Veterans Disarnament Act to bar Vets from owning guns

reply to post by apc


I heard you and criminals still will get their guns with congress or not congress to commit crimes.

This is nothing more than targeting the military returning home.

I think Churchill said it best...

"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war."

May God have mercy on our souls.

Technically, can't anyone who regrets something they have done be diagnosed with PTSD?

I stood by a friend as he died in hospital. He died because he was targeted for being gay back in high school. He was beaten up, and his spleen ruptured during the beating.

Technically now, I have PTSD. Sure, I was in a total rage after that. It was a good thing these guys were removed from the area, I would have killed them on sight... but thats a natural response is it not?

Today, I still remember him. But it's not like it keeps me awake at night. Though, technically I still suffer from PTSD. Go figure.

I'm totally safe. Never handled a weapon in anger in my life, and if I were down in the states, I wouldn't be permitted to handle one ever?

Doesn't make much sense.


The way I see it. Those who have suffered trauma while holding a weapon are about the only people you can trust to respect that weapons abilities.

Okay, you know what, I am sick and tired of false titling of threads.

The title says that the act will ban all veterans from owning guns; however the article states that only veterans with post traumatic stress disorder will be effected by the ban.

I'm sick of people mis-titling their threads just to get more attention.

Regardless, if someone has such a disorder that they could be dangerous, perhaps it is for the best.

I think that Bush has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from his horrendous days in the National Guard during Vietnam. This means that we can take ALL of his guns away from him. Thus, we can officially end the war in Iraq as he will no longer be able to send in armed troops.   Woooo Hoooo!!!

Other than that, it is a misguided attempt at preventing gun crimes.  Foolish.

No worries. It wont pass.

Originally posted by DREAMING MAN
I think Churchill said it best...

"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war."

May God have mercy on our souls.

Shakespeare.

Owning a gun is not a right.

It is a priviledge.

You are a citizen - not included in the constitution.

Second Ammendent:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You are not "the people"

legal definition of "people" is "the state"

14th Ammendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside ...

You are a "person" and a "citizen"

Feel free to look up the legal definitions.

The 2nd Ammendment only applies to people (the state)

Sorry.

Wake up.

reply to post by benign.psychosis


That has to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. "We the People" are just that, the people, not the state. The state is an entity formed by the people to administer to their collective needs.

You have to stop getting your word definitions from Orwell's "1984."

Actualy he may be on to something. There is a solid difference between the word "person", and "human being" in the context of The Constitution.

As I dont want to go off topic here... Ill leave with you a link that might be in relation to what hes saying.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


What I dont understand is why it has to be a Vet with PTSD who cant own a firearm. Whether or not he/she is a Vet is moot. No one with this disorder should be in ownership of a fierarm. Seems simple to me. Maybe im missing something.


Removed a link I thought was related.
[edit on 9/22/2007 by xout1]

[edit on 9/22/2007 by xout1]

[edit on 9/23/2007 by xout1]

reply to post by Icarus Rising


If that is true, then why is the right to bear arms infringed? the second ammendment expressly states that the right shall not be infringed.

Why don't you take your lazy self down to the public library, grab a law dictionary and actually look up the terms for yourself.

Stop getting your definitions from popular culture.






[edit on 23-9-2007 by benign.psychosis]

For 218 years the 2nd Amendment has protected the right of individual citizens of the USA to own guns. Now you are trying to tell me that is not what it means and only the state can own guns.

Completely ridiculous.

On topic, I agree that this proposed law is probably designed to discourage veterans who want to keep their guns from filing PTSD claims. There have been several measures undertaken recently to limit government liability for returning soldiers with PTSD.

Here's the latest. Of course it is touted as a way to help the soldiers if they suffer a brain injury.

It's all part of a fledgling Army program that records how soldiers' brains work when healthy, giving doctors base-line data to help diagnose and treat the soldiers if they suffer a traumatic brain injury – the signature injury of the Iraq war.

“We don't want to wait until the soldier is getting out of the Army to say, 'But I've had these symptoms,' ” said Lt. Col. Mark McGrail, division surgeon for the 101st.

Army tests brains of deploying soldiers

Ive done a 10 page research paper on guns rights. I've read up on the arguements. The arguement that the second amendment doesn't refer to the citizens is utter BS. It was an idea schemed up by some modern day ultra liberal anti gun politicians in a move to take guns out of the hands of citizens. It is disgusting, and should not even be taken seriously.

If I have to go get my sources again, I will gladly, since it shouldn't be much works as I have done it once before already.

I was of 2 thoughts before I did a little research.

1- PTSD could lead a military trained individual the access to weapons that could hurt or kill someone if the affliction became too intense.

2- Might be a good way to remove weapons from people that could actually use them if Martial Law ever came into effect. See what you guys have done to me? You've made me a CT'er.

Now, the research, outside of the US btw

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder:

Difficult situations are part of life. We all must cope with tough circumstances, such as bereavement or conflict in our personal and professional relationships, and learn to move on. But sometimes people experience an event which is so unexpected and so shattering that it continues to have a serious effect on them, long after any physical danger involved has passed. Individuals with this kind of experience may suffer flashbacks and nightmares, in which they re-live the situation that caused them intense fear and horror. They may become emotionally numb. When this condition persists for over a month, it is diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is one of several conditions known as an anxiety disorder. This kind of medical disorder affects approximately 1 in 10 people. They are among the most common of mental health problems. Children and adults can develop PTSD. The disorder can become so severe that that the individual finds it difficult to lead a normal life. Fortunately, treatments exist to help people with PTSD bring their lives back into balance.

What causes it?

PTSD is caused by a psychologically traumatic event involving actual or threatened death or serious injury to oneself or others. Such triggering events are called 'stressors'; they may be experienced alone or while in a large group.

Violent personal assault, such as rape or mugging, car or plane accidents, military combat, industrial accidents and natural disasters, such as earthquakes and hurricanes, are stressors which have caused people to suffer from PTSD. In some cases, seeing another person harmed or killed, or learning that a close friend or family member is in serious danger has caused the disorder.

Damn, there is a lot of "may" in there. Also there are a lot of different aspects of what causes PTSD. Are they considering restricting weapons from rape victims? Nope. I'm starting to lean towards #2 here.

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
Feel free to look up the legal definitions.

The 2nd Ammendment only applies to people (the state)

Sorry.

Wake up.

Legal definitions?

Stop spreading ignorance.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the militia is EVERONE (basically) who is fit to fight. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd applies to all adults and to any weapon of military usefulness.

Hope that is enough for you. The only higher authority on this issue is a man with a riffle, so you should probably take the Supreme Court’s opinion on this on, it’s better for your health.

So you can take your "legal definition" and ... well I think you know what you can do with it.

Sorry.

Wake up.

reply to post by jprophet420

Sort of, The Militia is every male citizen of able body. 17-45

As far as criminals are concerned, If they violate the individual rights of another they must be punished accordingly.

Criminals who are felons, but who haven't violated individual rights or committed treason however should still be aloud to poses weapons after time served.

reply to post by Icarus Rising


That's not what I'm telling you.

Individual citizens are only privileged or authorized to own guns - authorized by the state. Individuals do not have the right.

hence the infringement: vets with psd may no longer have the right to bear arms, along with certain criminals, and many other 'groups' of people.

Is that infringing on someones right to bear arms? Yes.

Is the second ammendment protecting the rights of those people? No.

Again, the second ammendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

...right of the people... shall not be infringed.

I know it takes just a little bit of critical thinking to come to terms with Perhaps you can manage.

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
If that is true, then why is the right to bear arms infringed? the second ammendment expressly states that the right shall not be infringed.

Because gun owners aren’t sure that it is bad enough to kill over yet. Gun owners in general tend to be a little more rational about such things.

Why don't you take your lazy self down to the public library, grab a law dictionary and actually look up the terms for yourself.

Why don’t take your lazy self over to google and research the S.C.s rulings on this.

Stop getting your definitions from popular culture.

Stop getting your definitions from Brady; he has a hole in his head.








[edit on 23-9-2007 by cavscout]

If I might add here, when you make a cogent post and then fill it with vitriolic invective it sure takes the importance out of your post.

Holy crap first off the clintonesque argument about who "the people" refers to in the constitution... All I have to say is ... do you enjoy the idea of being ground under a bootheel ? REally all that keeps that from happening is people with the presence of mind to stay forever armed and vigilant.

Second... As one posters signature says "never ask a barber if you need a haircut" Warren Buffett said that... considering he made a few billion I think I might take some advice from the dude. Now how this relates..

There has been a mental illness clause to the gun ownership thing for a long time now, HOWEVER this legislation staggeringly broadens who can decide you shouldn't be able to own a weapon including psychiatrists... (I have never once met a mental health professional, Sorry gagging on the taste of those three words strung together, who did not believe they were the only people sane enough to make any decision more complicated than what to have for breakfast) With the law as it currently sits a JUDGE has to find you unfit after he has been petitioned.

This is being introduced solelly as a way to introduce a precedent that allows them to "medically disqualify" anyone in the population they choose from being able to own guns. Without having to do any of those pesky things like JUSTIFYING their reasoning.

And for those that did not finish the article yes there would be a supposed way to get this ruling expunged.... BUT notice the But?

IT's a HUGE BUTT our good rep shumer ten years ago orchestrated a funding pull a DECADE AGO that means NCIC is NOT REVIEWING ANY EXPUNGEMENT REQUESTS. Bet they don't tell people that part voluntarilly.
So in reality this is in fact a non reversible decision that can be made by anyone with access to your medical records and a psycho quack willing to rubberstamp the paper that seals your RIGHT to own guns away permanently.

And finally I would like to point out that owning guns is NOT A PRIVILEGE. It is in fact A RIGHT!! And one we desperatelly need to enjoy any sort of parity with the more rapacious elements within our society and otherwise.

[edit on 23-9-2007 by roguetechie]

Originally posted by cavscout

Legal definitions?

Stop spreading ignorance.

The popular use of legal terms is so loose, so many words have technical legal meanings different from those which they bear in ordinary speech, and intelligent understanding of the cases and of law books depends so much upon a clear grasp of the terms used, that the beginner cannot be too assiduous in pulling down his law dictionary whenever he has the slightest reason to suspect that a word he meets in his reading may have a technical legal meaning . . .

. . . He should from the very beginning exert himself to be sure
that he knows the exact meaning of the terms he uses, and strive to avoid slovenly usages and popular misuses when he is writing or speaking to judges or lawyers, or in professional connections.

Roscoe Pound
Dean of Harvard University Law School

I'll just leave it at that.