Veterans Disarnament Act to bar Vets from owning guns

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by apc

 

This is nothing more than targeting the military returning home.

A star for you! You have nailed it precisely. False diagnoses on returning vets so they can be kept from arming themselves and acting against the police state plans of the current US government is an obvious tactic and related to old Soviet policy. Some of the US young men and women soldiers take their own lives when they realise what a total lie, a murderous lie they have been a party to, and for those souls I especially grieve.

The most important thing of all is for the USA to bring military forces back to the US because increasingly the USA is looking like an undefended meat pie being sold to Arabs but even more prime for Russia, China, and the EU to divide and conquer.

[edit on 23/9/07 by Pellevoisin]

I can assure you that this will not stand.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with weeding out malingerers or anything at all to do with hunting.

I can assure you that this will not stand.

www.nraila.org...

I've done some research on this and this is what the NRA has to say about HR 2640:

Voluntary Psychological Treatment

Neither current federal law, nor H.R. 2640, would prohibit gun possession by people who have voluntarily sought psychological counseling or checked themselves into a hospital:

Current law only prohibits gun possession by people who have been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to any mental institution.” Current BATFE regulations specifically exclude commitments for observation and voluntary commitments. Records of voluntary treatment also would not be available under federal and state health privacy laws.

Similarly, voluntary drug or alcohol treatment would not be reported to NICS. First, voluntary treatment is not a “commitment.” Second, current federal law on gun possession by drug users, as applied in BATFE regulations, only prohibits gun ownership by those whose “unlawful [drug] use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct.”

In short, neither current law nor this legislation would affect those who voluntarily get psychological help. No person who needs help for a mental health or substance abuse problem should be deterred from seeking that help due to fear of losing Second Amendment rights.

If anti-gun Members of Congress succeed in attaching any anti-gun amendments to this bill, we will withdraw support and strongly oppose it!

www.nraila.org...

In short, the NRA does not see this bill as being a threat to Second Amendment rights.

Still, as a Benefactor Member of the NRA, I have contacted the NRA-ILA for an explanation of this bill and the article sited here.

If the Second Amendment is important to you, it would not hurt at all to contact your legislators about this matter and express your views regarding it.

It wouldn't hurt to join a Second Amendment rights organization, either.


[edit on 2007/9/23 by GradyPhilpott]

I bet you cases of PTSD will be on the rise! The net just gets tighter and tighter over gun ownership.

Originally posted by NJ Mooch
Stopping a veteran from owning a gun won't add up to the gov't trying to strip away the right to bear arms.

Unless a person was a veteran that was wrongly diagnosed with PTSD (not me just an example)

Originally posted by NJ Mooch
I do not want to have anyone with a disorder owning a gun. There are plenty of other people who can defend this country if it ever gets attacked.

I think the fundamental differance or opinion all goes back to trust of govenment. For them to be able to pick a subjective classification that allows the removal of a right, you must trust that they will not abuse that. Once again I side with history.

I think bravery is part of freedom, we must be brave enough to face the possibility an occasionally ill person might get his hands on a weapon, as scary as that seems, capitualation to authority that has not earned trust is a far worse option. And not trusting authority is a pretty solid Historical lesson.

I suggest massive funding for those suffering from war induced PTSD, and other ailments. Lets get them back on their feet. And lets help our neighbors and friends if we see them suffering. Lets not just look to the one thing that answers the question, what will help me best, and protect me if they lose it.

Dang just got informed by a previous poster who actually validated a post on ATS I will keep my post on a hypothetical ground and be glad I have been set straight on what is happening. I post as I read, someday I will read entire thread then go back and post.

[edit on 23-9-2007 by Redge777]

Oh you gotta be kidding me. My revolt meter just shot up from it's normal 65% to 80%. That's it, they gotta be destroyed. I sadly hope a nuke lands on D.C. It will clear out the house dust, with nuclear fire!

Sorry, can't wrap my head around this one, someone explain the logic.

Send someone out to defend our freedoms, way of life, etc. Let them back, ten take some of those self same freedoms away because now they might be too dangerous, but an alcoholic redneck with more coon dogs and rusting fords in his front yard can get a firearm and now this man can't because he 'might' be a danger to 'someone' 'somewhere'.

So would that mean that anyone who has had PTSD is disallowed form owning a firearm, or just vets? so would this include.. child abuse victims, anyone who went through a horrible breakup/divorce, rape victims, or anyone else who much get this mythical and apparently all debilitating disease?

O si guess, if you have any kind of problems, don't join the army i take it, right?

This subject is where the integration of medical records into a national ID card really becomes scary.

Sri Oracle

reply to post by CoffinFeeder


Yep, and them air rustin' Fords run purty fine over them there hogback ridges where the NWO can't go. And my coon dogs kin find them wussy UN peacekeeper dudes even when they hide in bushes. And my old 30.06 will drive a nail at 150 yards.

But ya'll bring your selves on down to the country with that attitude when the fit hits the shan, and there'll be a passel of rednecks to ask for salvation from the damn gobmint. And 90% of 'em fought is some war, being as edjemacated people don't spill their blue blood for freedom as often as poor rednecks do. But don't worry, we ain't stressed out over wars, we take 'em in stride. Them fancy mental deseases mostly hit city folks what never grew up eatin' wild game and settin' up with opur dead.

'Course, it might hep you survive the NWO iffen you lost that hostile way of using uppity slurs towards folks as don't live in some dang city. 'Cause if there ain't no 911 you kin trust in your big gang run city, and you head fer the hills, you'll be dealing with rednecks. And they been survivin' a long time, with or without your mouthy attitude.

You ponder on the truth of those things while I go to the kitchen fer some poke salad and possum that Maw done fixed. I might even check the still and see ifen another batch of corn squeezin's is ready to bottle. Natcherly, I'll have to sample a wee bit of the product while I'm thar.



[edit on 24-9-2007 by NGC2736]

this only applies to those with ptsd which is an anxiety disorder and serious mental illness.i have panic disorder which is an anxiety disorder as well and its pretty bad.i was delusional, thinking i was going to die for about a year.

reply to post by NGC2736


I'd like to say sorry for offending you, but I'm not. Quite frankly you didn't bother to read the message for its content and instead chose to find a phrase to anger yourself.

Originally posted by rich1411
this only applies to those with ptsd which is an anxiety disorder and serious mental illness.i have panic disorder which is an anxiety disorder as well and its pretty bad.i was delusional, thinking i was going to die for about a year.

I understand the principle, but do you really trust the government to make the decision who is ill and who is not. If I remember correctly currently I have heard the news call the following people crazy. Chavez, the Iranian President, Rosie O'Donald, Charlie Sheen, all 911 truthers, all war protesters, I could probably find more.

And if we are going to remove guns from crazies lets include the guy who shot his friend in the face with a shot gun, and wants to go to war in Iraq. He has a really big weapon, the US Military, and Corporate Mercenary armies. I think his actions dictate insanity. Can I chose who is insane.

And to the guy with the red neck lingo post, nice job, took awhile for me to read through it, but it made me laugh, I imagine all the stock brokers trying to run to the country areas and not getting alot of sympathy. Not that that is good, but it is hilarious, it would reverse the roles a bit for sure.

The NRA has said they hijacked the bill and it will do no harm, it also will help the 90,000 or so vets that have been put on a watch list to get off.

Roper

The article said this happen last week, first I've heard of this and it wasn't funded.

Coburn last week prevented Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY) from fast-tracking a NICS alleged improvements bill out of committee directly to the Senate floor by objecting to the unanimous consent agreement Schumer and others propose.

"The Times wants Coburn to drop his objections," said Snyder. "The gun control advocacy sheet believes 'the gun lobby, and (Coburn's) colleagues, should call Senator Coburn to heel.' Coburn obviously has stung the gun grabbers. Good for him!"

Coburn, however, says the proposal does not fund the process by which veterans, as well as any other American who has been tagged unfairly as having mental health concerns, can regain his or her Second Amendment rights.

www.earthtimes.org...

My Senator BTW.

Roper