Jump to content


Photo

You 2A types are just CRAZY! ....Und vee hav vays oaf proving it!


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 TxMike

TxMike

    Bwana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sealy, TX
  • Interests:Surviving the next eleven years!
  • Location:Texas

Posted 04 February 2013 - 10:49 PM

It will soon be a given that anyone that doesn't kneel before the Powers that Be shall be deemed mentally incompitent.  Obviously, if you don't recognize that the Government is just acting in your best interest, then you must be CRAZY!

 

http://www.wnd.com/2...ver-psychiatry/

 

In the administration’s latest push to limit the Second Amendment rights of its citizens, the term “mental health” is being bantered about and used as common ground between anti-gun activists and staunch defenders of gun rights.

Sen. Roy Blunt, Missouri Republican and NRA backer, objected to President Obama’s proposals but agreed the “focus should be on mental health.” Others, while proclaiming support for the Second Amendment, propose “a meaningful conversation about mental health,” or that we should “identify people who are mentally ill.” After all, how could anyone support guns in the hands of the mentally ill?

 

Wait … not so fast. The problem is one of definition: Who is mentally ill?

The use of psychiatry against dissidents in the Soviet Union was one of the major human rights scandals of the 1970s and 1980s. Overt tyrants don’t need to employ psychiatry as a weapon, but establishing a dictatorship that pretends to be a republic requires a stealthy way of silencing opponents. As the Soviets discovered, not everyone is afraid to speak out, and when dissidents are perceived by the public as speaking truth, they must somehow be discredited.

What better way than to be labeled mentally ill? That accomplishes two things: First, the mentally ill person can be silenced and secreted away into a mental institution. And secondly – this is especially important for prominent people who may have left behind their written statement – it discredits the person’s beliefs. If the dissident is determined by “great medical men of learning” to be “mentally ill,” then people will be less likely to take his words seriously.

Nuclear Physicist Andrei Sakharov was sent into interior exile in Gorky for his “peace of mind” after being diagnosed by psychiatrists at the Leningrad Institute as a “talented but sick man.” His sickness came to light when he published a tract in the U.S., recommending build-up of the nuclear arsenal.

Soviet psychiatry in the Brezhnev era and beyond was predicated on the concept of “heterodoxy.” If you didn’t believe the official dogma, you must have been ill. Under the politburo, this meant not believing in Marxism, or having some form of God-centered religious belief.

In 1974, neurophysiologist and political activist, Vladimir Bukovsky and the incarcerated psychiatrist Semyon Gluzman wrote “A Manual on Psychiatry for Dissenters,” in which they provided potential future victims of political psychiatry with instructions on how to behave during inquest in order to avoid being diagnosed as mentally sick.

Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, political opponents, human rights activists and psychiatrists who did not believe in punitive psychiatry were incarcerated in mental institutions. Gluzman himself spent seven years in the Gulag, and 3 years in Siberian exile for refusing to diagnose a mental illness in a human rights activist.

One of the factors that allowed psychiatry to become so entwined with the totalitarian authority, according to Yuri Savenko, the president of the Independent Psychiatric Association of Russia, was the total nationalization of the psychiatric profession. In other words, the psychiatrists all worked for and were paid by the government. They no longer were employed by their patients.

Thomas Szasz in his 1984 book “The Therapeutic State,” says the collaboration between government and psychiatry results in a system in which disapproved thoughts, emotions and actions are repressed (“cured”) through pseudomedical interventions. Thus illegal drug use, smoking, overeating, gambling, shoplifting, sexual promiscuity, pederasty, rambunctiousness, shyness, anxiety, unhappiness, racial bigotry, unconventional religious beliefs and suicide are all considered diseases or symptoms of diseases – things that happen to people against their will. This attitude, Szasz concludes, can lead to unwanted treatment being forced on someone – just for his beliefs.

So back to the NRA. I see this one coming. This is a one-two sucker punch let loose in the name of civil society and treatment of poor mentally ill people. The government lets us Second Amendment people keep guns, but only if we are not mentally ill – and it is the government which will define “mentally ill.”

Recently, the issue of post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, in returning Vets has been mentioned in the context of gun permits. Of course the government makes a great show of concern for our returning injured vets, making sure that mental health facilities are expanded to insure timely care. And of course, unless the vet has a solid diagnosis of PTSD or some other mental diagnosis, he or she will not be eligible for care. But once given the diagnosis, the veteran is at risk of losing constitutionally guaranteed rights under the rubric of making gun ownership conditional on “mental health.”

Brandon Raub, USMC veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, made quite colorful anti-war and anti-administration remarks in a Facebook page. He was subsequently drug away in handcuffs by local authorities purportedly at the request of mental health workers.

Col. Thierry Dupuis, county police chief, acted under the state’s emergency custody statute which allows a magistrate to order civil detention and psych evaluation of anyone considered potentially dangerous – i.e., he was hauled off and jailed for a “pre-crime.” He hadn’t hurt anyone. He hadn’t done anything overt except express his beliefs on paper. And anyone with a three-inch kitchen knife is “potentially dangerous.”

You out there worried about Agenda 21? Crazy!

Have fervent Christian beliefs that leads you to wear long dresses? Crazy!

Homeschooler? Obvious agoraphobic.

Dr. Charles Sell, DDS, was confined in federal prison for five years and nearly subjected to forced anti-psychotic drugging. He was deemed “paranoid” and thus incompetent to stand trial. After serving many years, he was sprung finally after an arduous legal battle was waged in his defense. Initially charged with defrauding Medicaid, at the end he was found to have “defrauded” the Medicaid system only about $35. His paranoid delusion? That the government was “out to get him.”

Psychiatry is a dangerous weapon in the hands of the state. We cannot cede to the government authority to define mental health, nor allow mental health “experts” to decide our fitness to exercise our constitutional rights. And we must be vigilant as more people disappear into the mental health system.


 
“And that's the most horrible thing about censorship: To avoid falling afoul of the censors, we question ourselves and censor ourselves and make a big deal out of things in our heads. We do the work of the control freaks for them, out of a desire to avoid them.” 
― Off-Topic: The Story of an Internet Revolt

#2 HIGH PLAINS

HIGH PLAINS

    Bwana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,619 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northwest Panhandle

Posted 04 February 2013 - 11:29 PM

Who is mentally ill?

If you didn’t believe the official dogma, you must have been ill.

... the psychiatrists all worked for and were paid by the government. They no longer were employed by their patients.

... the collaboration between government and psychiatry results in a system in which disapproved thoughts, emotions and actions are repressed (“cured”) through pseudomedical interventions. (And) can lead to unwanted treatment being forced on someone – just for his beliefs.

So back to the NRA. I see this one coming. This is a one-two sucker punch let loose in the name of civil society and treatment of poor mentally ill people. The government lets us Second Amendment people keep guns, but only if we are not mentally ill – and it is the government which will define “mentally ill.”

 

And how will the government get control of the psychiatric profession? :unsure:

Oblamacare anyone? :angry:

 

HP :lol:


All you need for happiness is a good gun, a good horse, and a good wife. Daniel Boone


Aging is mandatory.
Wisdom and maturity are optional.

#3 TheOldPro

TheOldPro

    Bwana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,229 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Salado, TX
  • Interests:Hunting, fishing, golf, church, and grandkids.
  • Location:Central Texas

Posted 05 February 2013 - 12:01 AM

TxMike:

 

     While I agree with the crux of this article, sometimes a personal happening can make you wonder what can be done.  

I know  right now in our area of a situation such as this.  It involves a bad divorce based on unfaithfulness of the husband.  The former husband has stalked the former wife and new husband, in one instance hiding in a tree at night so as to see inside her house, and when discovered doing so,  he fled. He was talked to by the deputy sheriff, but nothing was done.   Two weeks ago, he drove past his wife in the downtown area, shouting obscenities out the window of his truck as she walked the street with her kids, at the same time quoting, or trying to quote, scriptures about an unfaithful wife (everyone who knew him knew about his affairs before their divorce)....not once, but 3 times.  He later drove to her parents house and screamed at them and began cussing them out, until their son came out a cleaned his plow.  He had sat in the road for over an hour in plain view before entering the property, I suppose as intimidation.  They have two children, joint custody at present, and gets in such rages around them if they mention their mother that his own mother has advised them to hide in the barn when he gets that way.  He has basically stolen his daughter's horse (she rides barrel races) and refuses to return it, maintaining it is his and that he never gave it to her (before the divorce), which everyone knows is a lie.  The former wife is filing for full custody.  He has confronted her new husband at their new home, with the same verbal abuse.  There is a restraining order, but he has successfully ignored it to date, due I suspect to two separate counties involved.  His tirades, from those who have witnessed them firsthand, are irrational and horrendous.  His actions are well-known and witnessed by many in town, and the general consensus is that he may be mentally unstable and is capable of hurting his ex-wife, her husband, the children, and anyone else who supports her.  The local police and deputy sheriffs know what is going on, but have not intervened because except for the restraining order violations, he has not yet harmed anyone.  Most of us who know the situation, and him, think it is just a matter of time before that happens.  In this case, I'm not so sure that  a forced mental evaluation might not be in order.  I think it would save a life or lives if done now.  When the child custody case goes down, he is going to completely lose it.  I realize that he could be charged with trespassing and disorderly conduct, but those are not going to take him off the streets for very long.  What would you suggest other than a forced mental evaluation at this time? I realize that this could be considered a "pre-crime" sentence, but right now, nobody knows how to handle this situation.  Any suggestions would be considered.


All generalizations are false, including this one.
Every silver lining has a cloud.
Patrick Henry meant to say: "Give me Liberty or give me Democrats".

#4 TxMike

TxMike

    Bwana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sealy, TX
  • Interests:Surviving the next eleven years!
  • Location:Texas

Posted 05 February 2013 - 08:18 AM

While I coulnd't possibly suggest a solution, this situation does remind me of a couple of stories I had heard regarding similar situations. In the first, a "good friend of the family" and a few other concerned citizens had a nice long chat with the stalking and abusive former boyfriend. It must have worked as once he was well enough to leave the hospital, he decided his future seemed brighter further on down the road and left town for good.

 

In the other, the ex-wife, out of "fear for her own life and that of her children" put an end to the abuse with a shotgun blast through the door as she felt her ex was trying to break in and harm them.

 

While these were extreme examples, they did put an end to the serial abuse and what could have been a fatal ending for the wife and kids. Most everyone around agreed that the perpetrator had been relentless in his torments against his former family and "had it coming" to him for his actions. It seems that as long as no one stands up to these bullies in an equally or greater form of violence, they will continue to press the boundaries of civility until it ends in tragedy for the innocent. While turning the other cheek is the Lord's way and should be utilized first, one may be eventually left with no cheeks that are not bruised and bloodied.

 

My personal preference in most things is that to get any "governmental" type involved in a situation is a last resort. They just seem to cause more problems than they fix.


 
“And that's the most horrible thing about censorship: To avoid falling afoul of the censors, we question ourselves and censor ourselves and make a big deal out of things in our heads. We do the work of the control freaks for them, out of a desire to avoid them.” 
― Off-Topic: The Story of an Internet Revolt




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users