It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

All Veterans need to Read This Now!!!!

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

"But it is an effective way to disarm a segment of the population who could use these arms effectively if there were ever a cause to rise up against government."

Very good point!
edit on 23-4-2015 by Imightknow because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: 35Foxtrot
I'm thinking this must be on a case by case basis... Not saying passing hippaa info to the FBI is right, by any means, but I've been diagnosed with PTSD since 2009 and I've still purchased many weapons (long rifles and sidearms) even though my head shrinker thinks I'm nuts.


Previously, the FBI has not received mental health information or they have not added it to any sort of database.

The concern is that, if they're now receiving the information, they'll add it to a database checked by the instant-background check when someone purchases a firearm.


I get it. And I completely agree. My only question is if it's a few "do-gooder" head shrinkers passing it on or if it is some sort of VA policy... I trust my psych doc. She'd never turn my sh*t over to the fbi.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Imightknow

Damn brother, I thought this was a call to service or something. This doesn't surprise me man they've been #en us ever since hand touched pen.


You always have something good to say, brah....



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
Privacy is an inherent right.

It is not a privilege granted by the state.

This is an abuse of a Constitutionally protected right.

But it is an effective way to disarm a segment of the population who could use these arms effectively if there were ever a cause to rise up against government.


I guess if you are determined enough, you could gain access to a firearm without the required certification. Everyone is aware of the strict firearm ownership here in the U.K, yet people still possess guns, hell I bet there are a few ex military who have access to semi automatic weapons.

They may think they can take all weapons, but they are still available for the right price.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   
"They may think they can take all weapons, but they are still available for the right price."

Not sure if you realize what you just said, but you are correct. Gun regulation WILL NEVER WORK because money always speaks the loudest. This being the case, WHY IN THE F*#K would people of any country want guns to be illegal? Does it makes sense for only criminals/cops/people with a lot of $$$ to own them?
edit on 23-4-2015 by Imightknow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: beezzer
Privacy is an inherent right.

It is not a privilege granted by the state.

This is an abuse of a Constitutionally protected right.

But it is an effective way to disarm a segment of the population who could use these arms effectively if there were ever a cause to rise up against government.


I guess if you are determined enough, you could gain access to a firearm without the required certification. Everyone is aware of the strict firearm ownership here in the U.K, yet people still possess guns, hell I bet there are a few ex military who have access to semi automatic weapons.

They may think they can take all weapons, but they are still available for the right price.


And that is why gun-control laws will always punish the law-abider only.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
Privacy is an inherent right.

It is not a privilege granted by the state.

This is an abuse of a Constitutionally protected right.

But it is an effective way to disarm a segment of the population who could use these arms effectively if there were ever a cause to rise up against government.


The pink elephant in the room is that we don't trust our government.

For some reason they have labeled us as the enemy. They don't trust us, so why in the hell should we trust them? We sure as hell have a lot more to lose.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

A lot more to lose and also A LOT MORE numbers!



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Imightknow


"They may think they can take all weapons, but they are still available for the right price."

Not sure if you realize what you just said, but you are correct. Gun regulation WILL NEVER WORK because money always speaks the loudest. This being the case, WHY IN THE F*#K would people of any country want guns to be illegal? Does it makes sense for only criminals/cops/people with a lot of $$$ to own them?


Look at any rag tag group of thugs, anywhere in the world.

They may not have shoes. They may not have food. But they sure as hell have a lot of guns.

Why don't they go round up those guns first?



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: 35Foxtrot

Well, now that all of us vets are consolidated in this thread I'm just wondering where the barracks rats are at? Have you seen any?



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: 35Foxtrot

Well, now that all of us vets are consolidated in this thread I'm just wondering where the barracks rats are at? Have you seen any?


Never let it be said that you are slow on the uptake.

I hear you loud and clear.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: 35Foxtrot

Well, now that all of us vets are consolidated in this thread I'm just wondering where the barracks rats are at? Have you seen any?


Wait wait wait....did I miss the weekend safety brief?!?



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

You missed it but in summary wear protection and don't get CAUGHT making us look bad.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Imightknow


"They may think they can take all weapons, but they are still available for the right price."

Not sure if you realize what you just said, but you are correct. Gun regulation WILL NEVER WORK because money always speaks the loudest. This being the case, WHY IN THE F*#K would people of any country want guns to be illegal? Does it makes sense for only criminals/cops/people with a lot of $$$ to own them?


I know it doesn't work and unfortunately the majority of U.K citizens are the losers. You need to keep your guns and I am sure you will.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Imightknow

That's the only reason I can see all the govt chatter about vets being the biggest threat or the most likely to be domestic terrorist.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

I think the issue is that it's now in the hands of individuals making judgments in the vast government machine.

Last I heard, there are no constitutional amendments that say the mentally ill can't own firearms. I think that if they decide to take them away on some decision from some random individual, that does not fall in line with the constitution.

That said, I'm not without common sense, and I fully understand that many people have issues like PTSD that really should not own weapons--for their safety and for the safety of those around them. BUT, I don't think that the solution is the VA telling on them to the FBI. And like someone else mentioned, this really, severely severs the tether of trust between Vets and the VA.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
If they treat me like a criminal, I won't follow the law and become one. You think a piece of paper is going to let you take my #? Bring more guns you sorry bastards!



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Should a woman that's been seriously beaten by a boyfriend/Husband lose her rights as well?

They may call it something else but it's still ptsd.

Also there are differing degrees of ptsd, some are just having minor issues.... While yes others are ready to snap.
edit on 23-4-2015 by Irishhaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

When did I say someone should lose their rights?

In fact, I think that I said I consider this unconstitutional.



posted on Apr, 23 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Imightknow

That's the only reason I can see all the govt chatter about vets being the biggest threat or the most likely to be domestic terrorist.


Why? Because they took an oath to uphold the Constitution?

We where warned that the only way to preserve the Constitution was with due diligence.

We failed. So now we are domestic terrorist?

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join