Veterans Disarmament Act
- Thread starter SFC JeffJ
- Start date
Guardian
Black Belt
http://www.newswithviews.com/Pratt/larry81.htm
Their coming for them people and if we don't watch out they will sneak in the backdoor just like any other common crook.
Those who hate guns or at least are afraid enough of them will do anything and everything to see a disarmed America. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact, they don't want guns in this country pure and simple.
This bill is a disgrace to all the Veterans that gave their lifes (either literally or figuratively to this country and now due to no fault of their own, they are being targeted by a few idiots.
A very interesting read and there are many more sites on it also. Sneaky little buttheads.
Their coming for them people and if we don't watch out they will sneak in the backdoor just like any other common crook.
Those who hate guns or at least are afraid enough of them will do anything and everything to see a disarmed America. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact, they don't want guns in this country pure and simple.
This bill is a disgrace to all the Veterans that gave their lifes (either literally or figuratively to this country and now due to no fault of their own, they are being targeted by a few idiots.
A very interesting read and there are many more sites on it also. Sneaky little buttheads.
Only veterans that have been diagnosed with PTSD? What next, police officers? Rescue workers? Crime victims? PTSD affects people from all walks of life. Seems to me that with the patriot act and legislation like this, the government is trying to do an end run around the constituion and leading us to a dictatorship in this country.
I have to agree Lisa! I do not like the fact that they are taking rights away before they have done anything wrong and especially after they served and protected our country!
michaeledward
Grandmaster
I don't know, folks. It seems we can't have it both ways. Either PTSD is a real diagnosis, with real symptons, or it isn't.
Yesterday, I heard a rather nice discussion of the topic on the radio. A soldier from Northhampton, Mass recently filed for divorce from his wife because of his PTSD and the actions it led him to take. He indicated, himself, that he was a danger; to himself, and to those around him.
Aren't those the kind of people we usually keep guns away from?
There is ongoing discussions in Congress about those soldiers who were discharged from the military over the last five years for behavior issues (some 28,000). Many of those discharged may have been exhibiting symptons of PTSD. If a soldier is discharged with a method of 'less than honorable' (such as these behavior problem discharges), he forfits Veterans Benefits, including treatment for PTSD through the VA. There is an extentsive push taking place to retroactively extend VA benefits to these soldiers, for the rest of their lives.
If there service merits the nation paying to support them for the next 6 decades; because they are a danger to themselves or to others, should we really be arguing to give them weapons?
Yesterday, I heard a rather nice discussion of the topic on the radio. A soldier from Northhampton, Mass recently filed for divorce from his wife because of his PTSD and the actions it led him to take. He indicated, himself, that he was a danger; to himself, and to those around him.
Aren't those the kind of people we usually keep guns away from?
There is ongoing discussions in Congress about those soldiers who were discharged from the military over the last five years for behavior issues (some 28,000). Many of those discharged may have been exhibiting symptons of PTSD. If a soldier is discharged with a method of 'less than honorable' (such as these behavior problem discharges), he forfits Veterans Benefits, including treatment for PTSD through the VA. There is an extentsive push taking place to retroactively extend VA benefits to these soldiers, for the rest of their lives.
If there service merits the nation paying to support them for the next 6 decades; because they are a danger to themselves or to others, should we really be arguing to give them weapons?
Michael,
Yes, there are veterans we should be careful with regarding having firearms, but not until they actually have done something wrong. Many people suffer PTSD and don't do anything wrong. Just because they have PTSD doesn't mean they will do something to merit taking their rights away from them. Its like throwing out the baby with the bath water, IMO.
OP
OP
As a member of the VFW, I know many people who have been diagnosed with PTSD. Several of the own firearms and even carry concealed without ever having a problem. Sure, maybe a few have, but is that reason to deny a constitutional right to every Vet who had been diagnosed?
and furthermore, only cause I just thought of this...
There are probably Veterans out there with PTSD that have not been diagnosed. PTSD is not necessarily an all consuming thing. It has its triggers. Some suffer from it more then others. Some suffer so bad that they can not function while others have triggers that bring it on.
Do we then take the firearms away from every veteran JUST IN CASE? And where does one draw the line? If you have two episodes in a period of time we will take your guns, three?
There are probably Veterans out there with PTSD that have not been diagnosed. PTSD is not necessarily an all consuming thing. It has its triggers. Some suffer from it more then others. Some suffer so bad that they can not function while others have triggers that bring it on.
Do we then take the firearms away from every veteran JUST IN CASE? And where does one draw the line? If you have two episodes in a period of time we will take your guns, three?
Should we take firearms away from a police officer because they have suffered PTSD! What about the paramedic or the firefighter or the emergency room nurses or physicians. What about people who have been in a self defense/violent encounter's and needed treatment? To many people could eventually lose their rights even when they have done nothing to merit it. That is my beef!
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
This post got me to look around the web a bit and I keep seeing the same thing "New Freedom Commission on Mental Health" Now I am not an alarmist not and I am not big on conspiracy theories and I am admittedly not affiliated with any political group because experience has taught me they are really not all that different but if what I am reading in this post and on the web is true, and I need to look into this further to be certain, this is getting pretty scary.
I am seeing mentions of DSM-IV having disorders added and this "New Freedom Commission on Mental Health" recommending every man, woman and child be screened for mental health and it is linked to the second amendment and supported by the NRA.
Has anyone else seen this?
I am seeing mentions of DSM-IV having disorders added and this "New Freedom Commission on Mental Health" recommending every man, woman and child be screened for mental health and it is linked to the second amendment and supported by the NRA.
Has anyone else seen this?
michaeledward
Grandmaster
How then do we differentiate between those veterans with whom we should be careful regarding firearms, and those whom we need not be concerned?
What will the story be if a soldier kills his entire family with a gun, and raises the defense of PTSD and lack of treatment because the VA benefits were denied him. Who looks after the bath water then?
OP
OP
So we penalize them all for the actions of a few?
So much for inividual liberty.
I never said don't treat his PTSD, I said don't remove a constitutional right when he hasn't done anything wrong yet.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
This is not a penalty.
It is an acknowledgement of a mental disorder. If you are diagnosed with this mental defect, the consequences of that defect is prohibition of a firearm.
Let's us suppose that one of us loses our sight. Do we continue to allow that person to operate a motor vehicle? Or do we acknowledge that without sight, one can not operate a motor vehicle safely, and revoke a license.
Lisa said:
Today, soldiers who exhibit behaviors of PTSD have been discharged with a less than honorable description (violent behavior, drug use, etc) In these instances, normal veteran benefits are withheld. The soldiers are not allowed access to treatement through the Veterans Administration.
That, to me, is a far bigger crime and outrage than restricting access to firearms for someone with PTSD.
I recommend, strongly, taking ten minutes to listen to this story. If what is described is accurate, I think there are bigger issues than just the revokation of the right to bear arms. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17362654
I am not saying one is a bigger outrage then the other, however, THIS thread is regarding the removal of their right to firearms. Please feel free to start another thread regarding venteran benefits being withheld due to PTSD and less then honorable discharges.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Well, low and behold ... the situation is much different than what it appears.
There is NO bill going through Congress called the 'Veterans Disarmement Act'.
HR 2640 is designed to provide States with money so they can fill in criminal data from the State level into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
There is NO bill going through Congress called the 'Veterans Disarmement Act'.
HR 2640 is designed to provide States with money so they can fill in criminal data from the State level into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
Like many Bills that pass through legislation it gets a name attached to it.
and what your congress or senate or whatever states it is "designed for" and what it will be used for are usually two different things.
and what your congress or senate or whatever states it is "designed for" and what it will be used for are usually two different things.
