Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-USSR) to introduce assault weapons ban

[Bo's Pelini]

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Sunday on NBC's Meet The Press that she will introduce an assault weapons ban bill on the first day of the new Congress.



http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...ay-Of-Congress

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by listopencil

That's not necessarily true. Mental health professionals need time to work and access to patients. I would rather focus on therapy over medication but that takes money.

I am not really much for expanding state spending in the area in general as it gives govt more control over minds. Sounds benevolent but it never winds up that way with the state. Drugs or not, it's not a good idea. Drugs just make it worse. Then on top of our current fiscal condition. There's nothing some of the left and democrats won't fund. It's just none of the govt's business and is ripe for abuse.

It's extremely unlibertarian and I am very surprised at your support of the idea. It's Orwellian.

Here's some articles by Paul on it. The Therapeutic Nanny State Particularly the fifth paragraph down.

Federal Funding for Mental Health Screening of Kids

"The psychiatric establishment and the pharmaceutical industry of course support government mental health screening programs in schools, because they both stand to benefit from millions of new customers. But we should not allow self-interested industries to use a government program to create a captive audience for their products. "

I'm sure he (she) had tremendous access to medication. From what I understand he had been sort of "in the system" for quite some time. What she couldn't do was give him the psychological care he needed.

Yes I know. ( regarding the last sentence)

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Sorry to hear that

Thank you. My dad too but it mainly wrecked his health. He worked for the govt and it was free.

We are a non-profit organization

That's not the taxpayer's problem dear.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

That's not the taxpayer's problem dear.

*looks at death toll from mass shootings this year* Well, maybe it is.

[BucEyedPea]

Libertarian Party Platform

I. Individual Rights and Civil Order

9.Government and Mental Health
The Issue: Individuals are forcibly medicated or denied medication, not based on medical need, but based rather on a social agenda as enforced by government.

The Principle: Medication must be voluntary.

Solutions: We oppose the involuntary commitment of any person to or involuntary treatment in a mental institution. We strongly condemn Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC), where the patient is ordered to accept treatment, or else be committed to a mental institution and forcibly treated. We oppose government pressure requiring parents to obtain counseling or psychiatric drugs for their children. We also oppose forced treatment for the elderly, the head-injured, or those with diminished capacity. We are against the invasion of people's homes and privacy by health officials or law enforcement to either require or deny drug taking.

Transitional Action: We advocate an end to the spending of tax money for any program of psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral research or treatment. [<---My stand] We favor an end to the acceptance of criminal defenses based on "insanity" or "diminished capacity" which absolve the guilty of their responsibility.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

*looks at death toll from mass shootings this year* Well, maybe it is.

How many of those were on psychiatric prescribed medication and or in the hands of a mental health professional who prescribed it? All of them.
One even worked for the govt and the Pentagon earlier. That was the Batman shooter. Timothy McVeigh was too.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I am not really much for expanding state spending in the area in general as it gives govt more control over minds. Sounds benevolent but it never winds up that way with the state. Drugs or not, it's not a good idea. Drugs just make it worse. Then on top of our current fiscal condition. There's nothing some of the left and democrats won't fund. It's just none of the govt's business and is ripe for abuse.

It's extremely unlibertarian and I am very surprised at your support of the idea. It's Orwellian.

Here's some articles by Paul on it. The Therapeutic Nanny State Particularly the fifth paragraph down.

Federal Funding for Mental Health Screening of Kids

"The psychiatric establishment and the pharmaceutical industry of course support government mental health screening programs in schools, because they both stand to benefit from millions of new customers. But we should not allow self-interested industries to use a government program to create a captive audience for their products. "

Yes I know. ( regarding the last sentence)

There are several ways to go here and they all involve spending money. If the research isn't done and the therapy isn't applied, then there really isn't anything left but medication. That's where we are right now.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Libertarian Party Platform

I. Individual Rights and Civil Order

Yup, and I disagree.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Yup, and I disagree.

Okay fair enough. Seems like a pretty big libertarian point though. It's usually abortion and civil rights where one where some libertarians differ not funding something like this.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by listopencil

There are several ways to go here and they all involve spending money. If the research isn't done and the therapy isn't applied, then there really isn't anything left but medication. That's where we are right now.

I am not a fan of govt research for such things—or many things. Military research is the only one that comes to mind. Major breakthroughs come from individuals free from any of the state's restraints. They need that freedom.

I spoke to a psychiatrist recently, as matter of fact, and he even admitted when it comes to talking therapy it really depended on any doctors individual ability to communicate and the trust he has from his patient for them to communicate for any results. Hence, results were random.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Okay fair enough. Seems like a pretty big libertarian point though. It's usually abortion and civil rights where one where some libertarians differ not funding something like this.

This is one of those times where my thinking is that they are taking my money anyway, I'd rather they do something with it that I think might benefit someone.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

How many of those were on psychiatric prescribed medication and or in the hands of a mental health professional who prescribed it? All of them.
One even worked for the govt and the Pentagon earlier. That was the Batman shooter. Timothy McVeigh was too.

You can stop pretending that the only outcome of mental health reform is an increase in wanton psychotropic drug prescriptions.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by listopencil

This is one of those times where my thinking is that they are taking my money anyway, I'd rather they do something with it that I think might benefit someone.

Yeah, okay. I just am also doubting the actual benefit...especially by the ones needing govt funding. That includes talking therapy for worse off cases.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

You can stop pretending that the only outcome of mental health reform is an increase in wanton psychotropic drug prescriptions.

That's a strawman argument at least as it pertains to that post you quoted.

[Reaper16]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

That's a strawman argument at least as it pertains to that post you quoted.

Funny, because I was thinking that you were arguing a strawman.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

That's not the taxpayer's problem dear.

Well, I think a little bit it is the taxpayers'/general public's problem. Maybe you heard about a shooting a couple days ago that really ****ed up the lives of a lot of taxpayers.