All Veterans need to Read This Now!!!!

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
The mentally unstable/ill should not own fire arms.

~Tenth

Im not American and I find gun culture childish

BUT

I find that comment of yours disturbing.

If firearms are legal and you have not committed any crime one should not be barred from ownership.

As someone who suffered from depression the last thing I would want is to be treated like a criminal and thrown on the social slag heap.

One thing to add. . .

This isn't guns, but a good example of what may happen in the future to guns and ownership.

Where I live, if you see someone driving erratically, you can anonymously call in their license plate number to the DMV. The person will receive a letter in the mail requiring them to come to the DMV in person for a road exam (the driving test). If the person fails to appear, their license will be revoked. This is all in the letter the DMV sends. You'd be surprised how many people fail to show up and re-test and are driving around without a valid license. If you get caught, that's a criminal conviction (on your record) and court/jail/lawyer fees.

So, anyone really can call in anyone else and "snitch" on them if they want to make their life hell with the DMV. Don't like someone? Call in their plate number and force them to have to submit to a road exam again or face a license revocation.

The same thing could happen with firearms. Don't like someone? Call them in for being mentally questionable and owning a firearm. If they don't show up for a mental health screening, their right to owning guns gets revoked. If they're caught with weapons, it would be a jail-able offense.

a reply to: StoutBroux
HIPPA only counts if they want it to.
The Feds do whatever the hell they want.
We can't stop them.

a reply to: crazyewok

If firearms are legal and you have not committed any crime one should not be barred from owns ship.

Owning a car is legal, but we don't let the blind drive them do we?

Or people who are mentally incapable of being responsible for that sort of thing?

Why is it so much to ask, that the same rules apply to things like fire arms?

As someone who suffered from depression the last thing I would want is to be treated like a criminal

I've also suffered from depression, and I would not take your guns away, nor think it was appropriate if somebody else did ,for depression.

Now if you have BPD, or are bipolar, or any number of other mental illnesses that can and usually do lead to eratic behavior, then no, you should not be allowed to own something that can kill somebody from 100 yards away with the push of a trigger.

The same way we don't allow those people to drive mostly. Because putting them behind the wheel of a 2 ton death trap is a bad idea.

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Now if you have BPD, or are bipolar, or any number of other mental illnesses that can and usually do lead to eratic behavior, then no, you should not be allowed to own something that can kill somebody from 100 yards away with the push of a trigger.

Should this also apply to alcoholics, domestic violence, prescription drug abuse? Because....

originally posted by: Imightknow
a reply to: tothetenthpower

I agree with you to an extent; severely mentally disabled people, veterans or not, should not own guns. The problem is, who makes that call?

Just because someone is depressed does that mean they shouldn't own firearms? That's unrealistic because most people go through bouts of depression.

Who makes that call? A medical professional.

There is a rather large difference between "depressed" and "mentally incompetent" or "mentally deficient." The latter two encompass things schizophrenia, psychotic episodes, retardation, delusions, and so on. Depression doesn't necessarily include those things.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

But at that point we are talking about someone who should be under heavy medical supervision.

Maybe things of danger should be removed at that point but only until get the condition under control.

first step to me should be increasing mental health support for vets.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

They let ALL KINDS of people drive with mental health issues Tenth...

People that hear voices, see things, bipolar -- all these people can drive cars. There isn't anything on any of the forms you fill out asking about mental health or requiring a doctor's note to get a license. There are medical conditions, like you mentioned (being blind, epilepsy) that do, however prevent people from driving.

Theoretically, any of these mentally unstable people have access to a 2 ton killing machine on a daily basis.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Now if you have BPD, or are bipolar, or any number of other mental illnesses that can and usually do lead to eratic behavior, then no, you should not be allowed to own something that can kill somebody from 100 yards away with the push of a trigger.

Should this also apply to alcoholics? Because....

Not just alcoholics....
Anyone capable of drinking alcohol.
Because... erratic behavior.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Imightknow

I see where your coming from, having your rights taken away from you because your a little depressed, isn't cool.

But............ it should be understood, as mysticmushroom pointed out, that you surrender yourself to higher standards once you sign those papers to join the military. Or any other government job, for that matter.

Proving once again that no good deed goes unpunished.

To add something that many people don't know. The VA prides themselves on total patient care. Which means a psychiatric evaluation is part of the whole package?

Wonder what happens after a salty old vet has been sitting around in his wheelchair for a couple of hours, his medications got screwed up, his appointment rescheduled without warning, and now he is told he is expected in the mental health clinic in 10 minutes.

Wish I could say this is just a suppose, but I have seen this and worse.

I have to be honest. I used to believe in the VA. They saved my life twice. I couldn't have had better doctors and my assigned mental health doctor, you get checked once a year, was stellar. I trusted him implicitly. I went through two rotations of doctors. I had no complaints with either. This last rotation, there are few adjectives I could use in polite company that adequately describes how awful they are. I don't trust one as far as I could throw them.

I keep thinking, it probably is very good plan they have in motion, because I only go to the VA now, if I have no other choice. Might also explain why you see so many vets in your local hospital emergency rooms. EMTLA at its finest.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Getting VA medical care should not cause one to lose the HIPPA rights. It's a federal law and applies to everyone. Also, the problem is if PTSD is declared mentally unstable, that's a problem.

for data from October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2014. During this time, 378,300 OEF/OIF/OND Veterans were seen for potential PTSD at VA facilities following their return from these overseas deployments. - See more at: www.publichealth.va.gov...

a reply to: crazyewok

But at that point we are talking about someone who should be under heavy medical supervision.

Right, and do you thionk those people should own firearms?

I'm Canadian, I also think gun culture is childish (sorry folks) so I don't' see the real reason to have them at all.

(I'm lying, I have my reasons, but I don't wanna argue about it.)

Maybe things of danger should be removed at that point but only until get the condition under control.

Tough call I suppose. Some mental illness is controllable, but not curable. I have a very close friend, who although is relatively stable, has bouts of manic behavior every couple of years and he ends up in danger a lot of the time because of it.

If he had access to firearms, he would probably be dead. That's allegorical though and doesn't do a lot to make the point I'm trying to make but you see what I mean.

first step to me should be increasing mental health support for vets.

Give them ALL the support. Poor vets are treated like Chattel. And I'm not even a huge military supporter, but I'll be damned if I don't support you getting good healthcare for having risked your life in some oligarch's war.

~Tenth

Here's where things get tricky...

There is a question on the required form for firearm purchases that asks:
"Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?"
A yes answer to this question results in an immediate denial of sale.

So let's say a person hits a bump in the road of life and is majorly depressed. They go see a shrink and the shrink determines that they are a danger to themselves AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME and the doctor hands over that information to the FBI.

Years later, after that person has fully recovered from their depression and they are no longer a danger to anyone, they go to buy a gun but they can't.

Does that seem logical?

There would obviously have to be a system in place to determine that the person is no longer a danger to anyone. How exactly would that work? How would the doctors know if the person isn't simply lying so they can buy a gun? How do they know the person won't regress immediately?

There is also nothing stopping a mentally defective person from buying a gun from a private individual. One side of me says "yes, shootings are a mental health problem and we need to do something about it" but the rational side asks "how the hell would that actually work?"

Moral of the story: the vast majority of gun laws rarely make any logical sense and they're nothing but feel-good measures to make life difficult for law-abiding citizens.

One thing seems clear so far about the debate regarding mental health and what constitutes "severe" enough to warrant having firearms taken away, and that is it is still a very grey area.

Until it can become more black and white, which may be never, the VA/FBI really needs to be careful about whom they decide is too unstable to own firearms.

A person can be completely stable if they take their meds the way they are supposed to, then be completely unstable if they decide to stop taking them. This is especially evident in people with Bipolar 1 disorder. From my experience a BP1 person almost has to be treated like a child to make sure their meds are taken everyday, because for some reason if no one is monitoring their meds being taken then they usually "like" to take themselves off of it. It's as if subconsciously they enjoy the "manic" episodes.

Should firearms be taken away from anyone, regardless of their condition, who can show stability when on their meds?

originally posted by: Answer
Here's where things get tricky...


So let's say a person hits a bump in the road of life and is majorly depressed. They go see a shrink and the shrink determines that they are a danger to themselves AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME and the doctor hands over that information to the FBI.

Years later, after that person has fully recovered from their depression and they are no longer a danger to anyone, they go to buy a gun but they can't.

Does that seem logical?

Nope, sure doesn't. But with the govy what is logical these days?



Moral of the story: the vast majority of gun laws rarely make any logical sense and they're nothing but feel-good measures to make life difficult for law-abiding citizens.

Sad but true

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.

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.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: crazyewok

But at that point we are talking about someone who should be under heavy medical supervision.

Right, and do you thionk those people should own firearms?

I'm Canadian, I also think gun culture is childish (sorry folks) so I don't' see the real reason to have them at all.

(I'm lying, I have my reasons, but I don't wanna argue about it.)

Maybe things of danger should be removed at that point but only until get the condition under control.

Tough call I suppose. Some mental illness is controllable, but not curable. I have a very close friend, who although is relatively stable, has bouts of manic behavior every couple of years and he ends up in danger a lot of the time because of it.

If he had access to firearms, he would probably be dead. That's allegorical though and doesn't do a lot to make the point I'm trying to make but you see what I mean.

first step to me should be increasing mental health support for vets.

Give them ALL the support. Poor vets are treated like Chattel. And I'm not even a huge military supporter, but I'll be damned if I don't support you getting good healthcare for having risked your life in some oligarch's war.

~Tenth

This attitude, that I fought for some "oligarch's" war is insulting.

We swear an oath to the Constitution. I was in for 18 years. I never met anyone who didn't take that oath seriously. Deathly serious. We have an obligation/duty to refuse any order we feel goes against our oath. Never met any officer or NCO who wouldn't say F u if some "oligarch" tried to make us do something we knew was counter the Constitution.

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.

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.