Standing against big government and for the people!
Gun ban advocates are back on the "no guns for the insane" rant again In lieu of the ex-LA cop incident. I just have a few questions regarding this one-size fits all Band-Aid approach.... who is going to decide the litmus test to classify someone "crazy" enough to get their 2nd amendment rights taken away? Will this be as loose of a definition as "terrorist" where it can be applied at will be the official's definition of that word? Will this litmus test given embody ones political views or consider those who have dissenting views as being insane? Will this be a permanent judgment or will there a rehabilitation period where the individual gets retested and then can get their 2nd amendment right restored?
How will this whole process work - will it go through your health care provider in conjunction with the ATF and a federal level judge? What are the parameters to contest such a judgment and medical opinion? During that time if contesting being labeled as crazy, what third party psychological evaluations will be administered and who will administer them? Will innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt be applied or will it be guilty until proven innocent?
See there are no real clear definitive answers - all they have done is come at this from a new angle, employing emotional triggers and shame/guilt and fear to frame you to a rash subjective opinion without considering the ripple effect of ALL the consequences and what this whole process will look like> They predicate their solutions on the notion that you trust their expert opinion in such matters, that you are just the average citizen and you are too busy and not informed enough to be bothered with such things that you are supposed to just sit back and go and let them drive because they are always acting in your best interest.
What has their track record shown you over the last 10. 20 , 40, 80 years.... whose interest have they really been protecting? Are you any better off than you were 5, 10, 15 or 20 years ago? Do you and your family still enjoy the same level of freedoms and liberties you did a decade ago? Are our children getting a better education than you did - they may know may know more trivial facts but can they tell you the why... when they recite history can they tell you why that event was important, why they did what they did, how it impacted all parties involved from all angles and was what they did aligning with the values, principles and constitution of this nation?
If we, the individual American citizen, the employer and bosses of the government are going to go along with this subjectively emotional knee-jerk reaction of insanity can suspend ones 2nd amendment right - then do we not need to look at this from every angle and apply it to the employees, the public servants first before we apply it to the general population?
Here is what I mean. Let’s start with the sacred cow that no one in government will scrutinize, but should really take to the proverbial “woodshed”… the FDA. Specifically let’s look at the crap they peddle to doctors to give to patients and the “side effects” of taking the prescribed medication. Interesting to note that no one takes those “potential” side effects seriously until they happen and then magically never look at the medication being the cause… no the doctors, in their “infinite wisdom” using the symptomatic approach to medicine instead of looking to the root cause will basically conclude that it must be another cause and will thus prescribe more medications, medications like the ones that potentially caused the negative event to begin with.
Since Sandy Hook seems to be at the center of the fury that kicked off this full on assault on the 2nd amendment, let’s start there. The government mandated mental care Adam Lanza was under, the “treatment” by the government-employed psychiatrist i.e. the one prescribed government approved and government promoted (FDA) drugs he was on.
Adam Lanza was given Fanapt (iloperidone). Fanapt is a piperidinyl-benzisoxazole derivatives prescribed primarily to but not limited to DSM-III/IV criteria patients for schizophrenia. It is a CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 inhibitors and doesn't play well with other antipsychotic drugs. Fanapt was eventually 'approved' after a significant amount of considerably disturbing lobby pushes from a lack of legitimate and objective clinical studies. Fanapt was only tested on around 500 people before going on sale to the unsuspecting and unaware citizens inside the United States for widespread ‘treatment’.
But what’s even more concerning than the shoddy trials of the drug is the side effects listed on both the package insert for the drug and various online medical sites. These include: Hostility, Aggression, Mania, Confusional state, Impulse-control disorder, etc. Not side affects you would want to mix in with someone who was already schizophrenic.
Alarmingly we know that virtually every major shooter of similar circumstance and scenario had been on similar drugs including the Columbine shooters, Ted Kaczinski (the Unibomber), and many others, it was easy to see how Adam Lanza could easily fit the bill as well. Of course this assessment of the drug was met with adamant opposition stating that Big Pharma’s anti-psychotic and anti-depressant drugs were ‘perfectly safe’ and that Anthony Gucciardi who first looked into this was simply assuming things based on no evidence.
Of course the reality is that the very creator of Prozac, Eli Lilly & Co., actually kept the link between suicidal behavior and Prozac consumption a secret to protect their own interests. But I am sure that is not the case here (sarcasm). The question here is why did government-employed psychiatrist, working on your tax dollar, prescribe this to a extremely disturbed young man, with a history of violent behavior?
Did that government mandated mental care psychiatrist think that the warnings of Hostility, Aggression, Mania, Confusional state, Impulse-control disorder would only occur in such marginally low percentages that this wouldn't be a factor? Why would a doctor knowingly take such a risk with such an unstable patient? I am sure it was on his government approved standard of care for patients with this disorder and he was simply giving him the “checklist treatment” because after all, government logic is “one size fits all”. As a parent, if you have a child that is mentally ill, is this the level of care you would want? Do you think your tax dollars in these programs are making things better or worse? I am sure there are successes out there, but is the cost of these failures worth the lives of the children that were lost (in any of the mass school shootings)? And this the very people who created this system of disaster will be judging if you are sane or insane. To which I have to ask, with the above given information who is really insane here… isn’t this a case of the process of insanity treating the insane… it might work in math but in this case two negatives do not equate a positive result.
Now let’s look at the overall mental health of our public servants all the way across the board. Here was a ex-cop and former military personnel. His actions would indicate to any mental health professional that there were deep seated unresolved issues here and that the event (being passed over for the promotion) was only the byproduct of a long history undealt with mental illness that through subjective and rash decisions, feeling of loss of control and helplessness and despair were triggered into action to try to regain control. His experience as a police officer and member of the armed forced have given him the tools necessary to be effective his insanity.
If we are going to suspend the 2nd amendment on the basis of insanity then we need to do a thorough mental evaluation, from a third party, unrelated to the government source of ALL employees who work on federal dollar – no exceptions – starting with the governmental agencies that issue weapons as a part of them doing their job. This practice, group or individual evaluating our public servants should be highly specialized in PTSD as well as other functional sociopathic and functional psychotic behavior. If deemed a potential risk or even as a threat, then they should be mandated to surrender their firearm immediately until deemed sane and cured by that third party mental health overseer.
This would curtail much of the abuse of power by police officers and other governmental officials who carry weapons as a part of them preforming their duties. The last thing the public needs is an insane governmental worker who has the rule of law on their side and has a firearm to be able to execute subjective judgments that could result in the death of the labeled ‘perpetrator’ especially when the supposed perpetrator was merely acting within their constitutional rights to question an officer as to why they are being treated or detained when no crime has been committed or the misdemeanor that they charged with didn’t warrant cruel, demeaning or brutal behavior on the part of the law enforcement officer.
This wouldn’t even stop that this level, to be fair, which is what this administration is supposedly all about, there would need to be a thorough investigation of every sitting individual in the White House, Congress, Senate and every high level governmental position. Every conceal-carry permit owner in the government, like Diane Feinstein, would need to go through a thorough mental evaluation to make sure no form of mental illness was present. After all what would prevent her or others in congress if they had deep seated, unreported and undiagnosed mental illness from it being triggered if they felt mentally threatened, out of control, loss of power from making a rash decision like this former LA police officer and taking matters in their own hands. We have no guarantee that such assurances could be given that would be 100% without any potential of failure. And remember all it takes is one person, who is unstable, and you can hve another unfortunate situation on your hands.
If the government and the gun ban advocates are going to peruse this direction of “insanity” to suspend the 2nd amendment to initiate gun control, then they first need to start with themselves first. After all they have the rule of law on their side and if they were insane, like the ex-LA police officer, they know how the system works. They would know better than anyone how to manipulate the law to ensure their innocence and make you look like a deranged terrorist. How could we, as American citizens, have any level of trust knowing that there is a potential that that law enforcement officer or government worker is insane and could snap at any moment? They claim their duty is to serve and protect, knowing this, do you feel any safer or like your interest of public safety are being served?
Look I will be the first to say I am not for this measure at all. Not because I thing you should go and hand a certifiable crazy person a hand gun and trust that they will make the right decision to do the right thing with it. What I am saying is this is not the quick simple fix they want you to belie4ve it is and if you follow their entire line of reasoning (more like the lack thereof) it gets really messy and brings up all sorts of constitutional ethical issues that quite frankly I do not believe we are ready to address because we have forgotten the basic tenets of what the constitution is, what those natural rights are and why they are there.
Millions of people every day go to the airport and allow their 4th amendment right to be grossly violated just to travel from one city to the next. No one stops to think about their right, they just accept it. They do not even consider, if those whose intent was to do this nations harm could plan such an attack like 9/11, wouldn’t it stand to reason that they are just watching where all the attention and security is and thus just planning ways around it or to approach it another way? As of 2011 there were 25,000 reported security breaches in the TSA security checkpoints… remember all it takes is one. Yet each day we allow them without question to violate our 4th amendment rights. If we cannot stand up to this ILLEGAL law of unconstitutional search and seizure, how are we really going to be able as a nation, address the fundamentals of the full ramifications that any infringement of the second amendment would bring?
Life is not a 30 minute sitcom and we are not going to have all of life’s problems answered at the end of the 30 minute show. We are talking about a a real serious issue of suspending a person’s natural right based upon a medical diagnosis that has the potential to be subjective in nature since medical practice is still considered a medical art, NOT science. Modern medicine may use the benefits of science and the scientific approach in its treatment and diagnosis, but the application of that science is still left to the subjective interpretation of that medical professional. That is why they call it a MEDICAL OPINION and not a medical fact. So if the entire basis of the diagnosis is subjective in nature then can we rest assured knowing that equal justice for all was administered?
Another ethical question to ask is, does an insane person have the right to protect themselves from harm? Protect their life if it is in danger? Look at all the cases of rape in state ran mental hospitals and all the abuse perpetrated upon the patients by the workers. These workers are the exerts who were tasked to care for the patients and help them recover and rehabilitate, yet if these workers have undiagnosed mental illness themselves, they could abuse the mental patient and blame all allegations on their insanity and in most cases would not be called into question. See the issue is not so simple and a quick blind judgment does not ensure equal justice for all. These are the realities that need to be brought out in this supposed debate which are not being addressed. Why? Because the goal is total disarmament of the population by whatever means necessary. They could care less about the debate, all they want is to remove another natural right from you and will use every emotional ploy through the media to guilt you into thinking you are a horrible individual, not rational, not sane if you oppose their measure to completely infringe upon your second amendment right.
Be aware. Do not give into their emotional manipulation. They will parade your favorite celebrities, your favorite singers, use TV shows to place subtle messages, get so-called ivy league experts on talk shows and news commentary shows, use pictures of dead children, parade grieving parents – basically anything and everything to get you to surrender. Why because they know they do not have the LEGAL right to take it away, but if you give it up like you did your 4th amendment right, they do have the legal power to take what you give them. That is why it is SO important for you, the individual to surrender that right. They will try to convince you that it is only a certain type of weapon they want you to give up, but honestly ask yourself – have they ever stopped at taking something away once the people opened up the door to it?
So do your own due diligence, do not let others define your opinions for you no matter how much respect you might have for that talk show host or news commentator personality. Be your own person, have your own opinion. There are going to be things about what I wrote you like and agree with and other stuff you are going to think I am off the deep end – which is great – so long as it is getting you to think and to question, then my job is accomplished. I am not trying to get you to agree with me, all I am trying to to do is give you a springboard to take the issues I brought up to new levels and new directions that will help you form your own opinions so that you, the American individual are leading the charge, defining the issues and paving the way, not your elected public servants.
I say it time and time again, you, the American individual are the most powerful branch of the government, you have the most authority and those in the government who work for you know it. That is why they need to manipulate you to surrender your natural rights so that they can have what the highest law in the land (US Constitution)says you have… the final authority and power over the government. They can only take it away if you allow them to and or if you do nothing to stop them.
Reclaim what is yours, be the boss, make your public servants earn their salary from your tax dollar and make them do your will. The future is what you make it, do not let a bunch of narcissistic thieving lunatics control your destiny… take it back while there is still time and you still have most of your natural rights still intact.