Veterans' gun rights a sticky issue in defense bill

Well gun dealers are not psychatrists now are they?

Besides gun dealers have the right of refusal to sell to anyone.

This aint got jack to do with unstable vets it is about gun control, since they get to define "mental capacity":.

At this point- who isnt a threat?

Anyone and everyone I can think of could make the crazy list one way or another.


The Right to bear arms doesnt say "only if".

Its very simple. Vets represent the greatest threat against the establishment. Therefore it is in their best interest to disarm vets first, and disarming those with a mental illness is easy baby step one. Direct resistance will be minimal since the propaganda demonization of vets is already well under way, and most with any mental illness have been pharma'ed half to death already anyway. Ex-LEOs are going to be a close second. Watch for it.

Well, first of all anyone that has been professionaly diagnosed with a serious mental disorder shouldn't be allowed to own guns. If you are a paranoid schitzo who hears "voices" to kill people -- I don't want you having a firearm!

The second thing is, we shouldn't be using our soldiers to fight wars in places that have nothing to do with us. The level of violence and horrific crap our service members put up with needs to stop. No, they are not fighting for MY freedom -- they are fighting for oil and big money.

Having that said, would simply requiring *everyone* including vets be such a bad thing? What makes the vets so special they need their own consideration?

Is this defense bill specifying that VA doctors now would be required to submit names of vets? Don't doctors already do this for civilians?

If that is so, why do Vets get a free "pass" to own a gun? If I were to be diagnosed with a severe case of multiple personality disorder with paranoid delusions .... I doubt I'd be able to buy a gun.

Now can a veteran has that same mental health issue, he can still buy a gun because the VA won't report him? Is that how it currently works?

Professionally diagnosed with a serious mental disorder is pretty encompassing nowadays. I bet nearly have of the US population is on anti-depressants or some other psych pharma by now with the phenomenal growth in this profitable market since the 10% in '05 . Maybe thats the plan - start with vets-on-meds and then move to the general population with psych pharma scrips.

So inability to handle money = can't own a gun now?

Using that logic we should be taking away the guns from the government.

reply to post by polarwarrior


According to them we are all mentally ill, whether it be
ADD or what have you.

With the very generalized terminology this can be extended to a larger base.

So let me get this straight. The government hasn't balanced a budget in over a decade, they continue to spend money with wreckless abandon, yet they are telling other people that can't seem to balance their finances they are mentally incompetent? (The good men and women that defended the very country they govern) I would be fine with this if they led by example and declared themselves all mentally incompetent first. How does that saying go, people who live in glass houses.

This is what you get when the majority of representatives have no experience of... anything. Career politicians/pseudo-intellectuals/ego-maniacs. The longer they spend in office as a part of the government, the more they fear American citizens.

A lot of people are being served a nice big cup of voter remorse. It shouldn't go down easy.

People (civillian or vet) who have serious mental disorders should not own a firearm.

Blind people should not drive.

I don't think anyone is encouraging people with serious mental conditions to own a gun.

But when the government states that vets who are mentally incompetent to handle money are a threat, well that just opens the door to abuses, interpretations, misinterpretations.

TBI's (traumatic brain injuries) are a sad and fairly common occurance in the military.
It is estimated that 212,000 vets have tbi's. ( source )

These can range from mild (simple headaches) to serious symptoms. If this ammendment to the bill passes, and vets can be discriminated against simply because of an injury then chances are, they won't seek treatment, thus not getting on any "government" list.

And before any draconian measures can be made to bar vets from firearm ownership, I'd like the government to provide statistics that illustrate the dangers of vets with firearms versus people on welfare with firearms. Or leagal versus illegal firearm abuses.

Because I see this as nothing more than the government stripping more rights from the very people who would be in the best position to fight enemies (foreign and domestic) to America.

If you are diagnosed with paranoid delusions brought about by anything, don't own a handgun.

If you can't balance you checkbook (and you're not a member of congress) you should still be free to own a firearm.

Originally posted by beezzer
People (civillian or vet) who have serious mental disorders should not own a firearm.

Blind people should not drive.

I don't think anyone is encouraging people with serious mental conditions to own a gun.

But when the government states that vets who are mentally incompetent to handle money are a threat, well that just opens the door to abuses, interpretations, misinterpretations.

TBI's (traumatic brain injuries) are a sad and fairly common occurance in the military.
It is estimated that 212,000 vets have tbi's. ( source )

These can range from mild (simple headaches) to serious symptoms. If this ammendment to the bill passes, and vets can be discriminated against simply because of an injury then chances are, they won't seek treatment, thus not getting on any "government" list.

And before any draconian measures can be made to bar vets from firearm ownership, I'd like the government to provide statistics that illustrate the dangers of vets with firearms versus people on welfare with firearms. Or leagal versus illegal firearm abuses.

Because I see this as nothing more than the government stripping more rights from the very people who would be in the best position to fight enemies (foreign and domestic) to America.

If you are diagnosed with paranoid delusions brought about by anything, don't own a handgun.

If you can't balance you checkbook (and you're not a member of congress) you should still be free to own a firearm.

Can't own a handgun but can own a shotgun -- or am I nitpicking??

I'm probably nitpicking

Originally posted by six67seven


Can't own a handgun but can own a shotgun -- or am I nitpicking??

I'm probably nitpicking

Be nice. I'm on meds.

reply to post by beezzer


Of course this won't happen, but I say we pass a law stating something similar to the Affordable Healthcare Act -- just as you must purchase health insurance.... the law should state that you must own a firearm. Where's the wild west when you need it? Would there be more crime or less???? I'd be confident more peeps be would comfortable with firearms; better educated; more confident to handle sticky situations.

I'd open a funeral parlor for sure

reply to post by six67seven


Huh?

We're talking about a law stripping rights. Once that starts, there is no going bck.

i had a bill collector harassing me for $950 dollars for a bill that was payed by the VA . this went on for 4 years and every time the bill collector contacted me i made a police report for harassment.

At any time the bill collector could have taken me to court for the money but i would have won and likely i would have won a counter suit for harassment.

I see a bill like this being used as a threat against veterans by crooks and other lowlifes.
The crooks and lowlifes can use the threat of vets being listed as mentally incompetent to extort money from the vets.

Something else that burns the hell out of me is blaming the last decade of war for something that has been apart of warfare since men picked up sticks and stones.

Some people can handle it some people can't handle.

If they are schizophrenic or some other type of dangerous mental illness then no, they shouldn't have guns.

So these men dedicated and risked their lives to defend our country and were issued a gun by the military. Now they're saying they're not allowed to have a gun?
Something's not right about that. If they can be required to carry a gun, they should also be allowed to carry one. They've proven themselves and deserve it more than anyone else, especially the criminals.

My eyes are opened. I didn't know there was a rash of veteran related shooting that were occurring across the country. The latest headlines I read seemed it's a better idea to prevent steroid abusing jocks from owning firearms. But I'm sure it's all for our "safety".

reply to post by Trustfund


The problem with this is - if a soldier thinks he/she may need some professional help, knowing his/her firearms might be taken away could EASILY be the difference between that vet going in to get help, and staying home and getting worse.