How does our military feel about HR 2640?
This is a Democrat-sponsored bill (Carolyn McCarthy and Charles Schumer) that would impose a lifetime ban on firearm’s ownership to any service member ever diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (a treatable condition).
I guess these Dems in Congress are saying that you are nuts and might go "postal" when you get back to the states. Some welcome home, huh?
Seems to me, I can remember only two or three ex-soldiers going postal in the last 50 years, so this must not be a real issue.
Still, the Dems want to take your freedom.
"Go to war as a full citizen, return home as a lesser citizen."
Are you guys and gals going to put up with this, or vote those Dems out of office in 2008?
Bad enough the Dems block funding for much needed protective equipment, but for them to say that you have less freedom upon your return would be a crime.
http://infowars.com/articles/2nd_amendment/vet_disarmament_act_bar_vets_from_owning_guns.htm
I was a soldier too years ago, and as a soldier you can still vote.
And after you are a soldier, you will be a civilian.
Should you forever lose freedom because a shrink said you had some combat-related stress? Lost that freedom forever?
There may be some extra text in this bill I have not read or have misinterpreted. But the bottom line is we need to watch these Congressperson, especially as they impact the freedoms of our veterans. I cannot see why we would need government review of mental health statuses to authorize freedoms.
Maybe we should have a "Congressional Disarmament Bill" and strip Congress of any armed security in the Capitol, to see if they can "walk the talk".
Posted in military firearms
January 31st, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Dont know much about you political situation, I am In NZ, But it seems if you are sane enough to carry a weapon in defense of your country but cant when you get home then this is a load of bollocks
OK you can go thru some pretty bad shit in combat but most can recover
It all depends on the EXACT wording
And why is this restricted to service members(the ones who have the balls to do whats needed) and not to civillans) The military is not the only group in society whose members may suffer from PTSS
January 31st, 2010 at 10:22 pm
I’m a soldier not a politician kid
January 31st, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Nice post. Too bad you have to poison it with your reference to the wackjobs at infowars.
The democrats are always trying to take your guns away… Along with pseudo-Republican Rudy. He’s about as conservative as a cross-dressing hairstylist that is dancing on Castro Street in San Francisco.
Oh well. Hillary & Rudy = The same.
The two party system sucks as both republicans and democrats screw over Americans. I can agree to that from those wackos at infowars, at least. Scary!
January 31st, 2010 at 10:22 pm
I have not read anything about HR 2640. Never heard about it until now. If true, I don’t think it will go anywhere.
But you’re right, Schumer and his ilk needs to be voted out of office.
January 31st, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Blah blah blah.
Just have to put the pro-Bush crap in eh? Too bad he’s made the largest mess America has ever faced in a foreign country.
As for those returning home with PTSS/D, if they got DECENT medical care provided by chimp and his group of lackies and were deemed cured, it wouldn’t be a big deal to let them be armed. But they don’t get decent medical care and therefore if they still suffer the effects of this war, they SHOULD NOT be legally armed.
Get the drift now Sparkie?
January 31st, 2010 at 10:22 pm
The actual text of the bill does not support your contention. Sec 101 (c)(1)(C) specifically excludes reporting when "the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs." So a medical diagnosis of PTSS would not meet that condition. Also, it is not a lifetime ban even for those who meet the conditions initially.
It’s also misleading to characterize it solely as an attempt to ban gun ownership to service members with PTSS — it’s dealing with reporting requirements specifically for individuals with mental health issues throughout the population.
I haven’t decided yet if I support the bill or not, but I do prefer accuracy to hyperbole.
January 31st, 2010 at 10:22 pm
A Disclaimer: I am not, nor have ever been, in the military.
That said, I have read HR 2640, and cannot find what you are talking about. It states: "A record that identifies a person who has been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution . . ."
Note the word "adjudicated" and "committed", which means that someone would have to be found LEGALLY incompetent to be affected. Being diagnosed with a mental condition, such as PTSD, would not be enough.I think the website you follow is not telling you the whole truth, or does not understand it themselves.
If I’m wrong, please show me where.
Edit–
Interesting. The two of us who actually READ the resolution are the ones who get the "thumbs down."
January 31st, 2010 at 10:22 pm
texican , you should already know our politicians are trying every avenue to take guns from Americans as they know a unarmed public can be controlled completely and easily, and with our one world gov looming over our heads they think this might be the last straw and the people will revolt, but, with out guns how the hell do you evolt? lay in the middle of the street and let them roll over you with their tanks? any one who stands for this crap is not a American they are nothing bu wossies and need to be in slavery, so lets all get on the horn and tell our elected reps that if they vote for this they will not be reelected ans shot if possible,
January 31st, 2010 at 10:22 pm
I think maybe a temporary suspension might be called for.
For everyones safety
I don’t think it should be for a lifetime.JUST BECAUSE of PTSD
Each case should be judged individually.