Chucky Schumer Wants Veterans Guns

[Infinite Jester]

http://www.infowars.com/sen-schumer...when-he-moved-to-take-firearms-from-veterans/

Have PTSD? (a loose descriptor) No gun for you. Thankfully it's been blocked, for the time being.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Schmuck Schumer wants EVERYONE'S guns, he's just starting where the most hype can be taken advantage of.

I long for the day to read about his death.

 

[Gak44]

Schmuck Schumer wants EVERYONE'S guns, he's just starting where the most hype can be taken advantage of.

I long for the day to read about his death.

Oh God Yes!!! Him, Diane F., and that stinking Bloomie too!!!

 

[ohms]

And those that finaced his campain, will replace him with someone equally dumb.

Politicians support the issues of those with deep pockets.

Think of them as lobbyists.

Schmuck Schumer wants EVERYONE'S guns, he's just starting where the most hype can be taken advantage of.

I long for the day to read about his death.

 

[MichaelJR]

Aids. He needs them.

- - - Updated - - -

Aids. He needs them.

Yes, the post duped, but it was worth emphasizing, so I left it.

 

[GM-GUY]

Big Sis has been after the military, constiutionalists, and tea-party for some time; this is just the next step.

 

[frenchman]

Not that I like ANY anti-gun stance, BUT...
Isn't there a law that prevents people with mental health issues to own a firearm? So, if we really follow the law, a vet with clinically diagnosed PTSD does have mental health issues, right? Doesn't that disqualify him for ownership?
I mean, it takes just one to go nuts and use a legally owned gun in a crime, and then build his defense on his PTSD isues, and voila, we got a mess.
If I have something wrong in my thoughtprocess, then please educate me. I've been wrong before (according to my ex-wife anyway).

 

[rwl1955]

Nothing new. Schmucky will use any opportunity to push his anti-gun agenda.

 

[MichaelJR]

Not that I like ANY anti-gun stance, BUT...
Isn't there a law that prevents people with mental health issues to own a firearm? So, if we really follow the law, a vet with clinically diagnosed PTSD does have mental health issues, right? Doesn't that disqualify him for ownership?
I mean, it takes just one to go nuts and use a legally owned gun in a crime, and then build his defense on his PTSD isues, and voila, we got a mess.
If I have something wrong in my thoughtprocess, then please educate me. I've been wrong before (according to my ex-wife anyway).

I say anyone has the right to self defense. One bad apple shouldn't ruin the whole bunch, that's the problem with knee-jerk reactions. Look at Aurora. Immediately following, calls to ban just about anything mag fed. Will it save lives? No, but it makes them feel good. Have you heard of any mass shootings by Vets? I haven't. So why take them? Obviously there are plenty that came home that aren't the same, they have guns, and miraculously there isn't blood in the streets.

It's not about guns, it's about control man. They want to take them away from vets, because vets took an oath and have the means to uphold that oath. Take away those means, and there's one less thing in the way for total government control. The second amendment is the only thing standing in the way of tyranny. I think every warm blooded American should be packing.

 

[exo]

Not that I like ANY anti-gun stance, BUT...
Isn't there a law that prevents people with mental health issues to own a firearm? So, if we really follow the law, a vet with clinically diagnosed PTSD does have mental health issues, right? Doesn't that disqualify him for ownership?
I mean, it takes just one to go nuts and use a legally owned gun in a crime, and then build his defense on his PTSD isues, and voila, we got a mess.
If I have something wrong in my thoughtprocess, then please educate me. I've been wrong before (according to my ex-wife anyway).

If it saves just one child...

 

[Gidge]

http://www.infowars.com/sen-schumer...when-he-moved-to-take-firearms-from-veterans/

Have PTSD? (a loose descriptor) No gun for you. Thankfully it's been blocked, for the time being.

PTSD = Psychobabble run wild --as most of their vague "catch-all" descriptions tend fall into this category-- Humans are too complex to be pigeonholed into distinct categories. Psychology is junk science anyway, IMO.

Do people suffer from what the psychobabble community call "PTSD" ? Yes.
Should you have your rights permanently denied because of this (or any) rough patch in your life ? NO.

 

[Tyke]

Wtf. Why single out vets? Why not Joey the I went to an anger management class once guy?

It is a right for all vet or not and what he is trying for is bullshit.

 

[rwl1955]

Wtf. Why single out vets? Why not Joey the I went to an anger management class once guy?

It is a right for all vet or not and what he is trying for is bullshit.

******
Because he can insert it into a bill and hopefully we won't find out about until it`s to late.

 

[frenchman]

Don't misunderstand me, guys, I'm all for vets having guns. But we do have the law that keeps people with a diagnosed mental health problem to own guns. Now, I think they can't have it both ways, be sick from PTSD, enough to claim benefits, based on a mental health issue, but want to ignore same issue when it comes to the right to own firearms. I did not write the law, but that's a point that nobody did adress. I get the fact that it is about control, but as a matter of fact, the antis have a point here, don't they? I want to be convinced. I wish you guys can prove my point wrong through founded arguments. I really do. Maybe there's something I don't see. As of now, it still looks to me that DIAGNOSED PTSD=indentified mental health issue=loss of the right to own a firearm.
Keep educating me.

 

[bill o]

Don't misunderstand me, guys, I'm all for vets having guns. But we do have the law that keeps people with a diagnosed mental health problem to own guns. Now, I think they can't have it both ways, be sick from PTSD, enough to claim benefits, based on a mental health issue, but want to ignore same issue when it comes to the right to own firearms. I did not write the law, but that's a point that nobody did adress. I get the fact that it is about control, but as a matter of fact, the antis have a point here, don't they? I want to be convinced. I wish you guys can prove my point wrong through founded arguments. I really do. Maybe there's something I don't see. As of now, it still looks to me that DIAGNOSED PTSD=indentified mental health issue=loss of the right to own a firearm.
Keep educating me.

Here's a guide to identifying federally prohibited persons.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/identify-prohibited-persons.html

Where do you see a diagnosis for mental illness as a criterion?

 

[FrugalFannie]

PTSD covers a BROAD spectrum of issues. Someone who suffers from PTSD does not necessarily have suicidal or homicidal thoughts. I have friends who have PTSD from serving and they can barely leave their house but they pose no threat to themselves or anyone else. To throw a blanket over a 'class' of people and deny them a right because they fall into a specific group is unconstitional IMHO. If we denied everyone with AIDS their 2A rights we would be excoriated for our bias. How about we deny cancer patients their 2A rights? Afterall, most cancer patients suffer depression right? After all, it's FOR YOUR SAFETY. NOT! It's all about control. Them controlling us.

 

[bill o]

PTSD covers a BROAD spectrum of issues. Someone who suffers from PTSD does not necessarily have suicidal or homicidal thoughts. I have friends who have PTSD from serving and they can barely leave their house but they pose no threat to themselves or anyone else. To throw a blanket over a 'class' of people and deny them a right because they fall into a specific group is unconstitional IMHO. If we denied everyone with AIDS their 2A rights we would be excoriated for our bias. How about we deny cancer patients their 2A rights? Afterall, most cancer patients suffer depression right? After all, it's FOR YOUR SAFETY. NOT! It's all about control. Them controlling us.

The VA is reporting people deemed mentally defective (who need a guardian to manage their finances). They are not reporting all patients with PTSD, or any other MH/SA diagnosis.

 

[Infinite Jester]

The worst thing to happen would be someone with a legitimate need for help not seeking that help because they might be classified and then deemed ineligible to own guns.

 

[Gidge]

Wtf. Why single out vets?

Because vets best know how to use their weapons and therefore pose the highest threat to TPTB.

 

[calsdad]

If it saves just one child...

Not trying to turn this into an "A" thread - but the first question somebody who uses that excuse should be asked is:

"What is your stance on a woman's right to choose"

When they answer that they are for it.

Then you can tell them with a clear concsience that they are full of shit.

 

[squatch413]

I say anyone has the right to self defense. One bad apple shouldn't ruin the whole bunch, that's the problem with knee-jerk reactions. Look at Aurora. Immediately following, calls to ban just about anything mag fed. Will it save lives? No, but it makes them feel good. Have you heard of any mass shootings by Vets? I haven't. So why take them? Obviously there are plenty that came home that aren't the same, they have guns, and miraculously there isn't blood in the streets.

It's not about guns, it's about control man. They want to take them away from vets, because vets took an oath and have the means to uphold that oath. Take away those means, and there's one less thing in the way for total government control. The second amendment is the only thing standing in the way of tyranny. I think every warm blooded American should be packing.

Couldn't think of anything to add to this well said statement. I completely agree. It is all about control.

 

[jasons]

http://www.infowars.com/sen-schumer...when-he-moved-to-take-firearms-from-veterans/

Have PTSD? (a loose descriptor) No gun for you. Thankfully it's been blocked, for the time being.

Sounds like he's been hanging out with the dickfaces over at the Wounded Warrior Project.

 

[drgrant]

Don't misunderstand me, guys, I'm all for vets having guns. But we do have the law that keeps people with a diagnosed mental health problem to own guns. Now, I think they can't have it both ways, be sick from PTSD, enough to claim benefits, based on a mental health issue, but want to ignore same issue when it comes to the right to own firearms. I did not write the law, but that's a point that nobody did adress. I get the fact that it is about control, but as a matter of fact, the antis have a point here, don't they? I want to be convinced. I wish you guys can prove my point wrong through founded arguments. I really do. Maybe there's something I don't see. As of now, it still looks to me that DIAGNOSED PTSD=indentified mental health issue=loss of the right to own a firearm.
Keep educating me.

You don't see the big obvious problem.

The problem with this bullshit is what you are talking about effectively will make it so that vets who know they have PTSD from seeking treatment, just so they WONT lose their rights.

A vet who cant get help for his or her problems because of ****ed up laws is a FAR bigger travesty than the improbability that the same vet can buy a gun freely and "possibly maybe" do something bad with it.

The problem with most government solutions- trying to fix one problem with a government solution often creates a FAR bigger problem.

There's also bad precedent here- yet another thing that causes a state sponsored breach of doctor-patient confidentiality. That is supposed to be relatively sacred.

-Mike

 

[Neverknowsbest]

I think its a moot point. Any way you look at it to get that information reported to anybody would be a rather large HIPPA violation.

 

[Tyke]

You don't see the big obvious problem.

The problem with this bullshit is what you are talking about effectively will make it so that vets who know they have PTSD from seeking treatment, just so they WONT lose their rights.

A vet who cant get help for his or her problems because of ****ed up laws is a FAR bigger travesty than the improbability that the same vet can buy a gun freely and "possibly maybe" do something bad with it.

The problem with most government solutions- trying to fix one problem with a government solution often creates a FAR bigger problem.

There's also bad precedent here- yet another thing that causes a state sponsored breach of doctor-patient confidentiality. That is supposed to be relatively sacred.

-Mike

But would that not also apply to non veterans, I.e. prevent crazies from getting help? If true why should diagnosed cases of PTSD get a pass if that is truly the law with regard to diagnosed mental illnesses?

 

[MichaelJR]

I think its a moot point. Any way you look at it to get that information reported to anybody would be a rather large HIPPA violation.

Wait until the M.M. issue comes up over 2A and the right to bear arms. How much do you want to bet our little chiefs association gets their hands on the "list" of medicinal users, and immediately throws them on the unsuitable list?

Hippa doesn't mean sh*t to these people. They have channels, and they won't publicly call for it, but they will find a way to quietly revoke licenses, much like they will here in MA when 2A comes face to face with the medicinal MJ laws.

 

[drgrant]

But would that not also apply to non veterans, I.e. prevent crazies from getting help? If true why should diagnosed cases of PTSD get a pass if that is truly the law with regard to diagnosed mental illnesses?

I'm not saying they should get a pass- Rather that all ****ing stupid laws like this are inherently bad because of the problems like this that they WILL cause.

The only difference between vets and joe average here is that veterans are more likely to encounter the shit end of the stick regarding this.

-Mike

- - - Updated - - -

I think its a moot point. Any way you look at it to get that information reported to anybody would be a rather large HIPPA violation.

The problem is we already have lots of shit on the books that pokes holes in HIPPA. For example if a woman tells someone classified as a mandatory reporter that she is physically abused at home, privacy has now gone out the window, by law.

-Mike

 

[economist]

Why should government be handing out rights based on its perception of an individual's mental state? Has anyone even read 1984? It's pathetic that this needs to be said, particularly here, but here we go: Natural rights are not to be restricted to people who meet arbitrary psychological guidelines assigned by the state. This ridiculous attempt to achieve safety can result in nothing more than all of us proving we are not crazy. Government lists, subjective mental evaluation, and subsequent doling out of liberties is a disgrace. And the republicans think getting courts involved is an improvement? The veterans issue is irrelevant. Rights don't belong to a special class nor should any class be denied. This is about liberty and the role of government. Nobody should be willing to trade anything for the alleged benefits of allowing government to subjectively diagnose our mental state and to label us unsuitable as free men.

 

[jasons]

According to DHS I'm crazy because I keep a lot of extra food in the pantry and prefer to deal in cash whenever possible. Pass the law, what could go wrong?

 

[Admin]

Why should government be handing out rights based on its perception of an individual's mental state? Has anyone even read 1984? It's pathetic that this needs to be said, particularly here, but here we go: Natural rights are not to be restricted to people who meet arbitrary psychological guidelines assigned by the state. This ridiculous attempt to achieve safety can result in nothing more than all of us proving we are not crazy. Government lists, subjective mental evaluation, and subsequent doling out of liberties is a disgrace. And the republicans think getting courts involved is an improvement? The veterans issue is irrelevant. Rights don't belong to a special class nor should any class be denied. This is about liberty and the role of government. Nobody should be willing to trade anything for the alleged benefits of allowing government to subjectively diagnose our mental state and to label us unsuitable as free men.

QFTMFT