I think there are pros and cons to having vetarans full stop in power.
Yes, military experience can be a valuable tool when dealing with defence issues, then again there can be benefits to not being all "gung ho" and
wading into every conflict going. Some vets are so set in thier ways, they won't be swayed by "civillian input".
Then again, Bush dodged his service didn't he?....look at how he's acted since he got in
As far as McCain is concerned, it would be interesting to find out whether or not he had any kind of treatment after his time as a POW?
If so, would this constitute the same kind of treatment for a mental disorder that we are discussing here? If it does, should he be allowed to run for
president at all?
Combat related PTSD has such a broad spectrum, with symptoms ranging from the very mild to very severe. Like someone here has said, a stay in a POW
camp could harbour some resentment for some people?
Then again, you could apply that theory to anything on the political agenda. A presidential candidate could have had a run in with the cops in the
past, this could mean he could make things difficult for cops if he got into power.
If McCain did receive treatment as a POW survivor, theres a good chance it could have been PTSD related. So he may be fine now, and able to run for
president, but does that mean that vets who recover from PTSD can reapply for a gun?
I doubt it, but you know what i'm getting at.
I'd like to see how they decided that vets with PTSD could'nt own firearms. Is there a criteria of symptoms that you have to display before getting
the ban, or is the label of "PTSD sufferer" a blanket statement for a ban?
The reason i ask is because some of the symptons of PTSD can include depression, anxiety, hyperviligance and a whole range of other symptoms. However,
i know civillians with no link to the forces whatsoever with these same sypmtoms. Does that mean they'd be banned from owning a gun too?
Before you know it, the gun ban will aply to everyone who has ever had an anti-depressant from the doctor.
Don't get me wrong, i CAN understand why some vets with PTSD should not be allowed a gun, but not every sufferer is the same.
I also know PTSD sufferers that i'd trust more with a gun than half the legal gun owners, law enforcement and military personnel. Many would love to
participate in sports involving firearms, and thier PTSD does not hinder this, however they are now restricted.
Anyone find it funny that they are banning vets with PTSD from owning guns, yet they are giving soldiers PTSD counselling and sending them back into
combat!!! Thats not my opinion, i was told that by a guy who is head of "Combat Stress - Ex-Servicemans Mental Welfare Service" here in the UK.
Thats right, use the vets whilst there are wars to be fought, no matter how screwed up they end up.......then crap on them from a great height once
they are out!
Edit to add: IMO, when you look at the way they are taking away the rights of the people of the US, i think the gun ban for vets is just a way of
making sure that the people who know how to use a gun to it's best ability, have'nt got one when the SHTF.
Martial law will be easy if the people who know how to use a firearm.....haven't got one.
[edit on 20/4/08 by CX]