Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

I Think That When Guns Are Outlawed Only Outlaws Will Have Gun

Many are shouting about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Like the others it is a feel good solution that will have dire consequences and will have zero effectiveness in curbing the violence.

Mental illness can be very hard to identify since there is no kind of official test for most conditions, most people are diagnosed according to the [b]subjective[/b] opinions of the doctors that observe them. What makes anyone think that a doctor is neutral? We have seen plenty of activist judges, doctors are human as well and many have an agenda!

In the dictionary of mental illnesses, known as DSM-5, published by the American Psychiatric Association, there is actually a condition listed for people who have a problem with authority. Oppositional Defiant Disorder is a name that psychiatrists made up to identify children who won’t do what they are told, and now even adults are being diagnosed with this condition as well. It important to note it is doctors that sit around a conference table deciding what goes into the DSM. The DSM is a tool that is used so when diagnosed they can prescribe. Note also that big pharma spends aprox 40K per year per doctor to get them to prescribe.

A policy like this could also allow the government to disarm dissidents and political enemies. As psychiatry became more influential towards the middle of the 20th century, rulers around the world began using “mental illness” as an excuse to lock away anyone who might disagree with them. The Soviet regime became notorious for this practice by labeling all political dissidents as “mentally ill” so they could be locked away in institutions where they were no threat to the establishment.

The United States government also has a long history of slapping unruly citizens with the mark of mental illness. President Franklin Roosevelt famously called his detractors “the lunatic fringe.

Meanwhile, politicians and mainstream media are quick to label anyone who questions the official narrative as a “conspiracy theorist,” a term that has been falsely associated with mental illness in pop culture.

A study in 2017 set out to determine whether or not believing in conspiracy theories was a form of mental illness. As expected they found the exact answer that they were looking for, people who don’t trust the government and mainstream media are crazy, and suffering from something called illusory pattern perception.

The mentally ill are more likely to be victims as they appear weak than they are to commit a violent crime. We don't need more gun laws what we need is to stop the drugs that doctors hand out in order to increase their profits. These drugs are very well known to cause violent behavior as these poisons change your brain chemistry.

The common denominator of all the mass shootings starting with Columbine is they were all on drugs legally prescribed by doctors. MSM downplays that because it is big pharma paying for them. We want to stop the violence we need to stop the drugs.

http://docshare01.docshare.tips/files/20788/207888145.pdf
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Moosepantspatty · 31-35, M
I honestly find myself really confused about all of this. The constitution is plain about government not being lawfully allowed to legislate its contents without a constitutional convention.

But here we are, nearly all of the original 10 amendments have been legislated on without proper process, and everybody wants more.

Why not do it properly instead of dividing the people based on opinions?
Mikemcneil · 61-69, M
@Moosepantspatty time has moved on. A lot of the original Constitution is no longer relevant. That's why amendments are both needed and allowed m
Moosepantspatty · 31-35, M
@Mikemcneil with all due respect sir, time is irrelevant. There is a legal process that must be followed to amend or dismantle the constitution. I am perfectly fine with changes to it, but the law must be followed if We the People are to be expected to follow them as well.
Mikemcneil · 61-69, M
@Moosepantspatty time is completely relevant to the original Constitution. It was written in a very different America. What changes have concerned you recently as being non Constitutional?
Moosepantspatty · 31-35, M
@Mikemcneil time being used as an excuse to modify a document that is the foundation of law in this country, by the entity it serves to restrict, outside of the lawful parameters put in place to modify it, is what makes time irrelevant.

So long as we are the People of the United States of America, we are obligated to follow the laws of the land, both state and federal. It was written, by the very people who fought for our liberty that any law put forth by our government violating our constitution, is not law, and shall be ignored.


Once more, I am not attempting to negate or nullify your opinion on the issue of gun control, I am simply stating that we have lawful avenues in place exactly for this purpose that are being flagrantly ignored in opposition of the law they have sworn an oath to uphold.

Its quite simple really, if the overwhelming majority of Americans are for common sense gun reform, than it would be a simple process to simply follow the law, and change the constitution lawfully.
Mikemcneil · 61-69, M
@Moosepantspatty nobody is proposing to amend the Constitution unlawfully are they?
Moosepantspatty · 31-35, M
@Mikemcneil That is the lawful process that must be followed for the federal government to pass legislation on topics outlined in the constitution.

If you want lawful definitions for speech that while not appropriate for public discourse, is not a direct extension of harming another individual? Youll need to lawfully alter the 1st amendment.

If you want lawful restrictions on firearms, youll need to follow that same lawful process.

If you want the police to lawfully be able to stop at an individuals home and enter it without a warrant, youll need to follow the lawful process.
Mikemcneil · 61-69, M
@Moosepantspatty and your point is? Congress can pass a bill amending the second amendment if they like. Alternatively they can pass a bill restricting ownership of certain types of gun. That was done legally in the last century I think.
Moosepantspatty · 31-35, M
Well I have a few points, and ill be happy to address yours.

1. Legal does not equate to lawful. Any legislation can be passed to outlaw, regulate, or legalize anything. Once those bills are signed into law, they become legal, this is the acting precedent in the United States for the last 90 years or so, and is the source of much unrest in this country, again, because any law in violation of the constitution is not lawful, and should not be followed, in accordance with the wishes of those who founded this great nation.

2. Congress, following a majority vote, can amend the constitution, this is one of the two processes necessary to complete a Constitutional Convention, this is the lawful process that must be followed to do so. Simply passing legislation is not enough.

3. The major conflict in this country over firearm ownership is effectively a moot point if we only talk about passing laws. Any legislation passed outlawing the ownership of firearms is in direct violation of the constitution as the framers intended it, and will only result in more arguments between the pro and anti gun crowds.

4. If we entrust complete Executive discretion to the Federal Government, and they do not abide by the law, than what reason do the People have to follow the laws they put in place? Only the threat of pain, imprisonment, and ruin will obligate you, rather than a sense of pride and responsibility to be a member of this great nation.
Mikemcneil · 61-69, M
@Moosepantspatty no one is proposing taking all the guns away are they? That would never get through Congress. Selective restrictions are very likely and much more workable. It is pure fallacy to suggest that the government is ever going to take all guns away.
Moosepantspatty · 31-35, M
@Mikemcneil Again sir, with all due respect, that is not at all what I said.

As you stated, there is no way that would make it through congress.

You will find that what i am saying simply boils down to the phrase, "Law Abiding". This applies to everyone in this nation.

For the Federal Government to put forward simple legislation, not a change to the constitution, regarding the second amendment in this circumstance, they are in direct violation of the expressed intent. That is unlawful and should be ignored as per the instructions of our founding fathers.

For the Federal Government to put forward a Constitutional Convention and make a change to the second amendment with a modern interpretion in accordance with the opinions of the public to restrict the ownership of the AR-15 and other styled rifles; that would be lawful and welcomed by anyone.

One solution sows discord amongst the populace by allowing an entity that is willing to ignore laws, enforce laws upon us.

The other solution leaves the majority of the people satisfied, the remaining minority unhappy, but willing, and finally, a very small sect that will gladly embrace being outlaws simply because "the feds want muh guns".
Mikemcneil · 61-69, M
The founding fathers couldn't foresee the terrible predicament America is now in. Why do you place so much emphasis on their anachronistic views?
Moosepantspatty · 31-35, M
@Mikemcneil is Americas current situation worse than being wracked by a war on our own land against a global superpower? Is Americas current levels of corruption higher than those of the corrupt monarchy that we went to war with for our freedom? Is Americas debt greater than a fledgling country who just cut ties with their creditors?

The founding fathers saw terror far beyond anything we experience today.

To answer your question though, I place such an emphasis on their anachronistic view, because it is the law that each and every one of us is bound to abide by, by the very government you have entrusted to keep you safe. Follow it.

However, as much as I would hope that my incredibly mild viewpoint would help ease misunderstandings and tensions, it has become clear that you are either not reading, or not comprehending what it is I am saying, instead you continue to ignore the most basic facts of the conversation to bring up more contentious points that would be better discussed with someone who will happily spew their own bias back at you.

Good day sir, and best of luck in all of your endeavors.
@Moosepantspatty by engaging in debate with Mike, you are dealing with a socialist.

Like many socialists, Mike's real problem is he wants to dictate how you and I should live. They simply can't keep their collectivist noses out of our business.

This is exactly why we have the constitution to begin with, and why it's never going to be an outdated document.
SW-User
@Mikemcneil Cause they're not so anachronistic, and what's more, we can change the laws and the Constitution, but it requires a significant amount of approval, not just 50.1%