ill, and that includes POTUS.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74


You say the sky is gray and I say it's cloudy... that's literally what we're doing here.

Kind of.
I am saying a massive storm is coming, look at the sky.
You are saying, that might be, but lets see what happens up to the storm.




Originally posted by Kali74

I can't post the petition I just started on We the People but I've started one, only 99,999 signatures to go. I've petitioned the administration to disclose the details of the executive actions signed on the 16th.


Why do I or anyone else need to petition the Govt to disclose possible laws that are Unconstitutional?



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Kali74


You say the sky is gray and I say it's cloudy... that's literally what we're doing here.

Kind of.
I am saying a massive storm is coming, look at the sky.
You are saying, that might be, but lets see what happens up to the storm.




Originally posted by Kali74

I can't post the petition I just started on We the People but I've started one, only 99,999 signatures to go. I've petitioned the administration to disclose the details of the executive actions signed on the 16th.


Why do I or anyone else need to petition the Govt to disclose possible laws that are Unconstitutional?



Oughtto petition for an answer as to why law was circumvented with executive action and not though normal channels where things can be define and refined... and not unilateral.
Oh wait. that would make too much sense and actually be legal protocol.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 




You are saying, that might be, but lets see what happens up to the storm.


No, I'm saying let's hop in a weather balloon and see what this storm's made of.



Why do I or anyone else need to petition the Govt to disclose possible laws that are Unconstitutional?


Because you can't walk into the Supreme Court and say a diagnosis of depression is keeping me from buying a gun, I want the court to rule this unconstitutional, if such a diagnosis isn't ACTUALLY going to keep you from getting a permit.

reply to post by Advantage
 
Making the Executive Actions is not illegal, not by far... the act itself didn't circumvent a thing. What the critical question here is do any of those Actions circumvent the law. That is an answer we can't get until we see the details.
edit on 18-1-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by macman
 




You are saying, that might be, but lets see what happens up to the storm.


No, I'm saying let's hop in a weather balloon and see what this storm's made of.



Why do I or anyone else need to petition the Govt to disclose possible laws that are Unconstitutional?


Because you can't walk into the Supreme Court and say a diagnosis of depression is keeping me from buying a gun, I want the court to rule this unconstitutional, if such a diagnosis isn't ACTUALLY going to keep you from getting a permit.

reply to post by Advantage
 
Making the Executive Actions is not illegal, not by far... the act itself didn't circumvent a thing. What the critical question here is do any of those Actions circumvent the law. That is an answer we can't get until we see the details.
edit on 18-1-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)


Kali, please look into the CDC being involved in the determinations part of the actions. I dont think anyone here has said that the act of using exec actions is illegal. Please consider that some of us here arent 12 and can read/comprehend the actions.
edit on 18-1-2013 by Advantage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Advantage
 


I included a request on definition of scope and actions able to be taken by the CDC in the petition.


Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. Read more: www.businessinsider.com...


As stated it is nothing more than researching causes and prevention of gun violence. However the CDC wields a lot of power an I'm not comfortable with it and want clarity.

All signed Actions on the 16th do not add laws, they tweak existing laws therefor there was no legal need to take it to Congress. Again what we need to see is the details so that we can make sure nothing was tweaked so far as to violate rights.

We can piss and moan and panic all day long about what should have been done, it won't change the realities of how it did in fact happen. I'm not accusing you nor treating you like you are 12. I'm trying to be proactive.
edit on 18-1-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 





In general, if you don't perceive the world like most people, and the way you perceive the world and react to your perceptions makes you a persistent danger to yourself or others, then you're crazy.


One could argue "most people" perceive the world abnormally, and the way they react to these perceptions makes them a danger to them self and others. The thing is, it is the worst kind of "crazy" because it has convinced itself that it is the "normal" way to interact with reality, and others we find here with us.

Modern "psychiatry" has mutated itself into the gatekeepers of this reality. They place the lock on the door with one hand and in the other, hold the key to open it. Whether this is done by ignorance, or intent, is up in the air for me.

We have become a society that relies upon Big Pharma and the next new pill, to cure the "dis ease" they have created and then sold to us under a new label of mental illness. No studies of the possible long term side effects these various medications may have, has been done (they have not been around long enough to test) ~ yet we diagnose children as young as 3 with Bi-Polar disorder, and medicate them.



IMHO this new trend "we" have adopted will have repercussions for the future evolution of the human race as a species.
edit on 18-1-2013 by YourOtherSelf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
People decided that felons cannot have guns...even after their time is served. So lets not pretend like we as a people didn't start the process of removing liberties from groups long ago. You cannot cry..when you failed to speak out against the destruction of liberty to groups that weren't you, then you can't go crying as the destruction grows.

Expect over time mental illness to be "rampant"..or at least diagnosis of mental illness..and most everyone to be registered as something to safeguard others..

Keep focusing on this narrow issue and completely ignore the greater issue...that should work like a charm



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Keep focusing on this narrow issue and completely ignore the greater issue...that should work like a charm




What do you consider the "greater issue"?



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I doubt someone would be denied a gun just because they have a mental illness. It would most likely have to be serious. As in is this person a danger to themselves and or those around them. Some of the things in the OP should be a given. Someone with paranoia does not need to own a gun period. Their judgement is constantly jeopardized. Someone with severe depression does not need a gun if they have suicidal tendencies. I could go on. Most people suffer from mental illness at one point in their lives as it can be caused by life events and then go away. So I doubt doctors will rule anyone out just because they have or had a diagnosis its all about severity and recurrance. Don't be so alarmist.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 





new topics
top topics
 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join