Data from most studies on mental illness below states that the mentally ill are 2.5 likely to be the victim of violence than the general population.
Maybe they aren't really mentally ill but traumatized and further traumatized?
http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php
So indeed if there is a nonviolent group of the population that is 2.5 times more likely to be the subject of violence we are to take their guns away if they have them?
Maybe we should be giving them the guns?
What is wrong here? After the fact everyone looks at a criminal and states he/she was mentally ill?
So indeed can all criminals be said to be mentally ill? I would state that to be true. So indeed the money center banks that are found to be fined in the billions of dollars for crimes; everyone of those employees is mentally ill? And we take away their guns? Or do we allow them to define with lobby power who should be subject to abuse without 2nd amendment rights?
All those who left Great Britain in search of religious freedom might have been considered mentally ill if it had been a concept then. Had that occurred the United States would not have been founded as a free country and able to protect Great Britain from Nazi Germany?
I am all for defining white and blue collar criminals as being mentally ill. And I am very good and figuring out where there has been corruption in our country.
Half of the soldiers dying under our Commander in Chief in the Middle East can be said to have mental illness? Who gave it to them?
Do not the mentally ill have a right to keep and bare arms too? Are we to assume that the mentally ill have no property to protect? Are we to assume that if they do have property to protect that we are to disregard this and consider then easy picken's for criminals? That is how they became mentally ill in the first place!
And who is really mentally ill the person that wants to protect his property or the criminal who seeks to take it in every way. Criminal behavior of any kind is indeed indicative of antisocial behavior! So indeed all crime family members can be said to have passed that genetic trait of mental illness to next generations. So can we take their guns?
The Poetic justice always ends up being the one you seek to demonize might be the only one that can save you!
Forced medication violates the Constitutionals rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness! Subjective defining does too! So can we indeed retroactively define those who participated in this and their lineage to be of antisocial behavior and subject to second class citizen treatments? Doesn't sound right to me.
If you want to violate the Constitutional rights of the mentally ill I am going to have to step in and reveal the true nature of the Satanic in this world! That is all there is too it.
Copyright 2013 Thomas Paul Murphy
Originally published on 01 16 2013 at: www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com
Maybe they aren't really mentally ill but traumatized and further traumatized?
http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php
So indeed if there is a nonviolent group of the population that is 2.5 times more likely to be the subject of violence we are to take their guns away if they have them?
Maybe we should be giving them the guns?
What is wrong here? After the fact everyone looks at a criminal and states he/she was mentally ill?
So indeed can all criminals be said to be mentally ill? I would state that to be true. So indeed the money center banks that are found to be fined in the billions of dollars for crimes; everyone of those employees is mentally ill? And we take away their guns? Or do we allow them to define with lobby power who should be subject to abuse without 2nd amendment rights?
All those who left Great Britain in search of religious freedom might have been considered mentally ill if it had been a concept then. Had that occurred the United States would not have been founded as a free country and able to protect Great Britain from Nazi Germany?
I am all for defining white and blue collar criminals as being mentally ill. And I am very good and figuring out where there has been corruption in our country.
Half of the soldiers dying under our Commander in Chief in the Middle East can be said to have mental illness? Who gave it to them?
Do not the mentally ill have a right to keep and bare arms too? Are we to assume that the mentally ill have no property to protect? Are we to assume that if they do have property to protect that we are to disregard this and consider then easy picken's for criminals? That is how they became mentally ill in the first place!
And who is really mentally ill the person that wants to protect his property or the criminal who seeks to take it in every way. Criminal behavior of any kind is indeed indicative of antisocial behavior! So indeed all crime family members can be said to have passed that genetic trait of mental illness to next generations. So can we take their guns?
The Poetic justice always ends up being the one you seek to demonize might be the only one that can save you!
Forced medication violates the Constitutionals rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness! Subjective defining does too! So can we indeed retroactively define those who participated in this and their lineage to be of antisocial behavior and subject to second class citizen treatments? Doesn't sound right to me.
If you want to violate the Constitutional rights of the mentally ill I am going to have to step in and reveal the true nature of the Satanic in this world! That is all there is too it.
Copyright 2013 Thomas Paul Murphy
Originally published on 01 16 2013 at: www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment