Prelude to Veteran Disarmament?

[BobCav]

imported post

Andthe disarmament of Veterans - True Americanscontinues...

I would watch this very, very carefully...



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080418/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/troops_mental_health

Nearly 1 in 5 troops has mental problems after war service


By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer


"WASHINGTON - Roughly one in every five U.S. troops who have survived the bombs and other dangers of Iraq and Afghanistan now suffers from major depression or post-traumatic stress, an independent study said Thursday. It estimated the toll at 300,000 or more..."

 

[imperialism2024]

imported post

Are you disputing the disarmament of anyone considered "mentally ill" due to spurious reasons, or are you disputing the claim that a fair number of veterans have mental health issues?

 

[ComSec]

imported post

and felony convictions for stupid things is out of hand aswell but they could never take our guns ........ there just making us all criminals so they can disarm the majority

 

[BobCav]

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

Are you disputing the disarmament of anyone considered "mentally ill" due to spurious reasons, or are you disputing the claim that a fair number of veterans have mental health issues?

Nope, neither. I do believe there areserious mental conditionsthat should disqualify some from posessing guns only with due process(and therefore qualify FOR Police protection). And I know for a fact that many vets do have mental health issues. I was one of them. My marriage sucked and life was hell and I was depressed and sought help. Not ordered to, but voluntarily. It was a situational thing and my life is more spectacular than ever imagined now.

But I worry thatthis will be used as a springboard by thoseanti's who insist that once a vet is disarmed for mental health reasons... they're permanently disarmed.

 

[mmdkyoung123]

imported post

WOW,

So the other day when I punished my 5 year old son, for throwing a baseball through the window, (after telling him not to throw it at the house) it was really just the traumatic stress that I had from time served in the military, and know that we know that, I MUST be mentally unstable, (despite the counciling) and therefore, ALL of my guns should be taken away, and I should be carted off to a "nice white room with lots fo padding" so I don't hurt someone else.

Soldiers in every branch experience things outside of the realm of understanding for most citizens (IMO).We see and do things thatare not always easy. But as Bob said, all's you normally need is a little bit of help with counceling etc.

 

[DopaVash]

imported post

mmdkyoung123 wrote:

WOW,

So the other day when I punished my 5 year old son, for throwing a baseball through the window, (after telling him not to throw it at the house) it was really just the traumatic stress that I had from time served in the military, and know that we know that, I MUST be mentally unstable, (despite the counciling) and therefore, ALL of my guns should be taken away, and I should be carted off to a "nice white room with lots fo padding" so I don't hurt someone else.

I think that kinda depends on if you whipped him with your belt or a pillowcase full of cats.

Seriously tho. These people risked their lives to defend our freedoms (Like....having a gun?) but when they get back they shouldn't be allowed to protect themselves from domestic dangers.... Right....

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Lots of emotion here to cloud one's thinking. Let's approach this step-by-step, by answering each of the following questions honestly and independently of each other, regardless of whether you like the answers you come up with:

1. Do you believe that people who are found to have mental health issues should be prohibited from possessing firearms?

2. Without thinking about how you answered the first question: Do you think that some veterans have serious mental health issues?

After answering both questions honestly, put the two answers together and see if you can deal with the implications.

 

[ComSec]

imported post

What defines Mental Health problem. There is many MH problems, that in no way would have a factor in a shooting. WHO would be making these rules. Its to open for curruption

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

ComSec wrote:

What defines Mental Health problem. There is many MH problems, that in no way would have a factor in a shooting. WHO would be making these rules. Its to open for curruption

That's very true. Joe Biden, during one of the Dem debates last year, referred to one of the youtube questioners as being mentally ill because he wanted to keep his AR-15. To some people, anyone who wants to own a firearm, or who believes in self-defense, is mentally ill, paranoid, or as they say in the UK, "anti-social".

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

ComSec wrote:

What defines Mental Health problem. There is many MH problems, that in no way would have a factor in a shooting. WHO would be making these rules. Its to open for curruption

The state police official that does the checks has nothing to do with making the entry identifying the vet is mentally unstable. They only check the existing data to see if there is a disqualification.

The disqualification for a mental health issue is made by the doc so there is no guessworkon what would count and what would not. If the patient is so bad off that he needs to be reported the doc will submit the name for disqualification.

So I am not sure where there is going to be any corruption unless the doc wants to ban everyone from getting a gun. I do not see this happening.

 

[ComSec]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

ComSec wrote:

What defines Mental Health problem. There is many MH problems, that in no way would have a factor in a shooting. WHO would be making these rules. Its to open for curruption

The state police official that does the checks has nothing to do with making the entry identifying the vet is mentally unstable. They only check the existing data to see if there is a disqualification.

The disqualification for a mental health issue is made by the doc so there is no guessworkon what would count and what would not. If the patient is so bad off that he needs to be reported the doc will submit the name for disqualification.

So I am not sure where there is going to be any corruption unless the doc wants to ban everyone from getting a gun. I do not see this happening.

And the jews thought they would be taking showers,
"you dont like the current administation in the white house?" well you must be mentally unstable

It may be extreem but its not unknown

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

ComSec wrote:

And the jews thought they would be taking showers,
"you dont like the current administation in the white house?" well you must be mentally unstable

It may be extreem but its not unknown

Would you not admit that this is rather extreme? Do you really believe that the US government would actually kill a mass number of people when they have worked to hard at creating laws to protect them and prevent discrimination?

I am confident that we have a system in place that will prevent one person from sending a select few to the gas chamber.

Look at how lethal injection injection was stopped for a while and is not back on the table to use on those to be executed for their crimes.

 

[Nelson_Muntz]

imported post

Better idea. Keep the mentally ill from voting. That would disqualify all those currently suffering from BDS. <Bush Derangement Syndrome>

 

[Tess]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

The state police official that does the checks has nothing to do with making the entry identifying the vet is mentally unstable. They only check the existing data to see if there is a disqualification.

The disqualification for a mental health issue is made by the doc so there is no guessworkon what would count and what would not. If the patient is so bad off that he needs to be reported the doc will submit the name for disqualification.

So I am not sure where there is going to be any corruption unless the doc wants to ban everyone from getting a gun. I do not see this happening.

Agree with the first paragraph. That's undisputable.

The second paragraph is what concerns me. I don't believe there is a taxonomy of mental health conditions that warrant disarming. Much as every individual - including those without mental health problems - will deal with situations and actions in a slightly different way, so too will mental health professionals (psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, sociologists, and medical doctors, among others) judge differently.

A hypothetical. Suppose a medical doctor says you have a condition that may cause you to lose your mobility in a few years. We can treat it now, preventing that loss, but as a result you'll have no use of your right hand for the rest of your life. You have the option of getting a second opinion, searching alternative treatments, and making a decision.

If, though, a mental health practitioner decides you have a condition which may cause you to become violent at some point in the future, that practitioner can document said judgment and keep you from armed self-defense the rest of your life. He can treat it now (documenting the decision) and you have no option for second opinion.

The practitioner's opinion is going to be colored by his education, his experience, his training, and his life outlook. If he's predisposed to hate guns - as are many - that predisposition will factor in to his determination that you shouldn't own guns - because you may become violent. Voila. Loss of rights.

Some will tell you under the legislation signed this year you have the option for that second opinion. Still, you've been denied your right to own firearms by someone based on what you may or may not do, and have to go through the rigamarole of clearing yourself of something you haven't done.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Tess wrote:

Agree with the first paragraph. That's undisputable.

The second paragraph is what concerns me. I don't believe there is a taxonomy of mental health conditions that warrant disarming. Much as every individual - including those without mental health problems - will deal with situations and actions in a slightly different way, so too will mental health professionals (psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, sociologists, and medical doctors, among others) judge differently.

A hypothetical. Suppose a medical doctor says you have a condition that may cause you to lose your mobility in a few years. We can treat it now, preventing that loss, but as a result you'll have no use of your right hand for the rest of your life. You have the option of getting a second opinion, searching alternative treatments, and making a decision.

If, though, a mental health practitioner decides you have a condition which may cause you to become violent at some point in the future, that practitioner can document said judgment and keep you from armed self-defense the rest of your life. He can treat it now (documenting the decision) and you have no option for second opinion.

The practitioner's opinion is going to be colored by his education, his experience, his training, and his life outlook. If he's predisposed to hate guns - as are many - that predisposition will factor in to his determination that you shouldn't own guns - because you may become violent. Voila. Loss of rights.

Some will tell you under the legislation signed this year you have the option for that second opinion. Still, you've been denied your right to own firearms by someone based on what you may or may not do, and have to go through the rigamarole of clearing yourself of something you haven't done.

I can see where you are coming from. It all comes down to someone deciding if you are crazy or not.

I do not have any statistics to provide but I can say from experience.. professional and not personal.. that those I took to the head docs were diagnosed correctly each time.

Now maybe I do not know what in the hell I am talking about since I am not a doctor.

Now it is possible to misdiagnose someone but I think it is not very likely.

And I am sorry to say but if someone is going to see a head doc there is going to be a good reason for it. Head docs do not stop us on the street and diagnose us thusly preventing us from getting a gun.

So very few people would even fall into this trap.

I know of more people that applied for a gun but the person doing the check turned them down based on limited data returned for a criminal charge. So there will alwaysbe areas that can be problematic.

Fortunately, not many people will wall into this category and you have the ability to have the matter cleared up in some fashion. You are not permanently banned like a felon.

 

[Phssthpok]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote

Do you really believe that the US government would actually kill a mass number of people when they have worked to hard at creating laws to protect them and prevent discrimination?

Actions speak louder than words....*Cough*

[font="Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif"][/font]

After the February raid by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) of David Koresh's dissident religious community at Waco, Texas, the FBI and the U.S. Army took over, mounting a 51-day siege. This included such psy-war tactics as sleep deprivation of the inhabitants of the community by means of all-night broadcasts of recordings of the screams of rabbits being slaughtered. Finally, despite David Koresh's pledge to surrender upon completion of his written explanation of the meaning of the Seven Seals, the FBI and the Army attacked. At dawn on April 19, 1993, and throughout the morning, tanks rammed holes in the main building and pumped (in the FBI's words) "massive amounts" of CS gas into the building, despite knowing that inside were more than a dozen children. The tanks demolished parts of the compound and created tunnels for the wind to blow through. The buildings at this point were saturated with inflammable CS gas and spilled kerosene. Around midday two U.S. military pyrotechnic devices were fired into the main building, igniting a fire which (because of the holes in the walls allowing the wind to gust through) spread rapidly through the complex of buildings and became an inferno. 74 men, women and children died — including twelve children younger than five years of age. Fire trucks were prevented by the FBI from approaching the inferno. After the compound had burned down the BATF flag was hoisted aloft to signify 'victory'. Subsequently the burned-out ruin was razed in an attempt to remove all evidence of this premeditated murder of innocent civilians by agents of the U.S. government. Thus occured an atrocity which many Americans believe could never happen in their country. A look at the evidence presented in the film Waco: Rules of Engagement (and in the BBC documentary broadcast in the U.K. on November 28, 1998) shows that it did happen. The lawyer for one of the survivors said at one of the U.S. government 'investigations' (or rather, whitewashes): In this country when people are accused of a crime they are arrested and given a trial — that's 'due process'. If found guilty of murder then maybe they are killed. We don't just kill them first — which is what happened at Waco.

The anniversary of this atrocity is today by the way...

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Phssthpok wrote:

Actions speak louder than words....*Cough*

The anniversary of this atrocity is today by the way...

So you are saying that the Waco incident was planned? How did they get David on board and encourage him to refuse law enforcement and fight??

Wait... Strike that... we are headed off topic now..

 

[Phssthpok]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Phssthpok wrote:

Actions speak louder than words....*Cough*

The anniversary of this atrocity is today by the way...

So you are saying that the Waco incident was planned? How did they get David on board and encourage him to refuse law enforcement and fight??

Wait... Strike that... we are headed off topic now..

Absolutely it was planned....it's just that the initial raid didn't go down as the various alphabet agencies intended. See, they thought it was going to be a cakewalk, but when they went in guns a-blazing, these innocents chose to defend their lives, and those of their children.They didn't need to get Koresh 'on-board'. Some people do the right thing without any encouragement.

And get this...what the government agents RAN OUT OF AMMO AND WERE PINNED DOWN what did these (portrayed as violent nut-job) people who were illegally assaulted in their own home do?

They.....let....them...GO. Just let them waltz back to their (armored) vehicles and re-arm.

Not exactly the behavior of violent nut jobs, is it? Unfortunately for seventy-some-odd men, women, and children it was a fatal mistake.

And it's not ENTIERLY off topic, as it stands to reason that it is those with the power that do the deciding. The Davidians were targetted (IMHO) because they held to a different belief structure than the one that the Government wanted them to. (see ammendment 1, U.S. Constitution). If a doctor holds a bias against gun ownership (and many do) then they could use their ability (power) to declare someone 'mentaly' unsuitable to own guns.

 

[BobCav]

imported post

But you see how this all ties in so neatly with the Veteran's Disarmament Bill (HR 2640 AKA Veteran's Disarmament Act) sponsored by none other than Carolyn (Gag) McCarthy D-NY, that is now PUBLIC LAW (signed by the Pres on Jan 8th) that states that ANY vet that suffers from PTSD or is considered even a tiny danger to himself will lose their gun rights - FOREVER!

Cite: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2640

 

[XD40coyote]

imported post

I think the issue is that a vet comes back with depression and PTSD and has to see a doc for it. He/she gets treatment but its a long process. Finally after a year or 2 they are level and doing fine on meds/therapy. However they now have been diagnosed with a mental disorder and one day some anti gunners get a bill through to scrutize anyone wanting to buy a gun who has been diagnosed with ANY mental disorder, and part of the new law allows for the probing of all medical records. Having certain mental disorders will disbar someone from buying/owning a firearm, and the antis made sure to get depression and PTSD on the list. So now, someone who served their country and carried FIREARMS while doing so, and yet were trusted at the time, even while suffering depression and PTSD during the tour of duty, will now not be allowed to own any firearms.

This whole debacle can extend to anyone in fact, not just veterans like Bob,including myself andI am sure others here at this board. Why should someone who is under treatment and doing just fine be categorized as "possibly violent"?

The ones who need disbarred and already are under the current laws, are those who do not respond to treatment andhave far worst mental disorders/symptoms, and/or cannot sort reality from fantasy, as well as those who have already commited violent acts during some mental illness episode and show a trend towards doing it again( medication does not help them or they refuse to take it, or the condition is very severe such as paranoid scitzophrenia w/psychotic episodes that they need to be in a hospital all the time).



Keep in mind that millions of people have suffered from clinical depression and a plethora of milder mental disorders, and have never committed any violent acts. Even with the rage I had at the time all those years ago, I never hurt anyone, not even myself. My life has changed since then, I don't live where stress is on me constantly via violent happenings in the area and the fear of being victimized, andI have matured as well. Once in a while I get depression, perhaps due to female hormonal cycles LOL, and you know what? When I get these little brief deals, I stay away from my guns, won't even look at them. Hows that for telling right from wrong and reality vs fantasy? YepI still take an anti depressant, depression feels so awful I don't want to feel it again.