Today President Obama stripped everyone who is subjected to forced in-home treatment of their second amendment constitutional rights.
The federal law prohibiting the purchasing or possession of a firearm had applied to people who had been involuntarily hospitalized. Not anymore. Now tens of thousands of people under community involuntary commitment in over 40 states, have suddenly lost one of their constitutional rights.
Not since the Patriot Act that was rushed through congress after 9/11 have I seen such fear mongering as I have in recent months, aimed at creating an “us vs. them” of good citizens vs. “the enemy within.”
The Patriot act was aimed at finding enemies of the state who were terrorists, but it soon also fulfilled the mission implicit in its name.
If you were a US citizen who opposed the loss of civil liberties and privacy that the Patriot act demanded, then your patriotism was at risk of being in question.
The saying went “If you don’t have anything to hide, then you don’t have anything to worry about.”
Now many seem to be saying “If you are not a treatment resistant mental patient, then you don’t have anything to worry about. If you comply and take your meds, the proposed national forced treatment Murphy legislation – or Kendra’s or Laura’s laws – won’t force you to take meds in your own home, and if that forced treatment isn’t deemed necessary, then you get to keep your second amendment rights too!”
But wait a minute.
Are we the new terrorists?
In a country where one out of four women carry a DSM psychiatric diagnosis to qualify them for their psychiatric medication prescriptions, and one out of five US citizens are diagnosed and prescribed psychiatric medications, what kind of slippery slope are we on here?
Because gun violence is driving the demonization of people with psychiatric labels, aren’t we facing the probability that every prescription for psych meds is being run through a justice department or law enforcement data system, to be matched against criteria for the med recipient being a potential danger to the community?
Aren’t people with psychiatric labels being treated as if we are a potential new danger to homeland security? Indeed, last month a paraplegic Canadian citizen was denied entry to the U.S. because of her prior hospitalization for depression – private information that was inexplicably in the possession of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
We who have been, or are, or will be mad, depressed, extremely scared, we who deviate from the social norm in the expression of our emotions and the content of our thinking, are being raised up as the threatening ones now in the public’s perception. We are smeared as bringers of violence and death on Sixty Minutes by E. Fuller Torrey and APA president Jeffrey Lieberman, who hold up MRI images that show supposedly diseased brains, right next to images of supposedly normal brains, as evidence of what is so wrong with us that we deserve extraordinary measures by society.
I’m worried about people I know and love who are now or may get caught up in this dragnet of public hysteria that is stoked by craven politicians and true-believer psychiatrists.
Of course the pharma profiteers profit as usual, and the NAMI decades-long political agenda of in-home forced treatment as the law of the land, nears its full realization.
It’s been a long time since I have been in a madness process myself, but I felt the cold hand of fear touch me today when I read the latest move by our government to tighten control over people with histories like mine.
I believe that most of the horrific mass shootings that were done by very lost young men at Columbine and since were catalyzed by the negative effects of the psychiatric drugs the young men were taking.
I wonder if the dark visions of Orwell and Huxley, who imagined a future where deviance was silenced for the perceived safety and greater good of all, may be coming to pass.
The justice department decree today, broadening the scope of second amendment restrictions, talked about it being a “common sense” solution.
In a remarkable letter to George Orwell by Alduous Huxley about Orwell’s book 1984, Huxley said he didn’t believe Orwell’s prophetic version of the future would happen, where a “boot in the face” big brother government would rule. Instead, Huxley believed, a more friendly fascistic state would emerge, where the individual would lose their freedom in a torpor of emotion-numbing sedation that was required in the name of “efficiency”, a kind of commonsense approach to pacifying the masses.
There is some of that sinister commonsense advice that makes me cringe in the messages we hear these days; “If you don’t have anything to hide, you don’t have anything to worry about.”
And, “If you aren’t a resistant mental patient who won’t take their meds, then you may be allowed to be free to walk among us.”
* * * * *
Of further interest:
Stopping Mentally Ill Gun Buyers (Editorial in the New York Times)
Mad in America hosts blogs by a diverse group of writers. These posts are designed to serve as a public forum for a discussion—broadly speaking—of psychiatry and its treatments. The opinions expressed are the writers’ own.
Mad in America has made some changes to the commenting process. You no longer need to login or create an account on our site to comment. The only information needed is your name, email and comment text. Comments made with an account prior to this change will remain visible on the site.