Tag Archives: gun laws

Obama predicts shooting in 3 months


Obama made some remarks yesterday (Sept 17) in the Spanish tv station Univision which I consider APPALLING. I bring them for your consideration here because, hopefully, I misunderstood said remarks, and you can clarify them to me. Feel free to post your comment.

This is my transcript, you can hear him directly  in the video below. Highlights are by me and my comments follow below the vid.

“The fact that we don’t have a firm enough background check system is something that makes us more vulnerable to this kind of mass shooting…uhm…I do get concerned that this becomes a ritual that we go through every three or four months where we have these horrific mass shootings and yet we are not willing to take some basic actions we know can make a differenceUltimately, this is something Congress is gonna have to act on. I have now, in the wake of Newtown, initiated a whole range of executive actions, we put in place every executive action that I proposed right after Newtown happened. So I’ve taken steps that are within my control. The next phase is for Congress to go ahead and move.”

Now, my reactions to each of his ‘compassionate’ statements.

1. Obama says that the reason we go through this “mass killing every three or four months” is because background check system is not “firm enough”. That’s it. That’s all that needs to be fixed, our background check system. Even George W. Bush was more useful to the mentally ill people than this president we have now. After all, it was W who gave us the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health and the super important ADA Amendment Act of 2008.

I challenge ANYONE to tell me how has Obama gone above and beyond what W did for the mentally ill people. FYI, I’m not a republican (rather die)  nor do I support nor sympathize with W. But, to Caesar what belongs to Caesar

2. Also, Obama says that we are more “vulnerable to this kind of shooting” because of lax background checks. The implications: mentally ill people make this nation “more vulnerable”, and mentally ill people MUST be ‘firmly’ checked.

Given the path our government has taken, since Obama came to power, towards a surveillance state branding every citizen or group that it considers ‘subversive or dissenting’, these ‘background checks’ are bound to apply soon to any mentally ill person, whether or not applying for guns. NYS Office of Mental Health has started the trend already. See my post ‘NY Safe Act:…

3. The “ritual”. Now THAT was interesting. Was that scripted? Or was it ad lib’ed? Wow. Is he talking about mentally ill people having a ‘compulsion’ towards mass killing? Is he EXPECTING a mass shooting by,er, December or January 2014?

Funny thing is that, IF that’s what he meant, that mentally ill people have a RECURRENT death wish, why can’t he prevent the shootings? Evidently he expects them to happen consistently every three or four months. Does he expect that this compulsion and RITUALISTIC behavior can be stopped with “firm background checks”? HELLO. IS ANYBODY AT HOME!?

4. Who is “we” in that “and yet we are not willing to take some basic actions we know can make a difference.”? Is he blaming the public because they don’t want laws that are clearly oppressive and fascist? Or is he blaming the NRA supporters? It could help if he were more CLEAR. I think he is blaming BOTH. The “basic actions” entails depriving people who visit a psychiatrist of their civil rights, just to protect “we”.

5. And then there was the throwing of the towel. He is basically saying that he ‘tried’ to do something but, because “we are not willing to take some basic actions” he can do no more. It’s “up to Congress to move”.

That is THROWING THE TOWEL. He’s doing it because you voted against his gun law this year. He doesn’t care anymore, is what he’s saying. ‘Deal with it’ is what he’s saying.

Well, I’m going now to prepare my post for December’s mass shooting.

See you later.

Advertisements

Madness at OMH: Thousands of mentally ill New Yorkers listed [illegally] in SAFE Act registry


Wow! This is ‘snafu’ in all its glory.

One thing at play here: The seemingly ‘purposely’ releasing of private information about, apparently, ALL people committed voluntarily or not in our psych hospitals. I expect that there will be an investigation into this seemingly wide-spread contagion of forgetfulness about patients privacy rights. This is serious, though.

RELEASING THE LIST OF PSYCHIATRIC IN-PATIENTS

If this doesn’t have ‘conspiracy’ written all over it, its definition must be reviewed.

a) “More than nine out of ten reports so far have come from hospitals or state psychiatric centers — including hundreds [how many hundreds?]of reports filed in a single day in late April by state psychiatric hospitals. [“hundreds’ “in a single day” is too much for it to be a ‘mistake’.]

b) “Yet some reports, testified Wolkenbreit, are being filed by someone other than the mental health provider seeing the patient, and many appear to be computer generated, based on existing patient files.[If only mental health providers can file, who violated the rule and why?]

c) “Benjamin Rosen, a spokesperson for the state Office of Mental Health, acknowledged in an email statement that this spring many [how many is “many”?] psychiatric patients [not in-patients included?] were automatically referred [by who?]to county officials.” 

d) “From March 16, 2013 to May 6, 2013, while OMH was building a reporting portal for state psychiatric hospitals [hmm], reports were initiated [from where and by whom?] based on admissions to state psychiatric hospitals [all people admitted from March 16 to May 6? From All psych hospitals?], although mental health professionals had the ability to prevent reports from being forwarded for those persons who did not meet NY SAFE Act criteria,” said Rosen,…[who are they who did not prevent the reports from being forwarded?]

e) “In many cases [again, how many?] mental health providers listed on the documents, when contacted by community services directors for review, either said that they had not filed the reports… according to Wolkenbreit.” 

So, WHO filed the reports and why? Is the DCS or OMH investigating these ‘false’ reports of people “who did not meet the Safe Act criteria”? Did the psych hospitals receive orders from anyone, in the hospitals or by someone in OMH, to file the reports en mass? What are the chances that all those people working at state psych hospitals could have, at unison almost, made the same mistake of breaking a privacy law they ought to know by heart? How come other institutions, private, did not commit the ‘mistake’?

Did the Department of Community Services forwarded ALL of the names in the report to the NYPD?

“Of the 6,000 reports that have been filed, 11 have been acted upon,” testified Jed Wolkenbreit, counsel to the New York State Conference of Local Mental Hygiene Directors, Inc., citing figures from the state Office of Mental Health.

What does “acted upon” means? That 11 were forwarded to the NYPD or to the Department of Criminal Justice? How many, if any, were sent to the NYPD or to the DCJ?

This is a debacle. This is beyond stigma and violations to HIPPA. Evidently HIPPA is there to protect privacy. It’s PRIVACY and rights that are at stake here.

I’m sure that the NYPD is happy if this ‘error’ provided them with info about who is in mental treatment. The surveillance state has being feverish at work trying to compile a data base of EVERYBODY officially diagnosed as mentally ill. Sure, it’s to ‘protect’ you from yourself and others.

With stigma or without it, our police wants to have a dossier of everyone whom it considers a threat to the establishment, a ‘potential terrorist’. It’s our collective liberty what is at stake here. We, as people with disabilities, are just ONE of the many groups being labeled for ‘security’ purposes.

Everyone ought to stand by us in this debacle. It will happen to you next.

Comment by Lourdes C.

Source: http://www.thenewyorkworld.com/2013/06/03/safe-act-registry/#comment-327403

On Failed gun-control laws and ‘ROBBANRA’: it could have been worse.


Look people, you should appreciate and thank our sold-out ‘law makers’ for NOT passing the law.

First, it should be clear by now that the description ‘law makers‘ applied to our Congress is an anachronism. Keep up with the times, people! Congress should be known as ‘ROBBANRA‘, the Congressional ROBBANRA. Yeap, that’s more like it.

And…what was that? What is ROBBANRA?. Oh, I forgot to ‘splain’. It means the ‘Rubber-stampers of bankers, billionaires and the NRA’.

As I was saying, be thankful. Congress could had, after all, PASSED a  bill more appropriately named THE BILL OF LIES ABOUT GUN-CONTROL. Like our NY State Gun Control Law.

It would have been filled, like ours, with, not only loopholes, but with concessions and fictional ‘mandates’. And with provisions to control YOU, mental health consumers, or even users of the banking industry instead of the gun industry because, as we know, many bills passed by ROBBANRA (and many states also) are an opportunity to slide-in controls on issues un-related to the bill been discussed.

Like ours here in NY, where the gun bill was used to amend the Assisted Out Patient Treatment (AOT) law, extending the time a person can be held involuntarily and giving psychiatrists and RN nurses (for they now can commit people without approval of a psychiatrist) the power to guess when a person will flip and then commit him or her. AOT was not part of the gun-control discussion.

But that was not the only misrepresentation of the bill.

BIG ‘NY STATE GUN CONTROL BILL’ LIE

Our Congress could have passed a law with all the goodies for the NRA and then tell you that YOU WON. Like in NY State, because one thing is what they TELL you, another is what the new law says.

In NY State,  people were told that the new gun law mandates gun sellers to do background checks before selling guns. A LIE.

The bill’s Art 39, Section 898, sub 2  it clearly says that doing a criminal background check  is a CHOICE, not a mandate for the seller :

2. Before any sale, exchange or disposal pursuant to this article, a national instant criminal background check must be completed by a dealer WHO CONSENTS TO CONDUCT SUCH A CHECK, (caps by me)

I couldn’t find other ways to highlight that qualifier. That’s the masterful art of writing laws: use ‘must’ to give the impression that a mandate was stated, but then add the loophole ‘consent’ which is actually the only thing that matters in that line. ‘If you CONSENT to do it, you MUST do it right’ or else don’t do it.

I have to laugh.

You see. By Congress not passing the gun control bill, you were spared lies, fictional mandates and loopholes…but then, you would have go on living happily thinking that something positive was done.

Oh, well. Don’t worry, our Congressional ROBBANRA will give you more peace of mind with bills like the Homeland Security Law.

NYS’ new gun (and mental illness) control law.


Our state (NY) has just passed some new law on the issue of gun control, and mental illness to boot. Of course, the discussion about the law was kept “behind closed-door”, in the closet, so to speak.  How charming.

Why would they want to do such a thing, I ask myself. But then again, who am I to ask anything about them ‘law makers’?

I don’t want to burst your bubble of joy here but, I think I must. Just kidding.

When our legislators, at both state and federal level, sit behind closed doors, the law that comes out of there is filled with loopholes big enough to pass an elephant sitting on a tank through it.

So, save yourself a major disappointment IF you actually read the new law when it gets  published. If you don’t read the new law you will go away happy and content thinking that here something was done relating to gun control. If you read the law later, your bubble is bound to burst. Choose: to read or not to read.

The other thing is the now fait accomplished of wielding together mentally ill people with mass killer. That’s what the legislation has done, based on what the news tell us. Maybe we ought to call this law ‘the stigma of mental illness Act’.

And to not waste the opportunity, they also wielded together Kendra’s Law to the mentally ill and gun owners. Involuntary commitment usually goes hand in hand with stigma and stereotypes. Have you already forgotten Willowbrook and the recent articles about mistreatment of the disabled  and mentally ill? The cases of police called to help with some distressed person only to have the cops taser and kill that person? Now, you can include old fashion straight jackets to the mix of tools to deal with gun owners. See my post on fashion for the mentally ill here.

This new law makes ‘official’ the boggy man’s theory of the relation between gun ownership and mental illness. I’m waiting for our ‘leaders’ to pass a law that makes it official that foreclosure and poverty causes mental illness; that there is correlation between  the political and economical disorder  of a society and increase in violence and mental disorders there.

Our fashionable  “fiscal cliff” is a term that ought to point to you to that relation I just mentioned.

The "fiscal cliff" as a cause for mental instability. There ought to be a law against 'fiscal cliffs'.

The “fiscal cliff” as a cause of mental instability. There ought to be a law against ‘fiscal cliffs’.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/nyregion/new-york-legislators-hope-for-speedy-vote-on-gun-laws.html#commentsContainer