• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Chucky Schumer Wants Veterans Guns

frenchman said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you're crazy.
 
I'm not reading it all because I am straight out at work but if they are a danger to society at large they need to be taken out of the general population, if they are okay to be in the GP they are okay enough to own firearms, knives, shovels, hammers, cars etc...
 
there is already a black market for anonymous psych counseling, which pretty much summaries the current state of affairs where patient-doctor means nothing and people with real needs are scared to get help for fear of having their Gd given rights taken away from them. We already have precedents of private companies working with .gov on unwarranted wiretapping, we can assume any counseling info will be made known to various agencies if they "ask".
 
jasons said:
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?
Click to expand...


EXACTLY - with all the new regulations and 2000+ page laws being implemented, it wouldn't take much to stitch them all together and before you know it - NO ONE is allowed to own firearms. None of elected officials would know until it was too late either and they don't read the bills anyway.
 
Can anyone provide any evidence that the VHA is reporting patients to NICS based solely on having a diagnosis for PTSD or any other MH condition, or that such a report would make one a federally prohibited person?

(a sneaky non-sequitur in an infowars article is not evidence)
 
bill o said:
Can anyone provide any evidence that the VHA is reporting patients to NICS based solely on having a diagnosis for PTSD or any other MH condition, or that such a report would make one a federally prohibited person?

(a sneaky non-sequitur in an infowars article is not evidence)
Click to expand...

I can assure you they DO NOT unless the individual expresses an intention to harm themselves or someone else (State Law). The report in made to local authorities not NICS.
 
bill o said:
Can anyone provide any evidence that the VHA is reporting patients to NICS based solely on having a diagnosis for PTSD or any other MH condition, or that such a report would make one a federally prohibited person?

(a sneaky non-sequitur in an infowars article is not evidence)
Click to expand...

I don't think we're quite there yet, but never put it past government to intrude on any privacy that the individual has. All one has to do is use the yardstick of pre/post Patriot Act to realize how far we've come in the last decade.
An outright banning of guns is not in their play book. They realize what a death sentence it would be to them and their cronies. These people are not stupid, and they know how to manipulate the public into calling, in fact begging, for more gun control. They will stop at nothing, and without a doubt will use mental health as a reason. Look up the stats on how many Americans are on anti-depressants or psychotropics. Look how many have sought counseling. Now if you were able to get diagnosed depression (which by their standards 99% of the public has experienced) as an unsuitability issue, well then your halfway home.
 
EddieCoyle said:
I think you're crazy.
Click to expand...
Just being the devil's advocate here, and trying to contribute to this thread in an intelligent manner. If I can argue that way, you bet the antis will do so as well. When they do, shouldn't we have a few good answers to throw out there? Those anti 2nd A guys are usually a breeze to out-argue, but you need soem ground to stand on. In this case, the ice is rather thin, isn't it?
 
frenchman said:
Just being the devil's advocate here, and trying to contribute to this thread in an intelligent manner. If I can argue that way, you bet the antis will do so as well. When they do, shouldn't we have a few good answers to throw out there? Those anti 2nd A guys are usually a breeze to out-argue, but you need soem ground to stand on. In this case, the ice is rather thin, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Thin ice? Are you kidding?

In reality, there is no way to identify those "unsuitable" to own a gun. Even if you had a functioning pre-crime technology that could predict with very high accuracy the likelihood of a future gun crime we would still have a debate. But that's not even close to what is possible. Instead we have a ridiculously flawed concept (identification of future criminals), combined with the abomination of ObamaCare and implemented by government -- thus subject to the abuse, error, and stupidity of all government that has ever existed. So tell us how you plan to trust government to decide who is sane and who is not. Then tell us how denying liberties to those declared mentally unfit is worth the cost to us all. Be sure to include the costs of government error, maliciousness, and corruption. And just for a moment, consider how you would like to be on the wrong side of a government with that power.
 
frenchman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Cause obviously you have never served in a war zone. Not everyone suffering from PTSD is going to go out and kill someone. It is hard ENOUGH for someone that is serving in the military to even accept it and ASK for help because of the stigma that goes with it.
It is a-holes like you and those like you that keep vets from seeking the help they so need. Not only that why should they be punished for protecting your freedoms, and that includes your freedom to say that crap.
I would trust them over you.
 
MrsWildweasel said:
Cause obviously you have never served in a war zone.
Oh, I haven't? I've served in "warzones" a long time before most of the soldiers who come back from Afghanistan were even born.
It is a-holes like you and those like you that keep vets from seeking the help they so need.

Does being a moderator give you the right to call people names? That was uncalled for, and if you want to take the time to re-read the thread, you will see that I am just playing devil's advocate. But, as this is a forum for people living in the Northeast, and we are kinda close together here, just let me know when you would like to call me an a**h*** to my face. Please.

 Not only that why should they be punished for protecting your freedoms, and that includes your freedom to say that crap.
I would trust them over you.
Click to expand...
Got a little temper tantrum here, ey, tough guy?
 
frenchman said:
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.
Click to expand...

FUDD... It's people like you that rot our natural born rights from inside out! Veterans with PTSD are no different than any other person you would otherwise run into in public! You have no idea what a diagnosis of PTSD means either!
 
I believe that PTSD is prevalent in most people in one form or another, whether from actual combat or a very negative experience in life. It's the ones that don't have it I worry about. Stress is part of life, dealing with it in your own way or others that share a common stress factor allows folks to heal and move on.
Folks that live in their sheltered political world would have their own forms of stress to deal with, like trying to figure out what a grocery store is for.
 
We need to stop obsessing about pre-crime. Goddamn people want to be wrapped in safety bubble wrap in their every day lives.
 
frenchman said:
...we do have the law that keeps people with a diagnosed mental health problem to own guns... DIAGNOSED PTSD=indentified mental health issue=loss of the right to own a firearm.
Click to expand...

WRONG.

Pursuant to 18 USC 922(g)(4), one must be "adjudicated as a mental defective or...committed to a mental institution". In either case, to trigger the prohibition, the adjudication or commitment must be effected by a lawful authority (e.g. a court or board), and the individual must be afforded the protections of due process (i.e. adequate notice, opportunity to respond, and a right to counsel).
 
Kevlar said:
WRONG.

Pursuant to 18 USC 922(g)(4), one must be "adjudicated as a mental defective or...committed to a mental institution". In either case, to trigger the prohibition, the adjudication or commitment must be effected by a lawful authority (e.g. a court or board), and the individual must be afforded the protections of due process (i.e. adequate notice, opportunity to respond, and a right to counsel).
Click to expand...

It was that easy. That's all I wanted to know. Thanks.
 
Psychiatry is often a tool of the state to silence or imprison those that it does not like or distrusts. Look at Soviet Russia for examples.
 
A right cannot be lawfully restricted in any manner. To do so makes said instance a privilege, not a right.

I'm against any restriction at all for guns. You should be able to buy a gun like a pack of gum.
 
newenglandjeff said:
Psychiatry is kinda-sorta rooted in medical science. Psychology, however, is given far too much credence these days.
Click to expand...

Sure. It's kinda sorta, but that science is fluid, and can be changed according to need. Just look at all the new "disorders" that spring up miraculously as pharmaceutical companies develop new drugs for them.
 

Similar threads

Over 140 House Democrats Demand Ability to Block Veterans from Purchasing Guns
Replies
1
Views
496
bigbravehog
bigbravehog
Cleaning your guns
2 3
Replies
66
Views
1K
Buck F
Buck F
Migrants can carry guns
Replies
23
Views
699
KBCraig
KBCraig
Incels with guns
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
chris_1001
chris_1001
Neighbor Died widow gave me his guns
2
Replies
59
Views
2K
MisterHappy
MisterHappy
Back
Top Bottom