Change on veterans’ gun rights lights fire

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Overkill0084, Dec 4, 2012.

  1. Overkill0084

    Overkill0084 Active Member

    4,910
    2
    38
    I hadn't heard anything about this.
    Seems reasonable. you want to take away someone's rights, you need due process. Not too hard, or at least it shouldn't be.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ns-gun-rights-lights-fire/?page=all#pagebreak
     
  2. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,594
    723
    113
    Yeah. sure! Makes a lotta sense.

    Give a guy a machine gun and tell him to kill as many folks as he can. Then bring him home and tell him he's no longer fit to enjoy the rights of the constitution. :mad::mad::mad:
     

  3. John_Deer

    John_Deer New Member

    6,624
    1
    0
    Such bills will be a deterrent to recruiting. If one can be stripped of their rights for serving our country, why should recruits who love guns risk losing the thing they love the most?
     
  4. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,199
    254
    83
    Senator Coburn caved in to the demands of senators McCain, Schumer and others. McCain did not want to rock the boat. So much for veterans rights.

    Read more: http://times247.com/articles/pro-gun-amendment-triggers-defense-bill-fight#ixzz2ETA3ov8G

    http://times247.com/articles/pro-gun-amendment-triggers-defense-bill-fight
     
  5. bobski

    bobski Well-Known Member Sponsor

    6,366
    34
    48
    let me see this correctly...

    they want a judge to rule on a vets status instead of DVA.
    as it is now, DVA does, which doesnt allow vets to have guns?
     
  6. hoovco

    hoovco New Member

    665
    0
    0
    When you get back, they tell you that seeking help will have no repercussion on your career or your rights. How many vets will want to seek help knowing that they may lose their second amendment rights? This sucks. Our policy makers are a bunch of retards.
     
  7. FullautoUSA

    FullautoUSA Welcoming Committee/ Resident Pellet Gunner Lifetime Supporter

    2,627
    1
    0
    The government really wants to kill our veterans don't they, first they send them off to fight an unjust moronic war and then they take away the only thing that can protect them against criminals. Basically the government is saying that they have to fight for our freedoms but they can't exercise those freedoms? I hope every Veteran denied the right to own a gun because of their financial situation sues the federal government for everything they had in the 80's because right now they are in the negatives.
     
  8. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    No, the government doesn't want to be bothered with killing

    our honored, battle hardened veterans.

    They just want to DISCARD them, like soiled dishrags...:mad:
     
  9. Chainfire

    Chainfire Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,379
    620
    113
    There is nothing new about this. The Federal government has banned people with mental disabilities from buying firearms for as long as I can remember. The problem for the Vets is that they are screened for mental disabilities where the general public is not.

    The other issue is that, being a Vet, does not mean that you do not have a mental disability. If someone is suffering from a severe case of PTSD, they should not be able to buy a firearm, just as someone who is not a vet and has a mental disability should not be able to own a firearm. The rate of PTSD related suicides is far higher for vets then for the general public. They could, of course, jump in front of a truck or take poison, but they normally just take the easy, effective method and shoot themselves.

    When a vet returns from service, they should have proper treatment, if they need it. They should have the assurance of good jobs, and a good transitional income, in order to return to a quality civilian life. As it is, they are no longer useful to the powers that sent them to war, so they are thrown on the junk heap. It would be far better, if we didn't persue wars to enrich the defense industry there wouldn't be the need for the Vets to be placed in the position to cause them injury; physical or mental.
     
  10. trip286

    trip286 New Member

    18,658
    1
    0
    There goes that blind adoration again...

    What's new is that vets are being specifically targeted, and they're talking of using simply being financially unstable as grounds to declare a vet to be mentally incompetent. Financially unstable. In this economy. Hmmm....
     
  11. 7point62

    7point62 Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    2,188
    0
    0


    Sorry bro, but you're wrong. A PTSD diagnosis does not automatically or necessarily mean that a man is homicidal or suicidal. Far from it. In some cases, shooting and hunting can even be theraputic. Most hardcore combat vets suffer from some level of PTSD and yet have never lost their love of firearms and shooting.
     
  12. Chainfire

    Chainfire Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,379
    620
    113
    The operative word in my post was "severe". I think that would also be the standard of the shrinks who make the decision that the individual should not, at this time, have access to firearms.
     
  13. FullautoUSA

    FullautoUSA Welcoming Committee/ Resident Pellet Gunner Lifetime Supporter

    2,627
    1
    0
    But what defines mental illness? Does it mean a real illness like Down Syndrome or Autism or any mental condition including conditions that don't make someone mentally incompetent like ADD or Aspergers?