- Messages
- 287
- Reactions
- 128
Jim,
I'm tempted to agree with you, and generally I want to, but there might be a couple missing components in your theory as well.
1) You say: "Read about the worst attack in US history, Bath School." That's.....one.....event. Then you go on to say:
"When many events happened in the past and some of them rank as the worst in history, ..... the mass killings were still taking place."
I haven't made the history of mass killings a high priority research project yet, but when you say "many events", it sounds like you have. So how many "many events" have you discovered in your research on the topic? Was there ever any other time when these events were happening in such close proximity of time to each other..... or were these "many events" sprinkled distantly across time as one might expect in a world where human nature can be expected to deliver a bad apple here and there? Presently, the seemingly random, independent mass killings that are in the spotlight are densely populated within a relatively short time and that is not a component that can be overlooked in comparing the present with the past. If this frequency of occurrence never happened in the past, then on that count the past and present are apples and oranges and since the human nature component is a constant throughout time,.....it is NOT a fool's errand to put our hounds on the trail of what is making our present different from our past. Rather, it's not only appropriate, it's imminently necessary to do so, because our gun rights are being made to hang in the balance because of it.
2) You say that blaming the psychotropic drug connection for these events helps the anti-gunners agenda because doing so endorses the same attack logic they use to blame inanimate objects for violent behavior. That too does not follow. Psychotropic drugs are chemicals that, by definition, are literally designed and intended specifically to alter human behavior. Generally, they are promoted as "fixes" for people who "experts" diagnose as having a "chemical imbalance" even though the makers of these drugs themselves disclose the very fact that these drugs may cause many side effects, included amongst them.... hostility and suicidal tendencies. I don't believe the same can be said for guns, so again....apples and oranges.
As far as I can see, psychiatry is a profession of hacks and poison merchants and the FDA is complicit in the mass murders that have become "all the rage". The FDA has allowed the chemicals, that big pharma pimps out, to find their way into the marketplace and bloodstreams of a huge and growing part of our society. From what I have come to know, there is absolutely NO science involved in the creation of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), which is the bible for how psychiatric "experts" arrive at their conclusions for making their diagnoses and prescriptions for people. The DSM is a listing of behaviors that "qualify" as disorders, and conventions of psychiatric "professionals" are literally convened to vote behaviors into the status of disorders that will be published in the DSM. So with the billions of dollars of profit at stake in the pharmaceutical industry, can we be so naive to think there is no risk of undue influence in the expansion of the DSM or FDA rubber stamping?
Ever notice how many commercials are out there promoting the next best thing for "helping" people with their problems? From here on out, every time you see one of these commercials come on, don't tune it out. Pay very close attention to the laundry list of side effects they disclose while they're trying to draw your attention to images of people being happy and enjoying their lives with people around them. This goes for drugs that deal with non-psycological problems too. Did this used to exist in the past? NO. Has there ever been a time in history where our society has been so hammered with messages from "respectable" professionals and industries that say: "Are you depressed, if so take our drug....it'll fix everything for you". NO. Funny, that's the same kind of logic street drug pushers use to get people hooked on being high, and that is....ILLEGAL isn't it? Has it ever been so fashionable and accepted in the main stream to seek out laboratory synthesized chemicals to alter mental states that previous generations just pulled up their boot straps to get past? NO.
And why, because neither these chemicals, nor the sophisticated media technology to promote them existed....in the past. They do now and with the millions of people who are taking them, it is simply a numerical certainty that the hostile, suicidal side effects that advertisements "warn us about" are going to visit us in proportion to the number of people who are prescribed these poisons. And in a nation, that just so happens to have a lot of guns in it, those visits can only be expected to show up in the form of shootings as often as not.
So, I do want to side with you, because I also think people should be held accountable to their own actions and that it is irresponsible at best for the media to foment and channel hysteria as a weapon against 2nd Amendment rights. But you say above that you don't care what motivated these people to do these horrible acts, but the fact is that, unlike in the past, there are a lot of these mood swing drugs out there and we cannot realistically ignore the effects that they have in motivating people's decision making processes. IMHO, we owe it to our gun rights to find out how many of these killers had these drugs in their blood stream and if it's a significant factor, big pharma and the FDA should be dead center in the crosshairs of our efforts to protect gun rights against the foaming-at-the-mouth howler monkeys of socialism's kumbaya cheering section.
Orrr, watch the video that G1990 posted in post #18 (Thanks G1990).
If, after taking in how the main stream media frames the information it meters out to us, we still find ourselves confused and unable to come to terms with how events like Sandy Hook fall onto the stage, we logically have no choice but to be available audiences for presentations of information that does shine light on the logic of how things stack up. If we genuinely fancy ourselves as the land of the free and home of the brave, we have no choice but to be brave enough to entertain the possibility that we are in the midst of being overthrown from within. After all, in 1776 and 1812, the world learned the lesson that, even in our nation's most vulnerable years of infancy, overt military conquest by outside forces could not succeed against our country.
The writing-on-the-wall lesson in this, is that if this nation is ever to be conquered, the only means of pulling it off would have to be through gradual conquest via deceit and economics. Our intelligence and trust has been insulted for far too long and often by the gods of sanctioned media to justify our rote faith in it. When independent research lays information on the table that survives all scrutiny except the loud-mouthed, attack dog rantings of media darling celebrities, we have the civic duty to pull back the curtain in Oz if we actually expect to reclaim it from the dogs.
As Citizens, we are past due in carrying the baton of our heritage. We need to free our perceptions to be governed by logic and curiosity, rather than our desire to avoid an emerging reality that scares us. We have been trained to believe that the word "conspiracy" can only be legitimately used by the very people that the Constitution(s) were created to protect us from. That in itself should be a glaring red flag.
It should offend us that a Citizen's use of this word has been forged into a tacit gag order that shackles our right to ask why emporers have no clothes. It should offend us that we live under the threat of being crowned with a tin foil hat, and having our characters attacked for simply pointing out facts that by themselves, without commentary, inherently call for challenging traditional presumptions of good faith.
