Truth Frequency Radio

Jan 20, 2013

“Letters on mental health and guns, alternative weapons, irrational thinking”

Posted: Sunday, January 20, 2013 4:00 am | Updated: 8:00 am, Sun Jan 20, 2013.


Mental health and guns

What is assured and agreed since the mindless killing of the “Dear 26” is that mental health awareness and its effect on our society must be addressed. And it is simple to see a large number of individuals should not be allowed ownership of a weapon above a broken slingshot, a cap pistol or a potato gun.

If you believe this administration has FEMA camps waiting for us to be forced into and “reprogrammed,” you get a cap pistol.

If you are one of the millions who believe this president has 100,000 UN troops poised, hidden for years, to take us over at the end of his second term while ignoring the might of our own military, you get the potato gun.

If you buy your gun due to the NRA-marketed fear campaign of protecting yourself from your government taking over your life, you get a broken slingshot.

Full Article

The New Inquisition

Dan and Sheila Gendron, Contributors
Activist Post

“No one expects the American Inquisition” (apologies to Monty Python). The Spanish Inquisition was said to be the worst time in the history of humanity, culminating in the Dark Ages, a time when man’s forward evolution was stifled by fear.

When all is said and done, it may be viewed as a “cakewalk” compared to today. There are striking similarities between that era of ignorance, pain and bloodshed (and cause for hiding one’s true beliefs), and now.

During the Spanish Inquisition, anyone who did not accept the authority of Pope Gregory IX was labeled a “heretic” and tortured until they renounced their own beliefs, or died. This was legitimized under a Papal Bull given to Isabella and Ferdinand of Spain. Today, the NDAA gives the same authority to various agencies of the United States government, against those who believe that they still live in a free country.

During the Spanish Inquisition, priests were given higher office (promotions) based on the number of heretics they could flush out of the general population. They stood in the square, looking for anyone they could call suspicious. They were helped by common citizens – perhaps a neighbor with whom you were having a dispute over the boundary lines of your land, or an envious woman who wanted to marry your husband when you were dead. Today we have the TSA jealously guarding their jobs by harassing and physically molesting the public as they are on their way to Grandma’s or their next business meeting; the agent hoping that he or she will get a “gold star” by finding a “terrorist” within the long lines they have created at the airport. And they are helped by zealots who “say something” when they think the “see something” – even when all they see is a grandfather buying a book for his grandchild or having a heated discussion on their cellphone.

During the Spanish Inquisition, heretics were labeled as sick of the mind for not following the church’s doctrines and the torture they suffered was “for their own good”. Today, every human emotion, every opinion that does not match those of the government, is labeled as a mental illness (See DSM 5), to be cured with mind-numbing drugs or imprisonment in a “mental-health institution” where they can be “cured” of their malady and join ”normal” society.

Although the Church had a strict policy of not shedding someone’s blood, it was apparently perfectly all right to torture them beyond endurance to help them get into Heaven. After a while, the admonition against bloodshed was put aside as well. Today, local police departments are being trained to control the public in anticipation of martial law being instituted in the near future.

One of the tenets protected by the Inquisition was that nothing should be discussed that was not approved by the Church, vis á vis, that the world might be round, or that the Earth might not be the center of the Universe. (Copernicus and Galileo suffered for their ideas on this.) Today, if one – even a noted scientist – denies “global warming” is caused by the cars of a thoughtless middle class, or if one propounds that a falling tower cannot collapse at faster than free-fall speed by itself, or that genetically modified food is detrimental to the human body, you are labeled as a “conspiracy theorist” – the modern version of a heretic. And the consequences are just as dire, although more insidious. You can be put on a “no-fly list”, or even a “no-work list”, and with the passage of the NDAA (the modern Papal Bull) you can be held indefinitely without legal representation, and even tortured for your opinions and beliefs. Torquemada would be proud.

Full Article

Mental health records sent to FBI for gun checks

SF Gate
Published 1:35 pm, Sunday, January 20, 2013

TWIN FALLS, Idaho (AP) — Idaho officials say that by the end of the year, they expect to submit most, if not all, mental health records generated in state courts to federal authorities for backgrounds checks required to buy a gun.

The Times-News reports ( ) that Idaho State Police recently began sending to the FBI the records of people adjudicated in 2012 to be mentally unfit to own guns.

“We’re having to map out the court system,” said Dawn Peck, manager of ISP’s Bureau of Criminal Identification, which oversees mental health records. “We’re not responsible for holding the records but we’re in charge of making sure the FBI gets them.”

Starting in 2009, states were required to submit such records. But Idaho didn’t approve sending the information until 2010.

The information is sent to the FBI’s National Instant Background Check System. Gun dealers use the system as a quick check on whether a prospective buyer is barred from gun ownership.

The FBI, according to its website, has conducted more than 160 million background checks since the system started in 1998. Those checks led to 987,500 gun buyers being rejected. Of those, 10,180 were rejected due to mental health reasons.

Peck said Idaho State Police have sent 19,500 records to the FBI, but 17,000 of those didn’t make it into the database because they contained errors.

“We’re currently working on those errors,” Peck said.

“Patient Privacy Rules Increased by new Legislation”

Posted by on Jan 20th, 2013 // No Comments

A new rule that favors a patient’s privacy and provides individuals with new rights to their personal health information helps to strengthen enforcement, said an official from the U.S.

Much is different since the 1996 Health Insurance Accountability and Portability Act was approved over 15 years ago, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in prepared statement.

The new changes help to expand the multiple requirements for the business associates of the entities that are given protected health information, such as subcontractors and contractors.

Some of the biggest breaches that have been reported to the HHS involved these types of business partners. Penalties have been increased to maximum penalties of $1.5 million for each infraction.

Under the new rules, patients can now ask for an entire copy of their medical records electronically. When the individual pays with cash, they will be able to instruct their provider to share any of their information about their personal treatment with their personal health plan.

Full Article

Obama’s Gun Reform and Mental Health Care

As President Obama pushes his gun reform, many in the mental health care field worry about how the changes will affect their patients, writes Seth Freed Wessler on Colorlines.

Advocates for people with mental illness find themselves in a bind: on the one hand attempting to fend off the blind conflation of people with mental illness and a propensity toward mass slaughter and on the other, recognizing that moments like this present the rare opportunity for expanding the mental health safety-net.

To the relief of mental health advocates, President Obama seemed to understand this tension well. When the president did talk about mental health, he was cautious not to suggest that clinical insanity kills children, while carefully calling for more support for widely accessible psychiatric care. “We are going to need to work on making access to mental health care as easy as access to a gun,” he said.

With this as a starting place, the president’s opening gambit on guns proposes some expansion of mental health care access while allaying fears among the mental health professionals that the overwhelmingly non-violent population they work with will become the scapegoats of a larger problem. Advocates say they are hopeful this moment will provide an opportunity for expanding an underfunded mental health system.

Read Seth Freed Wessler’s entire piece at Colorlines.

Local police: “Mental health issues must be priority”

By SARAH SUTSCHEK – [email protected]

NW Herald

Created: Sunday, January 20, 2013 5:30 a.m. CST

Updated: Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:00 a.m. CST

After President Barack Obama unveiled his gun violence package last week, several local police chiefs emphasized one point: the need to address mental health.

“It’s such a complicated issue, and we always focus on guns because that’s the easiest thing to focus on,” Huntley Police Chief John Perkins said. “I’m not saying it’s good or bad; I’m just saying the real issue is mental health issues.”

Obama’s executive orders acknowledge the problem, including releasing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to the police.

His legislative ideas also include ensuring young people get the mental health treatment they need and that insurance plans cover mental health benefits.

The point is especially poignant for McHenry County. The largest social service agency – Family Service and Community Mental Health Center – closed over the summer because of financial issues, caused in part by the state being behind more than $850,000 on its payments to the agency.

Perkins said two groups of people shouldn’t have guns: criminals and the mentally ill.

It’s how to go about keeping the guns away from them that’s the problem, with myriad other issues that follow.

“I can’t say what the president did was great or what the president did was bad,” Perkins said. “We have to keep the guns out of the hands of the people who aren’t supposed to have them. I don’t know the answer to that issue; it’s too complex.”

Few argue with stricter background checks, but from a practical standpoint, Perkins asked who will do them and who will pay for them.

In Illinois, there’s a question on FOID card paperwork that asks the applicant whether he has been a mental institution patient in the past five years.

“That’s our check right now for mental health,” Perkins said.

Perkins said that when he was a young police officer, it was much easier for people to be committed because they were a danger to themselves or the community. Relaxed laws for mental health professionals to allow them to share more information would help, he said.

Full Article


Blunt: Focus on mental health in gun talks



1/20/13 10:25 AM EST

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) says President Barack Obama and Congress should focus on mental health problems when considering gun-control legislation.

Despite the fact that Connecticut had some of the toughest gun restrictions in the country, Blunt told “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace the Newtown shooter was still able to get a weapon but said this was a “moment we can do something about mental health.”

“We had bans on things for a decade that didn’t seem to make a difference at all, but in that same decade our willingness to share information about mental problems, our willingness to share information between police officials and security officials all declined,” Blunt said.

Wallace asked if Blunt would support a universal background check for gun owners.

“We ought to talk about that. Let’s look at that and see. We’ve had proposals before in Congress that tried to deal with some of the loopholes…I think that gun owners are generally for that, but you’ve got to have a proposal that works,” Blunt said.

Obama Asks Doctors to “Help Deal” With Guns

(WEEKLY STANDARD) According to a background briefer provided by the White House, President Barack Obama is asking doctors to help deal with guns. Here’s the relevant passage:

PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS TO PROTECT THEIR PATIENTS AND COMMUNITIES FROM GUN VIOLENCE: We should never ask doctors and other health care providers to turn a blind eye to the risks posed by guns in the wrong hands.

Clarify that no federal law prevents health care providers from warning law enforcement authorities about threats of violence: Doctors and other mental health professionals play an important role in protecting the safety of their patients and the broader community by reporting direct and credible threats of violence to the authorities. But there is public confusion about whether federal law prohibits such reports about threats of violence. The Department of Health and Human Services is issuing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits these reports in any way.

Protect the rights of health care providers to talk to their patients about gun safety: Doctors and other health care providers also need to be able to ask about firearms in their patients’ homes and safe storage of those firearms, especially if their patients show signs of certain mental illnesses or if they have a young child or mentally ill family member at home. Some have incorrectly claimed that language in the Affordable Care Act prohibits doctors from asking their patients about guns and gun safety. Medical groups also continue to fight against state laws attempting to ban doctors from asking these questions. The Administration will issue guidance clarifying that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit or otherwise regulate communication between doctors and patients, including about firearms.

Read More

Mind Control, Not Gun ControlJack Mullen
Activist Post

Newspeak was a term coined by George Orwell, which he said was created to “provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits” of the ruling elite and further “to make all other modes of thought impossible.“

Subcategories of newspeak included carefully crafted words created entirely and specifically for the purpose of a political agenda. According to Orwell, category ‘B’ words “consisted of words which had been deliberately constructed for political purposes.” These ‘B words’ often contain slogan like compound words creating snappy, happy conscious mind impressions while, at the same time, creating a subconscious mind impression containing contradiction; presenting the mind with a crisis of thought leading to confusion and anesthetization of critical thought. Critical thought being necessary to pull apart a tangled mess of contradictory messages and meanings.

One such phrase coined as a slogan-word is ‘gun control’. Gun control is a simple expression designed to ‘disarm’ critical thinking skills. ‘Gun control’ is phrase slogan-word which doesn’t map to a single definition, but rather maps to an endless parade of meanings, defocusing the conscious mind and tiring the unconscious mind.

Gun-control literally has a dozen or more meanings centering on the word control, as in controlling the potential gun owner in such as way as to prevent gun ownership. A few of the meanings of gun-control are :

Gun Registration– Collecting information on firearms and owners while tacitly re-defining ownership to mean ‘registered owner’; registration is now part of the definition of ownership.Gun Licensing – Gun registration, plus accepting the idea that in order to ‘legally’ own (with registration) a gun, you must also accept the fact that it is illegal to own a gun unless it is licensed. Licensing temporarily grants immunity from the punishments of owning a gun illegally; however, the immunity is short lived and may be renewed only after a fee is paid to the government for the license. This fee and criterion, of course, are subject to change.

Enumerating the list of meanings for gun-control would surely put the reader to sleep, but for purposes of this article, I’ll mention a few others. Gun control can also mean or include as part of the meaning: conceal carry ‘permits’, background checks, ‘safe storage’ requirements, limits on the number of guns that can be ‘owned’, controls on ammunition and on and on.

The point being that gun-control actually prevents – permanently, by your own permission – the right to ever OWN a gun. Ownership as defined in Blacks Law Dictionary, first edition, as:

The complete dominion, title, or proprietary right in a thing or claim. The ownership of a thing is the right of one or more persons to possess and use it to the exclusion of others.

Using this definition of ownership you see that it is not possible to “own” a gun if one tacitly or formally agrees to any sort of ‘gun control’ because gun ‘ownership’ is predicated on terms and agreements (contracts) that give rise to third party claims on your property.

Using language to control human thought is not a new idea as it has been done and perfected for thousands of years. Equally perfected over the same period are skills of recognizing attempts of deceivers and psychopaths to control and otherwise enslave thoughts. ‘Armed’ with skills and knowledge of mind control (two words each referring to their own unmodified definitions) people can take back their power and liberty.

Examples of mind controllers are those that present arguments using false presumptions about context. For example when CNN’s Piers Morgan asked’s Ben Shapiro (01/10/2013) :

Why does any civilian in America NEED an AR-15?

Shapiro, doing a great job of moving Morgan back on subject and detangling Morgan’s attempt to associate the NRA with posited evils done by ‘assault rifles,’ another newspeak term, failed to stop Piers from pretending that in America people are ‘allowed’ freedoms consistent with some unnamed panel or body of do-gooders that can, when required, decide something or some action is not in our best interest.

In other words, Morgan was implying the United States of America operates as a political democracy and by answering questions framed in this type of pseudo-context, Americans are tacitly agreeing this nation of independent States with Republican governments are actually democracies.

Democracy derives its meaning from the Greek word demos, meaning crowd; crowd rule, or in modern terms, mob rule. True democracy is a favorite form of government for thugs and tyrants wishing to control and enslave, because the ‘crowd’ is so easily manipulated, bribed, frightened and otherwise herded. In a true democracy it would be correct to ask “Why does anyone NEED an AR-15?” because all rights are in a flux of consensus; a fluid state of constant change, depending on how the crowd will ‘vote ‘ at any given time. Therefore, in a true democracy the nameless, non-responsible crowd can decide you do not NEED any particular thing you might want to have. In a true democracy there can be no ownership because rights, including property rights, are subject to vote. The vote naturally can take place in real time yielding the purest form of mob rule – the liquid flux of consensus.

Although only marginally better, a Republican form of government relies on process, due process defined and protected in a document, the supreme law of the land, called a Constitution. The states each have constitutions and as part of an agreement among the states there exists a Supreme Constitution limiting the actions of the Federal Government and ensuring the state governments are Republican. The constitutions of the various states and the Federal government recognize citizens of the states as sovereign, and the governments have only limited powers and authority to represent the Citizen in a strictly limited capacity. In a Constitutional Republic property rights exist as limitations on governments right to take property; again a due process is required before property can be appropriated.

All of these constitutions expressly provide their respective governments with limited enumerated powers and they also expressly delegate all other rights to the people. Formally, certain rights are singled out for the expressed purpose of highlighting their importance; among those singled out is the right to keep and bear arms. This right and others cannot be infringed or abrogated by any law lessor than the Supreme Law of the Constitution. In fact, the Supreme Court enshrined this idea in the case of Marbury vs Madison in 1803. The notable unanimous decision of the case was conclusion that “Laws repugnant to the Constitution are void”. The meaning of void from Black’s Law Dictionary is:

Null; ineffectual; nugatory; having no legal force or binding effect; unable, in law, to support the purpose for which it was intended.

Therefore, restricting gun ownership through gun control is in violation of the second amendment to the Constitution and is therefore an unconstitutional law which “has no legal force or binding effect”.

Before moving on to the real reason the government and their masters are trying to disarm Americans, I want to point out mind control is real and the concepts put forward by Eric Blair, the real name of George Orwell, were written as a warning and also to offer knowledge as how to identify mind control and avoid being deceived and harmed by the effects of this tactic.

Newspeak in terms of gun ownership include mind controlling phrases such as ‘reasonable gun control’ , ‘sensible gun control’, ‘intelligent gun control’, ‘reasonable restrictions on guns’. These phrases and others are used as tools to disarm the mind and to place the thinker into a trance like state of tacit agreement. For example the word reasonable is something we have all come to understand to mean something the opposite of which is unreasonable. Black’s Law Dictionary defines reasonable:

Agreeable to reason; just; proper. Ordinary or usual.

Black’s defines ‘reasonable act’ :

Such as may fairly, justly and reasonably be required of a party.

So, by hearing and assimilating the phrase ‘reasonable restrictions on guns’ or ‘reasonable gun control’ the mind is being controlled by the use of the modifier reasonable; reasonable means just, proper, ordinary and usual. By tacitly assuming that gun control is reasonable we have accepted a catalog of definitions for gun control and we have effectively agreed to give up the right to own guns – period.

The disarmers also do the same trick when they associate a word such as assault with the word rifle. We all know assault is bad and Black’s confirms our thinking by defining assault:

An unlawful attempt or offer, on the part of one man, with force or violence, to inflict a bodily hurt upon another

Here again we have newspeak and mind control. By placing the word assault in front of rifle, the disarmers have attempted to associate ‘an attempt or offer, on the part of one man with force or violence, to inflict a bodily hurt upon another’ with an inanimate object called a rifle.

A rifle cannot inflict bodily hurt upon another by itself. It CANNOT. A rifle is a rifle, a tool, an implement; it cannot be attributed with properties of a man.

Remember, if the intent were to explain something about the type of rifle, we would have been able to discern that by the modifier. Perhaps automatic rifle, that works, or single shot rifle, or semi automatic rifle, all of these words are valid, but not assault rifle. After all, any rifle used by a man to harm another man would constitute a man assaulting another. So in this case you can see the intent is to deceive and use mind control to make the word rifle have properties that it just cannot have.

If the government would deceive you by offering the newspeak word ‘assault rifle’ in their disarming explanation, would your trust them to disarm you, should you?

Why Governments Disarm Citizens

History shows without exception that governments are corruptible and over time become tyrannical. Americans must accept this as truth or they will never have freedom and liberty. History also provides examples of peoples disarmed by their governments.

Gun control was implemented for ‘reasonable’ purposes in :

  • Ottoman Turkey, 1915-1917, results : 1.5 million Armenians murdered
  • Soviet Union, 1929-1945, results : 20+ million civilians murdered * the number has recently been updated to include up to 60 million
  • Nazi Germany 1933-1945, results: 20 million civilians murdered
  • Nationalist China, 1927-1949, results: 10 million civilians murdered
  • Red China, 1949-1976, results: 35 – 60 million civilians murdered
  • Guatemala 1960-1981, results 200,000 civilians murdered
  • Uganda 1971-1979, results: 300,000 civilians murdered
  • Cambodia 1975-1979, results: 2 million civilians murdered
  • Rwanda 1994 , results 800,000 Tutsi people murdered

*source, “Death by Gun Control” see below

In each of these cases, and there are others, the governments only asked for ‘reasonable and sensible’ restrictions on guns including:

  • Gun permits
  • Government list of owners
  • Ban on sales and ownership of certain weapons
  • Registration
  • Licensing
  • Bans on sharp tools
  • Photo ID with fingerprints

Surely these are just reasonable restrictions; after which the unreasonable genocide of targeted citizens who were rounded up and brutally murdered.

This is why governments and their handlers (governments are pawns to exceptional wealth and power operating above and outside government and government law) want gun control. They lust for total control while reserving to themselves the power of life and death.

The cases above are those that have disarmed their people and quickly gotten to the business of extermination. There are nations in the world that have been disarmed that are still awaiting extermination. These nations include the United Kingdom, most of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico and most of the third world nations. Although the governments have not yet prosecuted outright genocide against targeted citizens, these countries have the highest violent crime rates.

Mexico is a nation that was systematically disarmed by building gun control into their Constitution’s protection of the right to self defense. Article 10 of the Mexican Constitution severely restricts the types of guns regular citizens are allowed to own. The law explicitly states that any guns allocated or designated as for use by the military cannot be owned by the citizen. The law also permits the government to stipulate conditions, requirements and places in which gun possession is allowed. Gun ownership is further inconvenienced by requiring citizens to get a background check and also PERMISSION from the defense ministry.

There are many who think Mexico’s gun control is reasonable and sensible, even in light of the fact that gun violence against citizens is among the highest in the world. The government of Mexico is corrupt. The local police are corrupt, the military is corrupt and the murder rate and violent crime is testimony to this truth.

Mexicans are prevented from protecting themselves from the police, the ministry of defense, and drug gang warfare raging out of control along the Mexican US border.

Deaths attributable to violence caused by drug gangs in Mexico during the period 2006 through Dec. 2010 is over 37,000 people.

Imagine you are an older Mexican living alone or with a spouse and totally disarmed against the violence that is just an everyday part of living in Mexico. Guns are equalizers and they compensate for age.

The overall murder rate in Mexico in 2011 was 24 out 100,000 compared to 4.2 out 100,000 in the USA.

The sad thing for Mexicans and dumbed downed Americans is that the Mexican murder rate is caused by the same government trying to collect our guns right now. The hostile and usurper United States De-facto FEDERAL government and its corrupt War on Drugs are responsible for the high murder rate in Mexico, a disarmed country, and they are now attempting to disarm Americans.

If you can think at all, you have to understand simple ideas like this – if you cannot hope to defend yourself against your government, or your military, or you local police, you can never hope to be anything but a potential slave.

In economics there is an axiom that says it is not competition in a free market that improves the product, improves satisfaction of service and optimizes solutions to problems solved by commerce — it is THE THREAT of competition that makes possible the benefits of a free market.

This is an important idea and something that you have to wrap your head around if you ever hope to be safe and free. The threat of being equipped to stand up against your tyrannical government, local street gang, corrupt police force keeps these powers in check.

FACT: Humans have never existed in a world where there is no evil; a world without psychopaths with a penchant for pedophilia, or psychopaths with generational wealth giving them powers of bribery and blackmail to corrupt the government and change the laws. This is has never ever happened and it never will.

But — humans have lived in peace and safety and happiness in times when self responsibility elevated the people into that state of being. Government tyranny feeds and exists only because people willingly and consistently transfer responsibility for their own lives and their family over to nameless, unaccountable strangers that offer reasonable.

The best example of a nameless, unaccountable stranger is the President of the United States, Barrack Obama. Obama’s records are sealed. We have no access to his school records, medical records, passport records or even birth records. Even Obama’s social security number is phony, belonging to long-dead Connecticut citizen. Asking me and other Americans to register weapons while requiring identification and extensive background checks, yet not even requiring the President of the United States to prove his state of birth or explain his fraudulent social security number is INSANE.

Americans clamoring for gun control are apparently not aware that crime is falling because gun ownership is rising. The American homicide rate is at a 50-year low while gun sales have been soaring ever since Obama was elected President.

Disarm Americans and the crime rate will rise in line with Mexico or the city of Chicago.

Guns are not the only form of protection, but tyranny will attempt to take them all. Even now the tyrants in the UK are preparing to make certain knives illegal. Governments have outlawed swords and knives and sharp tools and martial arts training and on and on. Without exception the more disarmed a people become, without even a possible THREAT to their controllers, the higher the crime rate and the more brutal government-sponsored violence will become – whether it be via taxes or providing your wife on your wedding night to the thugs in charge.

To pretend that the United States government is not fully and irreparably corrupted is to deny your reality and comparable to living with your head in hole.

The crimes committed by the usurper Federal Government in league with Wall Street and global bankers are so great that these criminals are now becoming afraid. These crimes are being exposed and Americans are still armed — therefore the THREAT of retaliation, incarceration, including trials and hangings is causing these criminals to seek more protection.

Americans have a dilemma that has to be faced NOW. If we allow the government to implement illegal and unconstitutional gun restrictions (having no legal force or binding effect) we will have opened the door to worldwide genocide.

The American Protection of the World.

No I am not talking about our military under the control of a foreign usurper government terrorizing the world, I’m talking about what happens to the world when America gives up its guns and falls. Many people ask how the Brits and Australians and New Zealanders were disarmed but have not (yet) experienced any Soviet-style ‘red terror’ mass murders. My answer is: it’s coming.

While the people of America are still armed it is very difficult for the psychopathic ruling elite to openly implement their population downsizing with outright door-to-door murder, as practiced in Russia after 1917, because Americans might just WAKE UP and realize that what goes around comes around. In fact, I believe it is the continued right (natural right to self defense) to keep and bear arms in America, the over 300 million guns and ammunition now held by Americans, that’s keeping the world temporarily safe from global outright door-to-door genocide/murder. It is the THREAT that Americans might actually WAKE UP and take back their government and perhaps defend other nations from psychopaths that keeps that plan in check.

But I further believe it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY THAT AMERICA BE DISARMED if the global elite (Rockefellers, Rothschilds and others) are to continue their mission of destruction, downsizing and enslavement of the world population in pursuit of their megalomaniacal dream of a New World Order.

Here a few parting thoughts. First, if you do not believe people running America are the same people that facilitated, funded, supported and protected Hitler, Stalin and Mao, please take the time to read a few books. I can recommend several right away.

1] Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: The Remarkable True Story of the American Capitalists Who Financed the Russian Communists, by Antony Sutton

2] Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, by Antony Sutton

You should also learn about the Federal Reserve scam and how it was crafted to loan money that never existed while receiving always increasing interest payments first in gold, until the gold was gone, and then through stolen purchasing power of the American dollar.

The Federal Reserve scam has looted the wealth of the American people. It has harnessed the work and energy of the population to built a world wide enslavement grid. It has taken the fruits of American labor and the benefits thereof and transferred this wealth to those that would see us disarmed and destitute on property we do not own while we beg for food and shelter.

3] The Federal Reserve Conspiracy [Paperback], by Antony Sutton

Next, it is possible to have a peaceful revolution that could end this nightmare in just a short period of time.

Those of us who can think and that are not fully beholden to the usurper Federal Government can do the following to create a sudden change in our power versus our enslavers’ power.

  • Stop watching television (this will starve the propaganda machine).
  • Stop watching, or attending all national sports games (same as above, but will also allow more time for thinking and planning, sports can wait).
  • Stop using credit and credit cards now (get out of the controlled CREDIT Rating racket and live within means — while starving banks of interest on money that never existed to start with).
  • Withdraw all liquid assets from the banks and convert them to assets that are non-trackable and have no counterparty risk, such as silver and gold. (hurry silver is in short supply).
  • Notify the national Congress that you will not comply with being disarmed.
  • Notify your state governments that you will move to a state that offers protection from gun confiscation unless they enact such legislation now.
  • Call your local sheriff and explain to him his responsibility to defend the Constitution and that includes arresting anyone attempting to disarm his county citizens. Provide him a copy of Richard Mack’s County Sheriff book.
  • Don’t argue the negatives of gun control. Gun control is Newspeak meaning disarming to take our power to be free and alive. No restrictions on guns, period.
  • Learn about false flag terror, including school shootings.
  • Prepare for trouble.
  • Get food, water, and supplies for 6 months.
  • Prepare to move if needed (a state that defends gun rights).
  • Plan for gun confiscation by rehearsing and planning your response.
  • Notify family in military about Oath Keepers and explain their oath to the Constitution means no gun confiscation.
  • Get to know your state representatives. Call them. Start the process of education.
  • Learn a martial art.
  • Take on a war frame of mind.
  • Pray, meditate and seek out like-minded people for comfort and support.

“Death by Gun Control:The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament”, Aaron Zelman and Richard W. Stevens, Mazel Freedom Press, Inc (January 1, 2001), ISBN:0964230461
“Death by Government”, R.J.Rummel,Transaction Publishers (January 1, 1997),ISBN:1560009276
“Mass Control: Engineering Human Consciousness” Jim Keith,Adventures Unlimited Pr (August 2003), ISBN:1931882215

Jack Mullen has been a businessman for more than 25 years, owning 3 radio stations, several technology based companies and a resource development company

Obamacare Empowers Doctors to Label Patients Mentally Unfit To Have a Gun

Saturday, January 19, 2013 10:31
121107032614-obamacare-stocks-monsterSusanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
January 19, 2013The Rasmussen Reportfinds that 65% of American adults believe that the 2nd Amendment “is to make sure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny.”The 2nd Amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”While gun-rights advocates sometimes use the excuse of hunting as justification for the 2nd Amendment, as well on the other side of the coin, anti-gun advocates use the assumption to further their point that an AK-47 is not necessary when deer hunting; ignorance toward the actual wording of the 2nd Amendment and the current political use of school tragedies to revoke the rights of Americans to protect themselves from tyrannical government has always been the real issue behind all movement toward firearms restrictions.Considering President Obama’s executive orders and presidential memorandums on gun control, lawmakers on Capitol Hill are divided between those who want to take the legislative route and those who feel guerrilla tactics will get the mandates through and into law.Senator Frank Lautenberg believes : “We can’t sit around for months talking and letting the gun lobby run out the clock. If we’re going to make progress, it’s essential that we move quickly and start voting as soon as possible.”The Obama For America campaign will be converted to a propaganda machine dedicated to apply pressure on the public for support on this federal gun grab. Jim Messina, former campaign manager for Obama’s re-election, will head the operation. By taking donations and raising money for the cause, this fake grassroots effort is expected to be effective in convincing Americans to willingly give up their guns.

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, says that the most recent shootings like Columbine, Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook are affecting the public decision making on gun control laws. Nutter said:“A tragedy in Newtown that even after all the others we still cannot imagine … a terrible unforgivable moment in American history. We cannot get those lives back … we can and we must act to help protect the lives of those in the future. This has nothing to do with taking guns away from those who lawfully own them.

We respect the Second Amendment … but the right to own a firearm should not interfere with my right to live.”

Stephanie Cutter, former deputy campaign manager for Obama For America,explained that Obama’s “network across this country, grassroots individuals, who organize, volunteered with their time to get the president reelected are much more powerful than the NRA lobby.”

Cutter stated vehemently that “[the] network [will be] activated, very soon. And for good reason. We need to pass commonsense legislation to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who shouldn’t be carrying guns. That’s the commonsense nature of this.”

Full Article

Mental health reporting gaps cloud background checks

January 19, 2013 7:44 PM

CBS News

by John Bentley, Paul Bogosian and Phil Hirschkorn

(CBS News) HARRISBURG, Pa. – The gun used to murder Mary Moola never should have been sold to her killer, Emmanuel Nzambi.

Despite having spent four years in a Pennsylvania mental hospital, in 2005, Nzambi, who battled schizophrenia for 20 years, was able to buy a 9mm Ruger pistol from Bass Pro Shops.

Two years later, in May 2007, he walked into the doctor’s office where Moola worked, fatally shot her in the chest, and fled. It was her husband’s office, and he had been Nzambi’s psychiatrist.

The Moola murder remained unsolved until two months later, when Nzambi shot and wounded a neighbor. Ballistics showed the same gun was used in both crimes.

“Any person who has been involuntarily committed should not have the ability to purchase a handgun — period,” said Brian Perry, Nzambi’s defense attorney. “This is a person who was severely mentally disabled.”

Nzambi will spend the rest of his life incarcerated, but Perry believes the shootings could have been prevented if Pennsylvania at the time had reported names of its mentally ill residents to the national database of people banned from buying guns.

“He’s a perfect example of someone who slipped through the cracks,” Perry said.

Full Article

Mental health issues take pole position in gun violence debate

Published on January 19, 2013 at 7:28 AM


Agreement appears to exist that mental health is central to this debate, with the Obama administration eyeing the related provisions of the health law as one of the answers.

Politico: Mental Health Push Meets Politics
Here’s one thing President Barack Obama and Republicans actually agree on: Mental health has to be a big part of the gun violence debate in Obama’s second term -; because people with serious mental illness shouldn’t have guns. Obama thinks he has the perfect solution: the mental health provisions in Obamacare (Nather, 1/17).

Stateline: Easiest Path to Mental Health Funding May Be Medicaid Expansion
The recent mass killings in Tucson, Aurora and Newtown have sparked public conversations about the deficiencies in state-run mental health systems across the United States. But few states are poised to spend their own money to reverse as much as a decade of budget cutbacks in those areas. Instead, many of them are counting on an infusion of federal mental-health dollars. Because Medicaid includes mental-health benefits, those states that opt into the Medicaid expansion included in President Obama’s Affordable Care Act will be able to make mental health coverage available to thousands of their citizens who do not now have it (Ollove, 1/18).

Fox News: Does White House Plan Enlist Doctors In Gun Control Fight?
A few lines in President Obama’s sprawling gun control plan are stirring accusations from conservatives that the administration is trying to enlist doctors in a national campaign against owning firearms. The easy-to-miss language was part of Obama’s package of executive actions and legislative proposals that includes a new assault-weapons ban and universal background checks. The provision on doctors, though, has begun to generate just as much controversy. “The idea that your doctor would ask you if you have firearms in your house as part of an examination of your health is repugnant,” National Rifle Association President David Keene told Fox News on Thursday, accusing the administration of trying to “demonize firearms” by implying that owning them is a “health problem.” One of the 23 executive actions Obama approved Wednesday was to “clarify” that the federal health care overhaul “does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about gun in their homes” (1/17).

Related KHN coverage: The Gun Lobby’s Favorite Part Of The Health Law (Hancock, 12/20) and Medical Questions About Gun Ownership Come Under Scrutiny (Andrews, 11/26).

Forbes Deletes Popular Pro Gun Story, Linking Psychiatric Drugs To Murders
January 18, 2013

In 2000, New York legislators recognized the ubiquitous and unambiguous connection between violence, especially gun violence and mass murder, and the widespread prescribed use of psychiatric drugs.

Senate Bill 7035 was introduced in the New York State Senate that year requiring police agencies to report to the Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) on certain crimes and suicides committed by a person who is using psychiatric drugs, including assault, homicide, sex offenses, robbery offenses, firearms and other dangerous weapons offenses, kidnapping and arson. The preamble to the bill read, in part:

There is a large body of scientific research establishing a connection between violence and suicide and the use of psychotropic drugs in some cases. This research, which has been published in peer reviewed publications such as the American Journal of Psychiatry, The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and The Journal of Forensic Science, has shown, among other things, that: certain drugs can induce mania (a psychosis which can produce bizarre, grandiose and highly elaborated destructive plans, including mass murder);. . .and certain drugs can produce an acute psychotic reaction in an individual not previously psychotic.

Read more

Obama executive orders vastly empower psychiatry while gutting patient rights

Friday, January 18, 2013 by: Peter Breggin

psychiatry(NaturalNews) The history of psychiatry has been one of egregious abuses against its patients. The several-hundred year history of the state mental hospital system is proof of that. Until the states found the giant lockups too expensive and began arbitrarily throwing the inmates out, millions of people were deprived of their liberty and all human amenities, humiliated, abused, and finally tortured with treatments like lobotomy, insulin comma, and shock treatment. The only reason we don’t have thousands of lobotomies being perpetrated yearly in America today is that I took several years out of my life to fight against organized psychiatry to stop the return of psychosurgery in the early 1970s.

Psychiatry has always sought increasing control over its patients and resisted any attempt to increase patient rights. Although the size of the state hospitals has declined, organized psychiatry has found another way to treat people against their will. Untold numbers of citizens in 44 states are subjected to outpatient commitment. They can live in their own homes and walk about in the community, but if they don’t show up at the clinic for their regular long-acting shots of brain-paralyzing antipsychotic drugs, they can be forced back into the hospital or thrown down and injected with drugs inside their homes.

In the last several decades, psychiatry has joined forces with the pharmaceutical industry and the result is the mass drugging of adults and children. With a huge influx of money from the drug companies, psychiatry has enormously increased its influence in the government and society.

I previously have written a blog describing the already enormous capacity of psychiatry to lock up people against their will. In a feature that will follow this one on these pages of, I will describe the history of psychiatry’s thirst for power and the abuses it has perpetrated. Now President Obama’s executive orders require me to stop for a moment to examine how these orders, heavily influenced by the Psychopharmaceutical Complex, will continue to swell the power of psychiatry and the drug industry.

President Obama issued a set of 23 executive orders Jan. 16, 2013 that vastly empower psychiatry. This great expansion of psychiatric authority and power will ensure that organized psychiatry and the mental health establishment will not resist other presidential executive orders that greatly impair the free and effective practice of psychiatry, psychotherapy, and all of healthcare.

Order 23 is “Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.” Even more than the “Decade of the Brain,” from the 1990’s, this new dialogue will push power to psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry. The dialogue will be a national PR campaign on behalf of psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry.

Executive orders number 20-23 are another psychiatric marketing dream come true. Number 20 orders, “Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.” Number 21 directs, “Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA [Affordable Care Act] exchanges.” The Affordable Care Act is Obamacare, and the exchanges are the health insurance exchanges that are supposed to be established under the ACA. And Order 22 states, “Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.”

Before you imagine that these three commandments will make counseling and psychotherapy more available and affordable, think of Medicare or Medicaid. We will have more coverage for psychiatric drug prescriptions and for 5 or 10 minute med checks, the financial staples of the drug companies and psychiatry. The above three orders to enforce parity ensure a growing psychiatric establishment in America.

Order number 2 will break open to the feds the accumulating and soon to be vast federal data system for personal medical records: “Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.” Another order, number 4, will broaden the categories of individuals who can be investigated and whose privacy can be invaded. It orders, “Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.”

If you think that this destruction of privacy within American healthcare will end with providing information for gun ownership background checks, you are simply unrealistic. This kind of power does nothing but make itself grow at every possible opportunity.

Two other Presidential executive orders move us yet closer to turning the healthcare system into a spy network. Number 16 directs, “Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes” and number 17 orders, “Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.”

The last two directives have immediately undermined whatever privacy protections there were under federal HIPPA regulations, which were established federally to protect individual patient privacy. What the President now permits with his orders will soon be codified into law. Doctors and other health care providers will be burdened with spy duties, gathering information on gun possession and reporting anyone suspected by them of being potentially violent.

Gun purchase mental-health records a patchwork

By Dan Freedman | January 19, 2013

Houston Chronicle

WASHINGTON – Even though a community college suspended him for classroom outbursts and confrontations with police, Jared Loughner passed background checks and bought firearms including the Glock 19 he used Jan. 8, 2011, to kill six and wound 13, including ex-Rep. Gab­rielle Giffords, D-Ariz.

And in the months before he killed 12 and wounded 58 last July at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., James Holmes passed background checks to amass an arsenal of two Glocks, a Remington shotgun and a Smith & Wesson AR-15, even though he was seeing a psychiatrist who thought he was dangerous enough to report him to campus authorities.

Systemic flaws

These two incidents and others involving gun purchases by individuals with mental problems are a measure of structural flaws in NICS, the FBI’s National Instant Background Check System, which was set up to keep guns from falling into the hands of criminals, noncitizens, drug users or the mentally ill.

Even though Wash­ington has pumped $50.6 million into NICS Act Record Improvement Program awards since 2009 to help states corral mental health records and forward them to NICS, the results have been “extremely uneven,” said Dr. Paul Appelbaum, a psychiatrist and director of the Division of Law, Ethics and Psychiatry at Columbia University.

“With 50 states, $50 million doesn’t go a long way, given the magnitude of the problem.”

In rolling out a far-reaching gun-control agenda last week, President Barack Obama signed executive orders aimed at beefing up incentives to states to submit records and lowering privacy barriers that might be preventing a greater flow of information.

Shooter didn’t buy guns

The rollout was a response to shock and dismay nationwide over last month’s shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in which 20 children and six adults died.

The shooter, Adam Lanza, did not purchase the weapons he used, which included a Bushmaster .223 AR-15. They had instead been bought legally by his mother, Nancy Lanza, whom Adam Lanza shot and killed before his school rampage.

Adam Lanza was described as suffering from Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism marked by poor social and communications skills. Experts say Asperger’s is a developmental disorder, not a mental illness.

In any case, experts worry that mental health records sent to NICS for the most part reflect court adjudications – many of them decades old – of people who never were dangerous or who are no longer so.

Even though only 4 percent of violent crimes can be attributed to mentally ill persons, younger people descending into a dark world of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder often have little or no interaction with mental health professionals before committing acts of violence.

Exhibits A and B could be Holmes and Loughner.

“The overall effectiveness (of NICS) is limited because these people are unknown to the system,” Appelbaum said.

There are now 1.8 million mental health records in NICS, according to an FBI yearend report.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulations bar individuals from buying weapons if they have been adjudicated as “a mental defective” – a term mental health advocates say is archaic and on par with the worst racial or ethnic slurs – or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

Automating records

In 2009, Texas approved a law that addressed privacy concerns and directed state agencies to share mental health records with NICS.

The state also created a gun-rights restoration program, which enabled it to get over $1 million in grants. The National Rifle Association had demanded and won a way for recovered mental patients to get their gun-owning rights back as a condition of the grant program.

Texas has used the grant money to automate arrest records and do physical reviews of documents in court districts where mental health records were not identified or reported, according to the 2011 Mayors Against Illegal Guns report. It also helped train local administrators in techniques to improve mental-health record reporting.


D.C. Week: Mental Health Takes Center Stage

By David Pittman, Washington Correspondent, MedPage Today

Published: January 19, 2013


WASHINGTON — Mental health issues took center stage this week as President Obama and others offered their suggestions on improving coverage in the ongoing debate on curbing violent gun deaths.

Mental Health Big Player in Obama’s Gun Plan

Many of the executive orders President Obama signed and proposals he issued for Congress Wednesday sought to widen screening, awareness, and research of mental health conditions.

Obama asked for $15 million to train teachers and others who interact with youth on how to respond to and handle mental health issues. His proposal also calls for training 5,000 more social workers, counselors, and psychologists with a focus on serving students and young adults.

He also promised to issue final rules implementing a 2008 mental health parity law that requires insurers to cover mental health services on a par with physical care, but gave no time frame for doing so. As a “down payment” on that promise, Medicaid and CHIP Director Cindy Mann issued a letter Monday to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover under that 2008 law as well as under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Full Article

Why tougher mental health restrictions are the wrong remedy for gun violence

, @geoffreycowley

8:51 pm on 01/18/2013
A .223 caliber (L) and 9 millimeter (R) cartridge are seen at CJI Guns store in Tucker, Georgia, USA, 19 December 2012. The ammunition is the same caliber used in the Newtown, Connecticut, Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting on 14 December. US President Barack Obama on 19 December delivered remarks at the White House on policies to address gun violence, just days after a mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school. Obama also named Vice President Joe Biden to lead a task force to examine potential tougher gun laws and other measures. The killings in Newtown of 20 children aged 6 and 7, along with six adults in a school and the gunman's mother have led to a national debate on US gun laws and mental health care.  (Photo by Erik S. Lesser/EPA)MSNBC – A .223 caliber (L) and 9 millimeter (R) cartridge are seen at CJI Guns store in Tucker, Georgia, USA, 19 December 2012. The ammunition is the same caliber used in the Newtown, Connecticut, Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting on 14 December. US President Barack Obama on 19 December delivered remarks at the White House on policies to address gun violence, just days after a mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school. Obama also named Vice President Joe Biden to lead a task force to examine potential tougher gun laws and other measures. The killings in Newtown of 20 children aged 6 and 7, along with six adults in a school and the gunman’s mother have led to a national debate on US gun laws and mental health care. (Photo by Erik S. Lesser/EPA)

It took a national nightmare, but America’s passion for firearms has cooled and President Obama is seizing the moment for reform. If he succeeds, the country will soon revive the ban on military assault weapons, ban high-capacity magazines and fill the widest gaps in our mental health system. In unveiling his blueprint for gun reform last week, the president also promised to expand the background checks required for commercial gun sales. “An overwhelming majority of Americans agree with us on the need for universal background checks,” he said―“including more than 70% of the National Rifle Association’s members, according to one survey. So there’s no reason we can’t do this.”

But background checks are tricky, especially where mental health is concerned, and NRA blowback isn’t the sole obstacle to expanding them. In his speech this week, the president hinted at loosening medical privacy laws to better identify dangerous people—a step that would raise issues extending far beyond gun control. He also promised to make the relevant health records more accessible—a mission akin to growing trees on Mars. “It’s a good aspiration,” says Richard Bonnie, director of the University of Virginia’s Institute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, “but you’d have to weave a vast patchwork of local jurisdictions into a national data infrastructure that doesn’t yet exist.”

To be sure, mandatory background checks serve a critical purpose. Though only 60% of the nation’s gun sales are currently subject to background checks, the president notes that the checks have helped keep more than 1.5 million guns “out of the wrong hands” since 1999. But only one applicant in 417 was turned down in 2008 (the most recent year on record), and only a minute fraction of those denials hinged on mental health issues. The vast majority involved past felonies or domestic violence complaints. So it’s not clear that tougher mental-health standards would make background checks more effective.

Mental health advocates agree that people deemed dangerous are best left unarmed, but they’re wary of proposals to broaden the mental health exclusion. Under the 1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, only publicly reported medical records get reviewed—and no sale is blocked unless the applicant has been formally “adjudicated as a mental defective” (sic) or involuntarily committed for treatment. The government defines a “mental defective” as someone a “court, board, commission, or other lawful authority” has deemed either “a danger to himself or others” or unable to manage his own affairs because of “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.”

Full Article

Obama turns doctors into gun control snitches running health care spy network

Mike Adams
January 16, 2013

If you needed another reason to avoid visiting a doctor, Obama just gave you a new one: as part of Obama’s 23 executive orders announced today, doctors will be transformed into gun control snitches who are ordered by Obama to ask patients about guns they might have at home.

Here’s the doublespeak from the executive order text:

Doctors and other mental health professionals play an important role in protecting the safety of their patients and the broader community by reporting direct and credible threats of violence to the authorities. But there is public confusion about whether federal law prohibits such reports about threats of violence. The Department of Health and Human Services is issuing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits these reports in any way.

What this means is that doctor-patient confidentiality is now history. Even worse, doctors are being pressed to start interrogating patients about whether they own guns so that this information can be reported to the government. This is all being done under the cover of so-called “gun safety” but it’s really about turning doctors into devious government spies who conduct covert patient interrogations under the cover of providing them with health care. Once collected by the government, this information will then be used to seize guns from those individuals under some kind of mental health designation.

This is all an extension of the current medical police state in which parents who say no to vaccinations for their children are threatened with having their children kidnapped by government thugs (CPS) if they don’t provide consent for the mass vaccination of their child (often with 6+ vaccines all at once).

Parents have also been arrested and / or threatened for refusing to consent to chemotherapy for their teen children who are diagnosed with cancer.

It’s not clear how these new executive orders are intended to prevent people from having their guns stolen and then used in a violent crime, as happened with the recent Sandy Hook shooting. Rather than actually preventing crime, this executive order seems aimed at labeling gun owners mentally ill by recruiting doctors into a government-run health care spy network.

Full Article

Mental Health Gun Laws Unlikely To Reduce Shootings

State Senator Jeff Klein (L-R), Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Lieutenant Governor Robert Duffy and Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins congratulate New York Governor Andrew Cuomo after he signed the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act on Tuesday.States aren’t likely to prevent many shootings by requiring mental health professionals to report potentially violent patients, psychiatrists and psychologists say.The approach is part of a gun control law passed in New York yesterdayin response to the Newtown, Conn., shooting a month ago. But it’s unlikely to work because assessing the risk of violent behavior is difficult, error-prone and not something most mental health professionals are trained to do it, say specialists who deal with violence among the mentally ill.”We’re not likely to catch very many potentially violent people” with laws like the one in New York, says Barry Rosenfeld, a professor of psychology at Fordham University in The Bronx.The New York law says mental health professionals must report people they consider likely to do harm. It also gives law enforcement officials the power to take guns from these people.

Such laws “cast a very large net that will probably restrict a lot of people’s behavior unnecessarily,” Rosenfeld says. “Maybe we’ll prevent an incident or two,” he says. “But there are other ways that would be more productive.”

Better alternatives include reducing the total number of guns and improving access to mental health care, Rosenfeld says.

One of the biggest problems with laws like the one in New York is that it asks all mental health professionals to make assessments that are difficult for even those with years of special training, says Rosenfeld.

Rosenfeld says when he is called in to assess a person’s risk of violence, “I typically have the benefit of a lengthy face-to-face interview, records on their criminal and mental health history, a tremendous amount of information at my disposal that the typical mental health professional on the fly simply doesn’t have.”

Full Article