Skip to main content

A court declared incompetent Minnesota man was arrested yesterday after burning his own house down, and was found to be carrying a loaded .380 pistol.

The gentleman in question is convinced that he has been got at by the CIA and Obama, and implanted something in his brain which made him light the fire.

FromRaw STory

At some point, Bailey told officers that he was the “first half-man/half-robot created by the government.” He said that the CIA and FBI had bugged his house, and blamed “Obama” and the “CIA” for causing the fire that burned down his home.
Apparently after the fire fighters arrived he asked them to go away, so he could burn the other half of the house still standing.

This was not the first time Ronald Bailey had brushed with the law, as he had previously been found innocent on grounds of mental illness, which of course disqualifies him from owning a gun.

Arrest records for Bailey in Hennepin County date back to 2004 and include a 2006 charge for fleeing from an officer, for which he was found not guilty by reason of mental illness. The verdict barred him from owning a handgun. Other arrests involved DWI, drugs, firearms and harassment.
As I mentioned in a diary last week
It is one of the favorite arguments of the pro gun folks here and elsewhere*that rather than impose gun safety measures, there needs to be more spent on identifying people with mental health issues. But what is the point if those people can simply go to a gun show or "flea market" and buy as many guns and bullets as they want.
*edited to protect sensitivities

But here we go again, less than one week later, with a barred mentally ill man buying guns (there was at least one more in his house) despite it being against federal law.

Universal Background checks please

And as A Bonus track

For those who didn't see my diary yesterday, or thought it was total fiction wrought from an overactive imagination, amped up on Jim Beam and White widow, here is the link again to Raw Story's  article on Mark "Coonrippy" Brown

It seems that Raw Story is tryin to out onion The Onion

Originally posted to peterfallow on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 08:19 AM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Background checks for matches as well? (0+ / 0-)

    Universal background checks for guns are fine, but they only address one aspect of the problem.  If he didn't have a gun, he still burns his house down.  He could still grab a rusty machette and hack someone to pieces.
    He could still go out and buy a gun on the black market, which won't just vanish because of background checks, anymore than the drug trade did.

    Here's a man who has been arrested 5 times per the reference, yet has faced no real punishment or given no real treatment.  The root cause of the issue has been completely ignored.

    Here's to hoping that this time this man will not be found not guilty, and will be locked up, for his safety and others.  A man who thinks he's a robot can't be trusted with a pair of scissors, never mind the gun.

    •  "never mind the gun".... (17+ / 0-)

      pay no attention to the gun.  The gun had nothing to do with the issue.

      NRA hypnotism at work.

      You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

      by murrayewv on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:09:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Was the gun fired? Did the gun hypnotise him? (0+ / 0-)

        If you can show me that the gun used it's mind powers to talk this man into burning his house down, then you can blame the gun for this incident.

        Should this man have had a gun?  No.  Should he have been allowed to walk around free while insane?  No.  You want to address part of the issue, I want to address the whole issue.

        Tell me, would you even charge this man with arson, or just for the gun possession?

        •  You charge him with Arson (4+ / 0-)

          in the 1st (by MN statute) and with unlawful gun possession.

          But that isn't the point...

          The point is that there is an awful lot of talking on the other side of this issue about mental health being the issue AND the only part of this issue that needs any attention.

          But what is the point if those people can simply go to a gun show or "flea market" and buy as many guns and bullets as they want.
          We FULLY enforce ALL the laws on the books, we create new ones: Universal background AND fingerprinting OR DNA testing (or both) to be able to purchase a firearm (this is paid for BY the purchaser and done through a licensed and regulated lab... which will take a couple of weeks) and we create more avenues in which those who are mentally ill are caught BEFORE they create mayhem and havoc with a firearm.

          The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy. -Charles de Montesquieu

          by dawgflyer13 on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 10:00:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hi there. I live with a mental illness. (5+ / 0-)

            So do my wife and my father.

            we create more avenues in which those who are mentally ill are caught BEFORE they create mayhem and havoc with a firearm.
            So you know, we mostly don't "create mayhem and havoc".
            We got to work, we raise our children, we pay our taxes, just like anybody else- It's just a little harder for us, because we live w/ chronic disease.

            If you're so concerned about "those who are mentally ill" causing all kinds of problems and violence, you must be able to produce some actual, ya know, statistics that demonstrate how incredibly dangerous we are, right?

            •  I accept your point. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NancyWH

              But in the case of this diary, and my diary of last week, I am discussing people who have been adjudged "incompetent" by courts during prosecutions.

              I think we are all aware that mental illness spans a huge range of conditions, and the decision as to whether someone should be deprived of the opportunity to own guns will depend on many factors - which have not been addressed here.

              It remains nonetheless that certain people whose conditions are so serious that they have been barred from owning guns can just go to the local gun fair of Craig's List and buy as many as they want. What I am advocating for is that those who have been found to be danger to themselves or others be denied easy access to firearms.

              I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

              by peterfallow on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 11:13:09 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Then say that. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Kasoru
                people who have been adjudged "incompetent" by courts during prosecutions
                is a very small subset of "people who live with mental illness".
                I think we are all aware that mental illness spans a huge range of conditions
                Really? Then how did the comment I replied to even get made?

                Obviously, y'all aren't that aware. Umm... words have meanings. Poor use of words is a symptom of sloppy thought.

                •  And those judged mentally incompetent (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  NancyWH

                  are a very small subset of those with serious problems who should be kept away from guns for their own safety and the safety of others.

                  I am  not a psychiatrist so I don't want to get into the details of who and when because I am not qualified. However, the recent experience with Adam Lanza, the Aurora shooter, and Jared Laughner show that there are many people out there with mental problems who should have been kept away from guns. Of course, these are only the spree killers - many more only kill one or two people ( and often themselves afterwards), and never make it to the front page.

                  We should be having that discussion too.

                  By the way, because you may disagree with one commenter, it's not cool to tar everybody with the same brush y'all.

                  I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

                  by peterfallow on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 12:08:25 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The problem with that is that the psychiatrists (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    peterfallow

                    aren't qualified to say, either. Psychiatry is not yet a science-based branch of medicine; psychiatrists don't base their diagnoses on tests and imaging as other kinds of physicians do. It is roughly where medicine was in the 19th century before the germ theory of disease.

                    Now there is every reason to hope that this will change as neuroscience advances; there are large projects underway in the EU and here in the US that could make a significant improvement in psychiatry down the road. The NIMH has scrapped the current, trashy, "diagnostic" manual of American psychiatry, the DSM, and is coordinating research towards a new system based on biological measurements, as is common in other parts of medicine. But it will probably be a few decades before this effort really begins change mental health practice deeply.

                    In the mean time, it's very important not to over-hype what mental health is actually able to do. It is simply not able to predict who will become an Adam Lanza.

                    Rational gun policy should not be derailed by the red herring of "mental health screening", which would simply lead to many more abuses in a professional area with the longest and darkest history of abuses and ethics violations since the time of the Inquisition. Psychiatrists cannot and should not decide who can be trusted with guns. It's much better to do the sane thing the UK does and not trust anybody with them as a standard piece of home furnishing or daily dress.

            •  Don't attack me (0+ / 0-)

              for posting something that was obviously not directed at ALL people with mental illness...

              I have PTSD and Panic Disorder, do you wanna play the "I'm sicker than you are game?" or can you just accept that when someone mentions mental illness were aren't talking about you, or your wife or your dad.

              Put the martyr's cross down, it's unsightly.

              The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy. -Charles de Montesquieu

              by dawgflyer13 on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 04:07:13 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Well, you got one supporter, peterfallow (5+ / 0-)
      Universal background checks for guns are fine, but they only address one aspect of the problem.
      Even the Bill of Rights did it in ten amendments. So, I guess we'll take background checks and keep working on our problems.  :)  

      Guns don't kill people. People kill guns. -- this message brought to you by the Night Vale chapter of the N.R.A.

      by tytalus on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:12:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Being half-robot relieves you of being responsible (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peterfallow

    for you actions.  Is this the new "right to carry" attitude.

  •  In an Ideal world (11+ / 0-)

    This person would be provided with the help he needs to cope with his illness while the criminal that provided him with the gun would be arrested and charged with a lengthy sentence as punishment for recklessly endangering this man and everyone else.  But this is America, so we'll blame the sick guy.

    “The purpose of our lives is to add value to the people of this generation and those that follow.” – Buckminster Fuller

    by TheFern on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:10:22 AM PST

    •  What about the man who sold him matches? (0+ / 0-)

      Does he get charged with reckless endangerment as well?

    •  Can you be sure the one who gave him the gun ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tytalus, peterfallow

      - was a criminal? How?
      - was aware of the guy's condition at the time?
      - committed any enforceable offense?

      In a more perfect world, perhaps neither actor in this drama would have the right or the ability to so easily give and get a gun with no accountability. But we're in a world with a great many imperfections, particularly when it comes to dangerous instrumentalities.

      Being unable to perfect human nature, I think it behooves us to do what we can to address today's easy access to weapons and their proliferation. Law abiders should have no cause to fear for their freedoms in a world of reasonable regulation. Would that solve all the cases of people who shouldn't have guns getting and misusing them? If course not, but it would help.

      This is not a time for the Better to be defeated by calls to be Perfect by people who oppose any improvement at all.

      2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

      by TRPChicago on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:51:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is owning a gun a freedom or a responsibility? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        peterfallow, jbob, viral

        Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

        by 88kathy on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:56:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It would be nice to be able to discover (7+ / 0-)

        The identity of the person who provided this man with the weapon he was forbidden to possess.  Then some of your questions could be answered.  Instead this reckless person will be free to provide any number of unstable or criminal persons with the firearms they seek.  What incentive does he have to stop?  What is the point in declaring a person cannot be in possession of a firearm, if there is no way of bringing the people who provide them to justice?  For any laws like this to work,  the guns need to be registered so they can be traced.  We need to know who is recklessly putting people at risk, and remove their ability to keep doing it.

        “The purpose of our lives is to add value to the people of this generation and those that follow.” – Buckminster Fuller

        by TheFern on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 10:04:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  you're assuming (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kasoru

          as less than half of relevant mental health records have been uploaded into the federal NICS database, he likely could have passed a background check and purchased the gun legally.  Or he might have bought the gun twenty years ago.  In neither case would the seller be legally, civilly, or morally culpable.

          Politics means controlling the balance of economic and institutional power. Everything else is naming post offices.

          by happymisanthropy on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 11:20:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Simple question for you. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nocynicism

            Do you agree that person deemed mentally incompetent by doctors and a judge should have access to firearms?

            Assuming your answer is no, then we can move onto other issues for example

            Seizing guns already owned
            Preventing their access to new guns
            Improving data bases and interfaces

            If your answer is yes, then I am not sure there is any point discussing it. It is already a law.

            I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.

            by peterfallow on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 11:34:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Not assuming (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            peterfallow

            Block-quoted in the diary:

            Arrest records for Bailey in Hennepin County date back to 2004 and include a 2006 charge for fleeing from an officer, for which he was found not guilty by reason of mental illness. The verdict barred him from owning a handgun. Other arrests involved DWI, drugs, firearms and harassment.

            “The purpose of our lives is to add value to the people of this generation and those that follow.” – Buckminster Fuller

            by TheFern on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 12:00:26 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Militia Rhetoric=Classic Paranoid Schizo Delusions (4+ / 0-)

    They are coming to get you!  A vast conspiracy!  Mind control! HAARP!, chemtrails!

    Jared Loughners obsession with language and being hypnotized is typically schizoid, but it is also mainstream in many militia groups.  See the hundreds of youtube videos on this subject, especially Alex Jones.

    Although paranoid schizophrenics have always had these beliefs, now there is a political subcultural telling them that they need guns, lots of guns, to fight off "them."

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:38:58 AM PST

  •  How many will see this as the result of (6+ / 0-)

    the lack of care for the mentally ill? Sure, this guy should never have been sold a gun, but then again, no one is looking out for him either.

    I see this as two problems. Too many guns and lack of mental health care.

    "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

    by Lily O Lady on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:50:20 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site