Petreus and Former Generals Fight NRA Backed Bill

[Whutmeworry]

If you have a stroke, and suffer partial paralysis or vision issues as a result, the DMV will know NOTHING about it. Your license is still valid, all-day every-day, unless someone from that patient's medical staff drops a dime. Often, the only reason the DMV gets a call is because a relative of the patient demands that action be taken because impairment is quite obvious, but common-sense isn't legally mandated. There will be MANY snowbirds/golden-agers who would rather be euthanized than give up their driving privileges due to old age. Shall we have the discussion regarding firearms possession and someone diagnosed as legally blind?

The thing is, common sense CANNOT and SHOULD NOT ever be "mandated" because it is always a matter of one's own opinion. We now live in a world where some people consider it "common sense" to let people unilaterally decide whether they want to use a men's or women's restroom on any given day regardless of what they have between their legs.

As to your question of whether or not we should discuss firearms possession of someone who is legally blind, that should be no different than a discussion of whether or not someone who is blind should operate a motor vehicle, a power tool, a bicycle, a chain saw, etc. Are there laws regulating all of these individual circumstances? Probably not, and even if there are, there probably shouldn't be. Why? BECAUSE "COMMON SENSE" IN THE CONTEXT THAT YOU USE IT IS A EUPHEMISM FOR LOSS OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

I don't want a patient's medical staff "dropping a dime" to the DMV about his/her condition. The DMV has already been delegated waaay too much power by the people, as has the VA. I'm ok with a custodian or family member making that call.

Please consider the below quote from an extremely wise old, dead white guy:

"They who give up essential liberty in exchange for a little bit of safety deserve neither liberty nor safety, and will lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Also not all "Involuntary" commitments are involuntary. In some (Many?) cases of a hospital sending someone to a psych ward/unit/hospital for an eval the person is given a chance to sign in voluntarily for the eval period when they get there thus making it a voluntary commitment and thus not a disqualifier. I saw it personally as an EMT a number of times, but I'm not sure how widespread it is. (This obviously is for people who are not batshit crazy, rather people there for suicidal thoughts, depression or a range of things that still allow them to make somewhat rational choices.)

Also, short term involuntary commitments for an evaluation are not considered disqualifiers by the BATFE.

When someone signs the "voluntary" commitment papers in MA they are agreeing they can be held prisoner for a period of time sufficient for the hospital to petition the court to make it involuntary. The chances of that happening no doubt depend on the insurance status of the individual.

 

[calsdad]

Welfare rats can't handle financial affairs, reproductive responsibilities and raising kids, I can think of a few rights they should have taken away, starting with the right to vote, owning a gun and right to privacy.

If you're still sucking on a teat - then by all the evidence - you are not an adult and not competent to handle your own affairs.

 

[drgrant]

If you're still sucking on a teat - then by all the evidence - you are not an adult and not competent to handle your own affairs.

If you could get the political will to take rights away from welfare recipients you can just as easily have it to get rid of welfare. This is far less offensive, IMHO. I mean if we're going to talk about unicorn fairy tale land stuff, why wouldn't you pick the least offensive option?

-Mike

 

[ISOTOX]

Retired Army Gen. David Petraeus is given any credibility ...Because why? He cheated on his wife, gave secerets to his whore...and thats just what we know about....To me it realy taints any ability to believe him. Anti's can have him.

 

[drgrant]

He's probably getting a reach-around check from Bloomberg or something. Wouldn't surprise me if antis with money are now resorting to astroturf via propositioning people that otherwise wouldn't care, etc. So he's a sellout piece of shit, shitting on the constitution for a payout. Maybe he can go sing Kumbaya with John Mc Crap.

-Mike

 

[CrackPot]

Feels a lot like how the mass police chiefs think of the rank and file...

 

[JAD]

They ask on form 4473 if you have been involuntarily committed. Not all states report, though.

However the term is a lot more specific than a lot of people realize.


Using the example that I referenced in my first post; in Connecticut it is possible for an individual to be involuntarily hospitalized (via PEC) for up to 30 days without a formal commitment. (An individual who is hospitalized via PEC can request a civil commitment hearing at any time- but while (s)he may be involuntarily hospitalized, (s)he would not have been formally committed until so adjudicated by the probate court)

 

[calsdad]

If you could get the political will to take rights away from welfare recipients you can just as easily have it to get rid of welfare. This is far less offensive, IMHO. I mean if we're going to talk about unicorn fairy tale land stuff, why wouldn't you pick the least offensive option?

-Mike

Yes - I agree, there is a political problem.

That political problem however - is driven by a perception problem. There is no way to fix a problem - that nobody will admit IS a problem. Even among a lot of "conservatives" or "right wing" people - if you talk about taking people's rights away because they're on welfare - you're going to get a "you can't do that" response, because they simply won't consider that a person who is receiving welfare and is sucking off the teat - is not a person who is acting like an adult who is competent to handle their own affairs.

Change THAT - and all the other stuff changes easily. That perception however - is the absolutely hardest thing to change.

With the right political will - which comes from having the "correct" perception of something - changing things becomes rather easy after that.

The lefties do this CONSTANTLY. If they didn't - we wouldn't have 50 year old men who wear dresses allowed into women's bathrooms now.

 

[whacko]

Let's suppose the VA knows something about someone suffering from PTSD who is a danger to others, like Chad Littlefield. Should the law protect the VA, and encourage them to 'keep their mouth shut', or pass-along what they know so that folks who shouldn't be able to obtain firearms not get one?

Are you actually saying the Opinion......I'll type it again for emphasis......Opinion......Of a ****ing VA shrink should be enough to strip someone if their right to keep and bear arms??!?! If so......You should delete your account here and go sign up for moms demand action.

 

[whacko]

Retired Army Gen. David Petraeus is given any credibility ...Because why? He cheated on his wife, gave secerets to his whore...and thats just what we know about....To me it realy taints any ability to believe him. Anti's can have him.

The antis can have most retired 4 stars. The majority of them believe guns should stay in the hands of the anointed. That attitude comes with the trade......I'm not saying all generals are elitist statist cock sucking bureaucrats but...,....

 

[timbo]

The VA is a runaway, rogue govt. org. that is uncontrollable. Former CO(Colonel) of mine took a job as CFO of the Manchester,NH VA a few years ago and lasted less than a year. The waste and abuse were unbelievable and when he tried to institute changes he was blocked at every step. Couldn't fire one incompetent employee and they all band together to protect their namby, pamby govt. jobs. Just look at the scandals the last few years and has anyone been fired?

I saw a tee shirt a few weeks ago...

THE VA - GIVING VETERANS A SECOND CHANCE TO DIE FOR THEIR COUNTRY SINCE 1930

 

[Coyote33]

I thought this already happened a few weeks ago with an Executive Order. Is this now a bill also? Or is this just old news coming back up?

 

[firestorm]

I thought this already happened a few weeks ago with an Executive Order. Is this now a bill also? Or is this just old news coming back up?

Hopefully, an executive order can be easily rescinded. Once it becomes law it is much harder and takes much more will to take it away again.

 

[Squire]

The antis can have most retired 4 stars. The majority of them believe guns should stay in the hands of the anointed. That attitude comes with the trade......I'm not saying all generals are elitist statist cock sucking bureaucrats but...,....

Power, once acquired, is very rarely relinquished.

 

[whacko]

Power, once acquired, is very rarely relinquished.

Yup. I'm not at all saying the top brass are all complete asshats. But there is a tendency in these people to not be fans of the 2a. It's just in their "mindset" that they need to have the advantage.

 

[rwl1955]

Yup. I'm not at all saying the top brass are all complete asshats. But there is a tendency in these people to not be fans of the 2a. It's just in their "mindset" that they need to have the advantage.

That's why most military personal are prohibited from being armed on Posts/Bases CONUS. Remember FT.Hood and the Naval Base outside DC where shooters were able to hunt down folks.

 

[whacko]

That's why most military personal are prohibited from being armed on Posts/Bases CONUS. Remember FT.Hood and the Naval Base outside DC where shooters were able to hunt down folks.

That was a presidential decree going back to slick Willey. But yes.....Post commanders have authority on what the regulations are on their base regarding private owned weapons. Very few generals on those positions allow soldiers to even keep private fire arms in their quarters.....they can own them.....But they need to be kept in the company weapon vault.

Only one base I was ever on did the post commander allow you to keep your own fire arm in your quarters...That was camp Joseph Robinson in Little Rock Arkansas.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Post commanders have authority on what the regulations are on their base regarding private owned weapons. Very few generals on those positions allow soldiers to even keep private fire arms in their quarters.....they can own them.....But they need to be kept in the company weapon vault.

No base commander has ever suffered any adverse consequences because soldiers under his/her command were killed because of mandated helplessness while on base.

It would be likely, however, that a soldier who was armed while off duty, or not as a designated MP or VIP, who mis-used a weapon would end the career of the base commander who authorized said individual to be armed.

The career optimizing decision is obvious.

 

[whacko]

No base commander has ever suffered any adverse consequences because soldiers under his/her command were killed because of mandated helplessness while on base.

It would be likely, however, that a soldier who was armed while off duty, or not as a designated MP or VIP, who mis-used a weapon would end the career of the base commander who authorized said individual to be armed.

The career optimizing decision is obvious.

Commanders in the military are responsible for what their Soldiers do on duty and off when on active duty so yes.......most commanders decide cautiously on the rules for privately owned fire arms in Soldiers quarters. And in some cases rightfully so. In the late 1990s.....the 82nd airborne division was so wrought with stupidity, violence, and debauchery among its soldiers the division commander had a standing offer that if the division could go 30 days without a serious incident (by serious he meant murder, rape, drug trafficking arrest etc....) he would offer a 5 day pass to the whole division. 2 years in command and they never earned it. LOL

23 year veteran here.......I'll tell you.....the Military is not all sunshine, roses, and filled with people that are of wonderful character. There are a lot of them that join that are truly the dregs of humanity.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

23 year veteran here.......I'll tell you.....the Military is not all sunshine, roses, and filled with people that are of wonderful character. There are a lot of them that join that are truly the dregs of humanity.

I think that people get so caught up in the "thank you for your service" mindset that they can forget that the military is not a highly select group of individuals who get in by competitive application and testing in which dozens vie for every open enlisted slot. This is certainly true of the service academy career track, but soldier is a job that an average person can attain.

Compare that with the highly selective process it takes to become a police officer in the DPRM ... and even then, there are some individuals that turn out to be problems.

I have a cousin who served as a US Marine with an honorable discharge. But, he comes from a different culture and he is constantly amazed that I have made it to my age without any arrests or overnights in jail ... something that is the norm among the people he hangs with.

 

[drgrant]

Compare that with the highly selective process it takes to become a police officer in the DPRM ... and even then, there are some individuals that turn out to be problems.

I have a cousin who served as a US Marine with an honorable discharge. But, he comes from a different culture and he is constantly amazed that I have made it to my age without any arrests or overnights in jail ... something that is the norm among the people he hangs with.

Well, there is a selective culture if you want to advance in the military beyond a certain point. You have to manage to navigate red tape and BS without throatpunching someone or otherwise getting sick of the procedural BS. Most of the best ex mil guys I know punch out because they are sick of dealing with all the bullshit and dysfunction that the DOD throws their way. It only gets worse every year too, and seems to persist regardless of whoever the president is. This is why a lot of high ranking people, with some exceptions, turn into being douchebags, because you have to basically be/act like a douchebag to get that far.

-Mike

 

[whacko]

Well, there is a selective culture if you want to advance in the military beyond a certain point. You have to manage to navigate red tape and BS without throatpunching someone or otherwise getting sick of the procedural BS. Most of the best ex mil guys I know punch out because they are sick of dealing with all the bullshit and dysfunction that the DOD throws their way. It only gets worse every year too, and seems to persist regardless of whoever the president is. This is why a lot of high ranking people, with some exceptions, turn into being douchebags, because you have to basically be/act like a douchebag to get that far.

-Mike

To advance past major as an officer or past sergeant first class as an enlisted person in the army you are a skilled politician not necessarily a skilled leader.

I've made it to major (12 years enlisted then went to OCS) and I'm about to throw the boots on the wire. The politics astounds me.

 

[Spanz]

i seem to recall that General Petreus was called General Betray-us, was he not? I guess we now know why.

 

[whacko]

i seem to recall that General Petreus was called General Betray-us, was he not? I guess we now know why.

He also did some wierd shit when he was commander of the 101st airborne. He ordered every Soldier under his command to button their BDU top all the way up including the top button. So he would know who his Soldiers were......Apparently the screaming eagle patch on their left shoulder was not enough. He's a whack job.

 

[rwl1955]

He also did some wierd shit when he was commander of the 101st airborne. He ordered every Soldier under his command to button their BDU top all the way up including the top button. So he would know who his Soldiers were......Apparently the screaming eagle patch on their left shoulder was not enough. He's a whack job.

*******
But he was a brilliant soldier who engineered the Surge in Iraq and turned the war around after the bureaucrats screwed it up with their lack of planning for after the invasion.

 

[rwl1955]

No base commander has ever suffered any adverse consequences because soldiers under his/her command were killed because of mandated helplessness while on base.

It would be likely, however, that a soldier who was armed while off duty, or not as a designated MP or VIP, who mis-used a weapon would end the career of the base commander who authorized said individual to be armed.

The career optimizing decision is obvious.

*********
Correct. Letting PVT.Snuffy carry a weapon on Post/Base while not on duty is asking for trouble.

 

[whacko]

*******
But he was a brilliant soldier who engineered the Surge in Iraq and turned the war around after the bureaucrats screwed it up with their lack of planning for after the invasion.

How'd his career end? Hmmm?!?!

As a degraded power hungry womanizing fool that didnt even care about security protocol. It's doesn't matter if you lead a couple laps in the race of life......how did you finish?

And I was actually there during the surge......were you? It was not exactly smooth sailing!

I can't believe Trump even talked to him as far as cabinet positions.

 

[rwl1955]

How'd his career end? Hmmm?!?!

As a degraded power hungry womanizing fool that didnt even care about security protocol. It's doesn't matter if you lead a couple laps in the race of life......how did you finish?

And I was actually there during the surge......were you? It was not exactly smooth sailing!

I can't believe Trump even talked to him as far as cabinet positions.

*******
His "whore" was a LT.COL. with a Top Secret clearance. No I wasn't there, I was stuck CONUS.