Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The First Shots of the Second American Revolution have been fired

page: 20
107
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
LOL, like they're going to vote to reduce their power.


Indeed, that is the bottom line isn't it - the SCOTUS is a branch of the Federal Government, when it comes to deciding what is right regarding a State's right to leave the union is not likely to see any real impartiality from a body that stands to lose a good portion of its power from their departure.

The only really impartial body that could decide the legalities of a secession movement would be the United Nations Court or a counsel of third party nations appointed to mediate the dispute. In the course of the legal argument the two parties would have to be viewed as equal entities niether should be viewed as subordinate or subject to the will of the other.

That is like giving one party in a divorce proceeding the authority to decide the case and divide the assets. Hardly likely to be a fair dissolution.

Say one party agreed to let the other act as the "head of the household" and decide what is best for them both for the duration of the marriage; however, at some point the "head of household" becomes an abusive partner and misspends the joint funds or makes arbitrary or capricious decisions that affect both parties.

Would anyone want to stay in such a situation?

In our scenario the US Federal Government has simply imposed a set of rules (through court rulings) that have made dissoulution of the union (divorce) impossible or "illegal" despite the wishes of the other party.

I'd say there is no clearer definition of tyranny than the insistence on a state of perpetual and unbreakable union in which one of the parties is no longer an equal (or willing) participant but has become the servant or subject of the other.

ETA: The Civil War was in effect an abused spouse (the South) leaving the marriage because of irreconcilable differences and the abuser (the North) being bigger and having more money simply decided - Fine, you want to leave then I will come take all your stuff and beat you up until you have no choice but submit to my authority..."

Hardly something that seems to have been settled legally.

edit on 3/2/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/2/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/2/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/2/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by seabag
 



In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816), the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the idea that the Constitution is a compact among the states, stating: "The Constitution of the United States was ordained and established not by the States in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the Constitution declares, by 'the people of the United States.'" The Court contrasted the earlier Articles of Confederation with the Constitution, characterizing the Articles of Confederation as a compact among states, while stating that the Constitution was established not by the states, but by the people.[8]

Likewise, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court stated that the federal Constitution proceeded directly from the people, and was not created by the states. The Court stated that the Constitution was binding on the states and could not be negated by the states. The Court again contrasted the Articles of Confederation, which was established by the states, to the Constitution, which was established by the people.[9]

After the Civil War, in Texas v. White (1869), a case discussing the legal status of the southern states that had attempted to secede, the Supreme Court stated that the union was not merely a compact among states; rather, the union was "something more than a compact."[
edit on 2-2-2013 by xedocodex because: (no reason given)


Here's where your argument falls apart. Your source states, and rightfully so, that the states cannot negate the Constitution.

What it does NOT say, and what you are glossing over, is that the states are not bound to enforce unconstitutional laws, nor are they bound to allow enforcement of unconstitutional laws withing their borders. You see, doing or allowing that actually NEGATES the Constitution - the two are mutually exclusive.

How do we know what they should do? Their PEOPLE will tell them, because it is the PEOPLE who created the Constitution to begin with, per your own source.



edit on 2013/2/4 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesma

I know personally and closely many people who voted for Obama, and support what he is doing. Thy do not believe everyone will be screwed.
So what happens to a revolution when not everyone is on board? Do you think they will simply sit back and watch it happen? This is a conspiracy theorist site, so it attracts mostly those unhappy with the current governent- but that is not a correct representation of the mass....



A "revolution" where everyone isn't on board is a "civil war". Unfortunately for the people you speak of, they won't be able to do much other than sit back and watch it happen. You see, the whole thing is about disarming the populace, and if Obama is their man, and they do everything he tells them, then they won't have anything to jump WITH.


Originally posted by Bluesma

I know from listening first hand that there are americans that think those talking about doing a revolution are dangerous and crazy and they are saying they need to keep guns because of you!
You have opposition in your own country and they will be active (and armed, of course).



Well that places them in quite the dilemma then, doesn't it? The suits on The Hill tell them to disarm, but they can't, because they're planning this big civil war and all. Decisions, decisions...

BUT, if they insist on keeping their arms, then we already won, because the whole thing is over the refusal of the populace to disarm! Mission accomplished!

It must suck these days to be a liberal - they just really have nowhere to turn!



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom
reply to post by seabag
 


Those states will have fun paying back their share of taxes and debt to the Feds if they break away.

Not. Going. To. Happen. (but you can keep dreaming)

I swear you must work at an infusion center, trying to stir up people for easier watch list targeting.


Paying back what taxes? Paying back what debt? Where do you think the tax money came from to begin with? Why would they pay back a debt they didn't owe? The states didn't make the national debt - the federal government did. THEY can pay it back.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu


A "revolution" where everyone isn't on board is a "civil war". Unfortunately for the people you speak of, they won't be able to do much other than sit back and watch it happen. You see, the whole thing is about disarming the populace, and if Obama is their man, and they do everything he tells them, then they won't have anything to jump WITH.


From their point of view, Obama does what THEY tell them to. See, they wanted socialized medicine, and they found a man to vote into office that would do that , just for example. They feel that there are a lot of conservative people who are uncivilized, selfish and prone to not even trying to control their hostile reactions, so letting them have guns is not a good idea. They are FOR gun control. They are willing to face criminals- but it is the normal everyday redneck that shoots you because he felt irritated by the kind of car you have that they feel is a threat.

So they would also support the government using it's forces to control these uncivilized parts of the population... which is where we circle back to the question of- can you defeat your government with these arms you have?
Against their many other forms of weaponry and technology?




Well that places them in quite the dilemma then, doesn't it? The suits on The Hill tell them to disarm, but they can't, because they're planning this big civil war and all. Decisions, decisions...


Whoa! I just looked over all my posts here to make sure, but I made no mention of anyone "planning a civil war"!
I gave my opinion on the possibility that, in the event of an attempt at revolution, a civil war might happen instead. That was MY opinion, I take full responsibility for it and no one else that I have heard is "planning" it.
I pointed out that in the event you win the gun issue, then they will be defending themselves with firearms too. But in their minds, they are willing to not have any, if that other part of the population doesn't either.




BUT, if they insist on keeping their arms, then we already won, because the whole thing is over the refusal of the populace to disarm! Mission accomplished!


I pointed out that the people I know and speak of do not insist on keeping arms.... but you bring in a new element that I wasn't aware of- will all this talk of revolution and succession stop if this one question is won??? I have been hearing and reading talk of a violent uprising and revolution for so long, before the recent focus on firearms (yes I know that has been a controversial topic for a long time, but you know what I mean- actions seem to be getting underway..) . I was under the impression that a whole lot of other aspects where motivating this urge to revolt!

I would like to ask the others in this thread-
If you retain the right to have firearms, will you relax and not urge to revolt any more?





It must suck these days to be a liberal - they just really have nowhere to turn!


I don't know. In the USA they kinda have the current adminstration and leader on their side, and those guys have some cool weapons and technology.....
edit on 4-2-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 


Might does not make right.

We haven't had an honest election in a VERY long time.

I noticed your location is France, are you an American that moved to France, or a french citizen that came here for a visit?



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


i would TOTALLY not trust the U.N., or any other foreign power, or coalition of powers to preside over deliberations as to what is legal in these united states...



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesma

From their point of view, Obama does what THEY tell them to. See, they wanted socialized medicine, and they found a man to vote into office that would do that , just for example. They feel that there are a lot of conservative people who are uncivilized, selfish and prone to not even trying to control their hostile reactions, so letting them have guns is not a good idea. They are FOR gun control. They are willing to face criminals- but it is the normal everyday redneck that shoots you because he felt irritated by the kind of car you have that they feel is a threat.


Oh, I understand their point of view - they want to keep their cake, and eat it, too. Life doesn't work that way, but I reckon some folks have to learn the hard way. You take the bad with the good - if they can see no bad, then they won't mind disarming for the Masters. If they go that route, then of course they're going to "sit there and take it" if a revolt were to kick off. They would have no other choice. Yessir, I understand their mindset, and the illogic of it, because I know several of them myself. I'll ignore the calumny about "shooting some one because of the kind of car they have", because out of all the rednecks I know, and that is a considerable amount, not a ONE of them is that way. We don't care what kind of car you have - really. It's not our car, so why SHOULD we care?

Now, those folks leaning towards "Occupy", you might want to keep an eye on them. They seem to have issues if someone else has something they don't have...

From what I've seen at ATS, conservatives don't have any monopoly on hostile reactions, not by a long shot.



So they would also support the government using it's forces to control these uncivilized parts of the population... which is where we circle back to the question of- can you defeat your government with these arms you have?
Against their many other forms of weaponry and technology?


Ah, there's the rub. Now they are supporting the government using IT'S force. Before you said that THEY wouldn't "just sit there and take it". There's a big difference there.

To answer your question, yes, we can defeat the government with the "arms" we have. Resoundingly. What's even worse, and more embarrassing for them, is the fact that I have no guns at all. Weapons, yes, but nary a gun in sight. Not every weapon fires a bullet or draws blood. You can place all the faith you like in "technology". In fact, I encourage you to do so, and all of your liberal friends as well.

Technology breaks, and requires upkeep. Have at it.




Whoa! I just looked over all my posts here to make sure, but I made no mention of anyone "planning a civil war"!


You said that they would not "just sit there and take it". What are the implications we are supposed to draw from that, then? They'll spit at us and call us nasty names? Take away our birthdays?



I gave my opinion on the possibility that, in the event of an attempt at revolution, a civil war might happen instead. That was MY opinion, I take full responsibility for it and no one else that I have heard is "planning" it.
I pointed out that in the event you win the gun issue, then they will be defending themselves with firearms too. But in their minds, they are willing to not have any, if that other part of the population doesn't either.


If we "win" the gun issue, then there's really no need to take up arms either way, is there? If I'm not shooting at someone, or taking their stuff, if I'm not bothering them, what have they got to "defend" against?




I pointed out that the people I know and speak of do not insist on keeping arms.... but you bring in a new element that I wasn't aware of- will all this talk of revolution and succession stop if this one question is won???


Probably not, at this point. They've pushed too hard and too far. With the strain that the disarmament issue has added, I would imagine there may have to be a bit more rollback. Once the push back starts, it pushes hard. For my part, I just want to be left alone. That means that your "socialized medicine" scheme (which is nothing of the sort) has got to go now, too. I'm not planning on taking arms up over it, though. I'm just refusing to comply, period. If a young war starts over that, it won't be me starting it.



I have been hearing and reading talk of a violent uprising and revolution for so long, before the recent focus on firearms (yes I know that has been a controversial topic for a long time, but you know what I mean- actions seem to be getting underway..) . I was under the impression that a whole lot of other aspects where motivating this urge to revolt!


Well, yeah, there are. The gun issue is what's placing the most strain, though. People can see their freedoms flying away daily, but all of a sudden the things they had placed their trust in to correct the situation as a last ditch effort if need be are going away now, too. It spawned a panic, a panic which should not have been triggered... because now there's going to have to be a lot more straightening out done.




It must suck these days to be a liberal - they just really have nowhere to turn!


I don't know. In the USA they kinda have the current adminstration and leader on their side, and those guys have some cool weapons and technology.....


I think we may just have to hide and watch, and we'll see who has what, and how well it works. All that cool tech doesn't work so well if the supply and repair lines break down.


edit on 2013/2/4 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   
I was discussing this matter with someone, and this was their take on the situation. I thought it worth posting here:

Right now in the US, people are worried about "gun violence", Not that it's causing the most death, but it's what they worry about the most. They don't want to see innocent people killed, and they want to find a way to stop that.

Throughout history, people have wanted to stop different things in their society. In America at the moment, it's just guns. In the past it has been alcohol (prohibition) more recently drugs of varying kinds. No amount of making something illegal has been able to stop a drunk from driving or an addict from getting high. The Taliban tried to stop music and television, yet music and TV still existed in Afghanistan. Hitler tried to kill every Jew, yet underground networks sprang up, and Jews escaped.

What does our society do? Attempt to become the Taliban to stop what we think needs stopped here? How does that not essentially compound the problem?

Right now, in America, it's easier for a mentally ill felon who cannot legally own a gun to purchase one than it is for a law abiding citizen to do so. The problem in America is mental illness. Who else would kill children in a school? The prisons in America are full of mentally ill people who just aren't quite mentally ill enough, so they slip through the cracks. No matter how totalitarian you get, you can't stop the things you want to stop If the Taliban couldn't stop music, how in the hell do you think you can keep mentally ill people from getting guns?

The only way to solve the problem is to find the root of the problem, and fix it there. the root of the problem in America is mental illness. Fix THAT, rather than making something that's already a crime illegal. It's already illegal to kill a school full of children, it's obvious that the mentally ill don't care if it's illegal. Fix that problem.

The problem IS mental illness.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
I was discussing this matter with someone, and this was their take on the situation. I thought it worth posting here:

Right now in the US, people are worried about "gun violence", Not that it's causing the most death, but it's what they worry about the most. They don't want to see innocent people killed, and they want to find a way to stop that.

Throughout history, people have wanted to stop different things in their society. In America at the moment, it's just guns. In the past it has been alcohol (prohibition) more recently drugs of varying kinds. No amount of making something illegal has been able to stop a drunk from driving or an addict from getting high. The Taliban tried to stop music and television, yet music and TV still existed in Afghanistan. Hitler tried to kill every Jew, yet underground networks sprang up, and Jews escaped.

What does our society do? Attempt to become the Taliban to stop what we think needs stopped here? How does that not essentially compound the problem?

Right now, in America, it's easier for a mentally ill felon who cannot legally own a gun to purchase one than it is for a law abiding citizen to do so. The problem in America is mental illness. Who else would kill children in a school? The prisons in America are full of mentally ill people who just aren't quite mentally ill enough, so they slip through the cracks. No matter how totalitarian you get, you can't stop the things you want to stop If the Taliban couldn't stop music, how in the hell do you think you can keep mentally ill people from getting guns?

The only way to solve the problem is to find the root of the problem, and fix it there. the root of the problem in America is mental illness. Fix THAT, rather than making something that's already a crime illegal. It's already illegal to kill a school full of children, it's obvious that the mentally ill don't care if it's illegal. Fix that problem.

The problem IS mental illness.



Read my posts, in this, and the other hot gun debate threads...i agree, we do have SERIOUS mental health issues in this country, and it's not a matter of EVERYONE being crazy, it's a matter of how the individual conditions are evaluated, and treated. The FDA is corrupt..they get paid off by the pharmaceutical companies to approve drugs intended for psychiatric treatment, that the pharma companies KNOW have side effects which include "Mania", "Psychosis", "Violence" "Suicidal Thoughts/Intentions", and "Homicidal Ideation". Yet there are no warnings to the patients taking them, and if there are warnings of these side effects included with the "medication", they are either in the fine print that nobody reads, not communicated to the patient by their "doctor", or are downplayed as being "minimal", or "rare", or "uncommon"....if serious side effects such as the ones i listed above are statistically measurable to a significant degree, that drug should not be given to people.

"Medicine" that causes people to kill other people is NOT medicine.

the other side of the problem is unconstitutional state and federal mandates disallowing people to bear arms....specifically concealed and open carry... there's two things the gun grabbers either don't understand, or are forgetting. the first is that the police aren't here to protect each and every one of us...if a cop is around, ans someone is committing a crime, or intending to harm you, and they can stop it, that's great, but one MUST take personal responsibility for one's own protection, and the security of one's home, possessions, papers, effects, etc.... the other thing they don't understand, or rather they seem to forget is that there are still these people we call criminals...we call them criminals because they have no respect for the law, their fellow man, or participating in civilized society...they don't believe in earning an honest living by actually WORKING for their money, so they wanna take yours, and whatever the hell ELSE they can get off you...the cops aren't going to save you, you need to be able to handle it on your own..

I can almost GUARANTEE, that if the FDA started doing it's job, and did honest evaluations of these drugs, the unconstitutional restrictions on open and concealed carry were lifted nationwide, the people on these drugs were more closely monitored, and "gun free zones" were done away with, crime and these random mass shootings would either stop, or diminish severely.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by frazzle
LOL, like they're going to vote to reduce their power.


Indeed, that is the bottom line isn't it - the SCOTUS is a branch of the Federal Government, when it comes to deciding what is right regarding a State's right to leave the union is not likely to see any real impartiality from a body that stands to lose a good portion of its power from their departure.

The only really impartial body that could decide the legalities of a secession movement would be the United Nations Court or a counsel of third party nations appointed to mediate the dispute. In the course of the legal argument the two parties would have to be viewed as equal entities niether should be viewed as subordinate or subject to the will of the other.

That is like giving one party in a divorce proceeding the authority to decide the case and divide the assets. Hardly likely to be a fair dissolution.

Say one party agreed to let the other act as the "head of the household" and decide what is best for them both for the duration of the marriage; however, at some point the "head of household" becomes an abusive partner and misspends the joint funds or makes arbitrary or capricious decisions that affect both parties.

Would anyone want to stay in such a situation?

In our scenario the US Federal Government has simply imposed a set of rules (through court rulings) that have made dissoulution of the union (divorce) impossible or "illegal" despite the wishes of the other party.

I'd say there is no clearer definition of tyranny than the insistence on a state of perpetual and unbreakable union in which one of the parties is no longer an equal (or willing) participant but has become the servant or subject of the other.

ETA: The Civil War was in effect an abused spouse (the South) leaving the marriage because of irreconcilable differences and the abuser (the North) being bigger and having more money simply decided - Fine, you want to leave then I will come take all your stuff and beat you up until you have no choice but submit to my authority..."

Hardly something that seems to have been settled legally.

edit on 3/2/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/2/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/2/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/2/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)


I like your analogy on how the civil war was lost and naturally the federal supreme court is going to side with the other two federal branches on who's sovereign, but I think taking secession to a foreign body for resolution would be a huge huge mistake. Its a state issue so I'd be more inclined to ratchet the whole thing back down a notch to the State Supreme Court level where the people of the states might have a louder voice. At least that's where I'd start.

There are different SSC rules in various states, but "interpretation of a state supreme court on a matter of state law is normally final and binding and must be accepted in both state and federal courts.

However, "federal courts may overrule a state court only when there is a federal question, which is to say, a specific issue (such as consistency with the Federal Constitution) that gives rise to federal jurisdiction. Rulings of state supreme courts on such matters may be appealed directly to the Supreme Court of the United States."

The above quotes are from wikipedia as a general overview and I suppose each state would need to be investigated further to find out what the rules are. en.wikipedia.org...

Equal protection is seen as more vital to many people than the jurisdiction over all/federal citizenship part of the 14th amendment but that's the real holdup on secession and state's rights. How to dump that amendment is the question because you know the feds would never stand down on it without a fight.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



The only way to solve the problem is to find the root of the problem, and fix it there. the root of the problem in America is mental illness. Fix THAT, rather than making something that's already a crime illegal. It's already illegal to kill a school full of children, it's obvious that the mentally ill don't care if it's illegal. Fix that problem.

The problem IS mental illness.


This may sound way oversimplified but just the complete lack of respect ~ respect for self, for others, for property, for life ~ makes everybody crazy. Respect simply isn't being taught and I'd say it hasn't been since the "if it feels good, do it" generation. We've been sex,drugs and rock n rolled to insanity.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


I think you’re both on to something.

Part of what makes great comedians funny is when their jokes ring true. George Carlin was a funny dude and some of his rants on TPTB and the government were hilarious. I think they were funnier because there was a lot of truth to them.



Take this quote from Joe Rogan for example:



Nail on the head!

The problems we face are because we have a lot of crazy people! We have crazy narcissistic leaders who violate the constitution for their own personal gain. We have a good portion of our society more concerned with what the government will provide them rather than what all of these handouts will do to the country in the long run. We have people who think that if their life isn’t working the way they think it should that it’s ok to go on a shooting spree and kill innocent men, women and children.

We have a people problem!



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



What it does NOT say, and what you are glossing over, is that the states are not bound to enforce unconstitutional laws, nor are they bound to allow enforcement of unconstitutional laws withing their borders. You see, doing or allowing that actually NEGATES the Constitution - the two are mutually exclusive.


The States are not granted the right to deem a law Unconstitutional on their own. The Constitution gives specific authority to the SCOTUS on having the say on if a law is Constitutional or not. So until they file a lawsuit and the SCOTUS strikes the law down as Unconstitutional...it IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

So unless you have an example of the SCOTUS declare a specific law Unconstitutional and then the Federal Government ignoring that and continuing to try to enforce it....all of you claiming "State Rights" are just living in a fantasy world.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus
i would TOTALLY not trust the U.N., or any other foreign power, or coalition of powers to preside over deliberations as to what is legal in these united states...



Originally posted by frazzle
I think taking secession to a foreign body for resolution would be a huge huge mistake.


Please let me clarify that I have little love or even respect for the UN as it currently stands. Also, I am not saying that the UN should decide what is legal in the US. Nor am I saying that this is the ideal situation. Ideally, the Federal Government would just see reason and accept that all people have the right to self determination in their form of government and let them go… (Not bloody likely BTW)

What I am saying is that if one (or several) of the States through a vote presented to the people made an appeal to the world based on that wish for help in mitigating the terms of their departure from the union it might get some actual traction.

The people of the State will be the one’s deciding what is right for them in terms of governance and based on the fact that all people in have the right of self determination it’s “legality” under US law is really a moot point. Of course the Federal Government has “ruled” the Union unbreakable…why would they not. That doesn’t make that “ruling” right or even necessarily binding.

The point will be that the world or some nations in it in hopes of preventing a second American Civil War which would devastate the world’s economy might want to step in and help mitigate the situation.

Some will side of course with the Federal Government if for no other reason than the dollar and stability. However, I think a good number of the nations of the world would look at this through a different prism altogether and in hopes of gaining hegemony in certain places would side with the State(s).

Also, in view of the fact that the US has almost universally sided with the break-away nations of the world in any similar scenario in the past 50 years a good many nations would want some payback and side with the State(s).

If the US had to risk Civil War and international War at the same time – well I think they’d just accept the secession petitions.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


i'd love to see your thoughts on my above post on the mental health topic...

not to complain, but i write all these well thought out, intelligent posts, and they always seem to get ignored.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


nice to see you completely ignored what i said to you. hypocrisy is a hell of a thing, isn't it?



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 



i'd love to see your thoughts on my above post on the mental health topic...

not to complain, but i write all these well thought out, intelligent posts, and they always seem to get ignored.


Sorry!

Are you referring to this:

i agree, we do have SERIOUS mental health issues in this country, and it's not a matter of EVERYONE being crazy, it's a matter of how the individual conditions are evaluated, and treated. The FDA is corrupt..they get paid off by the pharmaceutical companies to approve drugs intended for psychiatric treatment, that the pharma companies KNOW have side effects which include "Mania", "Psychosis", "Violence" "Suicidal Thoughts/Intentions", and "Homicidal Ideation". Yet there are no warnings to the patients taking them, and if there are warnings of these side effects included with the "medication", they are either in the fine print that nobody reads, not communicated to the patient by their "doctor", or are downplayed as being "minimal", or "rare", or "uncommon"....if serious side effects such as the ones i listed above are statistically measurable to a significant degree, that drug should not be given to people.


I really don’t have any personal experience with how mental illnesses are diagnosed or treated. I certainly am not qualified to second guess a professional diagnosis and I’m not sure if certain drugs aren’t very helpful to some individuals. I just don’t know. I’m just not knowledgeable enough on this subject to add anything substantive…sorry!

I will say this…I don’t think mental illness in the clinical sense is the problem. There aren’t a lot of seriously mentally ill people running around…at least no more than any other country. There are a lot of people who don’t give a crap about anybody but themselves. These people either in government or in society are dangerous, regardless if they’ve been diagnosed with any mental deficiency. All the laws in the world won’t prevent these people from having guns.

AND...MOST IMPORTANTLY....the 2nd amendment protects all of us; even the people who we might feel are unstable. If we give the government the power to deem people unfit to own guns then you can BET YOUR ARSE the criteria will be changed often to fit their agenda (eg - expect the all veterans, conservatives, NRA members, etc to be on the list soon).



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle

This may sound way oversimplified but just the complete lack of respect ~ respect for self, for others, for property, for life ~ makes everybody crazy. Respect simply isn't being taught and I'd say it hasn't been since the "if it feels good, do it" generation. We've been sex,drugs and rock n rolled to insanity.



My mom, in her seventies, simplifies it even more than that. According to her, almost all of these mass killers "are just babies - near none of 'em over 25 years old. Ain't they got no upbringin's? Didn't their folks teach 'em nothin'?"

I just said "no, ma. they're all Doctor Spock babies."

Then she said "well he didn't know much about raisin' young-uns then, did he?"




posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag

I really don’t have any personal experience with how mental illnesses are diagnosed or treated. I certainly am not qualified to second guess a professional diagnosis and I’m not sure if certain drugs aren’t very helpful to some individuals. I just don’t know. I’m just not knowledgeable enough on this subject to add anything substantive…sorry!



Daedalus is right in the sense that many of those drugs are over-prescribed and under-supervised. Doc just writes a script, and on to the next. I've seen them prescribed even when there are contraindicating factors. They prescribe them as if they think the patients can get personality out of a bottle. I suppose some of them do, and it's entirely the wrong personality. The drugs they prescribe often don't treat the problem, they just mask it.

Some times, the mask it puts over the problem is a hell of a lot scarier than the original problem.

And, as my mom observed, a lot of it chalks up to faulty upbringings. That can create "problems" that are then dealt with via a chemical lobotomy or personality out of a pill bottle. Then, when you get those cases that react to the pills badly, Katy bar the door, there's a shootin' gonna happen!

It goes back to both causes, and they look to me like they feed off of one another, resulting in people who have no respect for anything at all, least of all themselves.





new topics

top topics



 
107
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join