Another Army vet denied rights

[hermannr]

They're not being denied the right or ability to protect themselves, there are many ways to protect yourself without a firearm. Personally I have carried and don't feel the need to.

That you have made the choice not to carry is your personal decision. Some people choose not to have fire extinguishers in their homes either.

This person has not been afforded the opportunity to make that choice. Something you need to remember, there are people out their that prefer not to use "other methods", and some that cannot defend themselves by "other methods" because they are not physically able.

Tell me what the best method for someone that has had polio, or is very small? Sam Colt made that 100 lb woman equal to the 240lb would be rapist,,,you think?

 

[Misterbill]

I agree taking someone's guns away I'd not equal to help. However do you think its right s fair to allow someone who suffering from PTSD to have access to firearms that they may use to take their own lives.

Who the heck are you to make that call? As for PTSD, I will confess that I had it. It took many years to get past it. I managed to survive all that time without injuring anyone else or killing myself. Just like 99% of sufferers do manage.

You have no legal right, nor do you have the moral authority or the medical experience to even make a call about someone else's mental health. At commitment hearing there are usually SEVERAL psychiatrists involved, along with a judge. Why is it that you are so opposed to that process?

As for taking away someone's guns not taking away their SD ability, I'll tell you what. I'll give a 98-pound crackhead a gun and send him in to rob you in your home. Your chances of prevailing against him from 20 feet away are essentially zero.

The right of self defense does and always has included the MEANS to defend yourself. Unless you think my wife is capable of using kung-fu or whatever against an attacker 20 years her junior and twice her size.

 

[renfield]

That you have made the choice not to carry is your personal decision. Some people choose not to have fire extinguishers in their homes either.

This person has not been afforded the opportunity to make that choice. Something you need to remember, there are people out their that prefer not to use "other methods", and some that cannot defend themselves by "other methods" because they are not physically able.

Tell me what the best method for someone that has had polio, or is very small? Sam Colt made that 100 lb woman equal to the 240lb would be rapist,,,you think?

That you have made the choice not to carry is your personal decision. Some people choose not to have fire extinguishers in their homes either.

This person has not been afforded the opportunity to make that choice. Something you need to remember, there are people out their that prefer not to use "other methods", and some that cannot defend themselves by "other methods" because they are not physically able.

Tell me what the best method for someone that has had polio, or is very small? Sam Colt made that 100 lb woman equal to the 240lb would be rapist,,,you think?

This person committed a crime, that eh chose to commit, and is apparently only now feeling the consequences, I'd say he's lucky given how some people are punished after defending themselves. The articles plays on the fact that he is a veteran, which is irrelevant. If a 100lb woman or someone with polio commits a crime rendering it illegal for them to possess a firearm then I would expect that they would be help just as accountable as this man. You said

Something you have to remember, there are people out their that prefer not to use "other methods",

What is the difference between the judge who made an apparently life changing decision for this guy and someone who prefers to carry a gun (shunning all other options of self defense) that will allow them to make the same life changing decision for someone else.

If you think it is okay for someone to carry firearms just because they served their country (even though they made the choice to commit a crime in their youth) then you are assisting in making our country are more dangerous place to live in and you are a hypocrite.

 

[renfield]

Who the heck are you to make that call? As for PTSD, I will confess that I had it. It took many years to get past it. I managed to survive all that time without injuring anyone else or killing myself. Just like 99% of sufferers do manage.

You have no legal right, nor do you have the moral authority or the medical experience to even make a call about someone else's mental health. At commitment hearing there are usually SEVERAL psychiatrists involved, along with a judge. Why is it that you are so opposed to that process?

As for taking away someone's guns not taking away their SD ability, I'll tell you what. I'll give a 98-pound crackhead a gun and send him in to rob you in your home. Your chances of prevailing against him from 20 feet away are essentially zero.

The right of self defense does and always has included the MEANS to defend yourself. Unless you think my wife is capable of using kung-fu or whatever against an attacker 20 years her junior and twice her size.

What call would that be? having an opinion. Further to which, who declared you clear of PTSD? As I'm aware there is no cure for PTSD, there is no unique causative agent in a trauma response, which I suspect is why it is so difficult to treat, and why traumatic experiences can be triggered after years of suppression. One veteran commits suicide every hour in the US alone, I don't know how people take their own lives because of their difficulty dealing with the effects of PTSD, two thirds of suicides in the US involve the use of a firearm, so your statement that 99% of people get over PTSD is greatly exaggerated.

 

[hermannr]

This person committed a crime, that eh chose to commit, and is apparently only now feeling the consequences, I'd say he's lucky given how some people are punished after defending themselves. The articles plays on the fact that he is a veteran, which is irrelevant. If a 100lb woman or someone with polio commits a crime rendering it illegal for them to possess a firearm then I would expect that they would be help just as accountable as this man. You said What is the difference between the judge who made an apparently life changing decision for this guy and someone who prefers to carry a gun (shunning all other options of self defense) that will allow them to make the same life changing decision for someone else.

If you think it is okay for someone to carry firearms just because they served their country (even though they made the choice to commit a crime in their youth) then you are assisting in making our country are more dangerous place to live in and you are a hypocrite.

I come from a time when there were no "prohibited persons" FFL's, GFZs or anything but NFA restrictions (and that is/was a tax I also do not agree with) I turned 21 before the GCA1968 was enacted. You know what, there were fewer problems with gun crazies back then, then there are now.

I also fully believe that when the WA and OR constitutions were passed, the whole concept of a "prohibited person" did not even exist in the minds of anyone. When someone was put in Jail, it became the authority's responsibility to protect the inmate, and that inmate's weapons were secured. When the inmate was released, his weapons were returned to him and it again became his responsibility to protect him/herself. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

 

[renfield]

I'm sure except for the civil rights movement, race riots, segregated schools and the assassination of the Kennedy's, MLK, Malcom X (who were all killed before the GCA1968 will was enacted) and the Kent State massacre, that you lived in a positive utopia.

 

[U201491]

I'm sure except for the civil rights movement, race riots, segregated schools and the assassination of the Kennedy's, MLK, Malcom X (who were all killed before the GCA1968 will was enacted) and the Kent State massacre, that you lived in a positive utopia.

Compared to today it was a utopia. Curious why a liberal like you is on a pro 2nd forum???

 

[hermannr]

I'm sure except for the civil rights movement, race riots, segregated schools and the assassination of the Kennedy's, MLK, Malcom X (who were all killed before the GCA1968 will was enacted) and the Kent State massacre, that you lived in a positive utopia.

Back to front: the National guard troops firing on the students at Kent State has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of gun control regulations...and absolutely nothing to do with "crazies" shooting up schools an shopping Malls....Ya think?

As for "race riots"... I do believe Rodney King happened after 1968? (like 1991) Race riots were only an excuse to restrict the average guy's rights. As long as we have race baiters like Revs Al and JJ, along with others like Holder and Ob there will be opportunities for race riots. Do things like that motivate the Jim Crow laws? Sure, but only because WE allow them to do that. Again, prohibited persons have absolutely nothing to do with this.


You are trying to compare apples to oranges. If you want to show me where, pre 1968, some crazy shot up a school or a mall, then you would be comparing apples to apples. Then you also would have to show me where the GCA68 and other infringements actually made a positive difference... You cannot do that, because while the new laws made a difference, it was a negative difference, not a positive one.

The worst school tragedy yet in the US was in 1929, in MI... but that was a bombing, not a shooting.

 

[Botte Hork]

As for "race riots"... I do believe Rodney King happened after 1968? (like 1991)

Interestingly enough, the Korean shopkeepers who avoided burning & looting were also the ones with shotguns & ARs.

 

[Brutus57]

This article is about the tower sniper. For the politician, see Charles S. Whitman.
Charles Whitman 17 killed an d a bunch wounded. I remember this as a kid but not why he snapped.

Charles Whitman, pictured in 1963
Background information
Birth name Charles Joseph Whitman
Also known as The Texas Tower Sniper
Occupation Former U.S. Marine
Engineering student
Born June 24, 1941
Lake Worth, Florida, United States
Died August 1, 1966 (aged 25)
Austin, Texas, United States
Cause of death Multiple shotgun wounds
(Ruled justifiable homicide)
Parents Charles Adolphus "C.A." Whitman, Jr.
Margaret Whitman
Spouse(s) Kathy Leissner (m. 1962–1966)
Killings
Date August 1, 1966
c. 00:15:00 - 03:00 (family)
11:48 am - 1:24 pm (random targets)
Location(s) University of Texas, Austin, Texas
Target(s) Family, students, teachers and police
Killed 17 (including unborn child)
Injured 32 (including 1 later fatality)
Weapon(s)
Remington 700 ADL (6mm)
Universal M1 carbine
Remington M 141 (.35-caliber)
Sears model 60 Semi-automatic shotgun (12 gauge)
S&W M19 (.357 Magnum)
Luger P08 (9mm)
Galesi-Brescia (.25 ACP)
Charles Joseph Whitman (June 24, 1941 – August 1, 1966) was an engineering student and former United States Marine, who killed seventeen people and wounded thirty-two others in a mass shooting rampage located in and around the Tower of the University of Texas in Austin on the afternoon of August 1, 1966. Three people were shot and killed inside the university's tower and eleven others were murdered after Whitman fired at random from the 28th-floor observation deck of the Main Building. Whitman was shot and killed by Austin Police Officer Houston McCoy.

From wiki.

 

[hermannr]

This article is about the tower sniper. For the politician, see Charles S. Whitman.
Charles Whitman 17 killed an d a bunch wounded. I remember this as a kid but not why he snapped.

Charles Whitman, pictured in 1963
Background information
Birth name Charles Joseph Whitman
Also known as The Texas Tower Sniper
Occupation Former U.S. Marine
Engineering student
Born June 24, 1941
Lake Worth, Florida, United States
Died August 1, 1966 (aged 25)
Austin, Texas, United States
Cause of death Multiple shotgun wounds
(Ruled justifiable homicide)
Parents Charles Adolphus "C.A." Whitman, Jr.
Margaret Whitman
Spouse(s) Kathy Leissner (m. 1962–1966)
Killings
Date August 1, 1966
c. 00:15:00 - 03:00 (family)
11:48 am - 1:24 pm (random targets)
Location(s) University of Texas, Austin, Texas
Target(s) Family, students, teachers and police
Killed 17 (including unborn child)
Injured 32 (including 1 later fatality)
Weapon(s)
Remington 700 ADL (6mm)
Universal M1 carbine
Remington M 141 (.35-caliber)
Sears model 60 Semi-automatic shotgun (12 gauge)
S&W M19 (.357 Magnum)
Luger P08 (9mm)
Galesi-Brescia (.25 ACP)
Charles Joseph Whitman (June 24, 1941 – August 1, 1966) was an engineering student and former United States Marine, who killed seventeen people and wounded thirty-two others in a mass shooting rampage located in and around the Tower of the University of Texas in Austin on the afternoon of August 1, 1966. Three people were shot and killed inside the university's tower and eleven others were murdered after Whitman fired at random from the 28th-floor observation deck of the Main Building. Whitman was shot and killed by Austin Police Officer Houston McCoy.

From wiki.

And prior to this rampage, did he have any criminal background? No? My my, He would not have been a "prohibited person" even with that law now would he and that infringement on everyone else would have done no good here. try again.

 

[hermannr]

Another minor point. A Remington 700 is a bolt action hunting rifle (I know, I own one)... so the highly touted AW ban would not have stopped Whitman either... Eh?

 

[Brutus57]

Nope, it wouldn't have. All his guns were legal except perhaps after he sawed of the shotgun barrel. A brilliant but troubled individual. Only in Texas would students butcher a deer in the school showers. If this were to happen today I think they'd just have the Army shoot the tower top with a Hellfire missile.

Brutus Out

 

[Brutus57]

I was merely pointing out that some "crazy" did shoot up a school prior to 1968, not whether GCA would have had anything to stop it. He did have problems, mental ones and clearly saw Dr.s before the rampage. But likely all his guns were bought legally so the mentally compromised listing they to have today to limit gun ownership wouldn't have worked in his case either. And we are talking an America almost 50 years ago. It would be interesting to know if the Texas Tower shooter incident was used as the catalyst for the GCA 1968.

Brutus Out

 

[U201491]

Some good info here.
Its what the MSM should be reporting.

http://www.standupamericaus.org/

 

[renfield]

Compared to today it was a utopia. Curious why a liberal like you is on a pro 2nd forum???

Taku you are a foolish individual and only see one side of everything. You are a product of common sensationalist media (from both the left and the right), bigotry, and racism. You label people based on the opinions they choose to share, and if they do not see things your way then they are somehow your enemy.

Lastly this is not a pro 2nd Amendment forum, it is a forum for shooting enthusiasts frequented by a good number of people, who believe it or not, do not share your archaic fear mongering beliefs, and would like to make the shooting community and accessible place for everyone within the bounds of the law.

 

[renfield]

Back to front: the National guard troops firing on the students at Kent State has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of gun control regulations...and absolutely nothing to do with "crazies" shooting up schools an shopping Malls....Ya think?

As for "race riots"... I do believe Rodney King happened after 1968? (like 1991) Race riots were only an excuse to restrict the average guy's rights. As long as we have race baiters like Revs Al and JJ, along with others like Holder and Ob there will be opportunities for race riots. Do things like that motivate the Jim Crow laws? Sure, but only because WE allow them to do that. Again, prohibited persons have absolutely nothing to do with this.


You are trying to compare apples to oranges. If you want to show me where, pre 1968, some crazy shot up a school or a mall, then you would be comparing apples to apples. Then you also would have to show me where the GCA68 and other infringements actually made a positive difference... You cannot do that, because while the new laws made a difference, it was a negative difference, not a positive one.

The worst school tragedy yet in the US was in 1929, in MI... but that was a bombing, not a shooting.

You said they were less crazies around back then (who you can find in and out of uniform) I wasn't referring to gun control. I also somehow forgot about the KKK, the Black Panthers (although they did help establish meals on wheels), and probably a lot more to boot.

 

[duane black]

Once more, the V.A. is NOT your friend. If you are a veteran and you can afford to go somewhere else for help, by all means do.

I am not a veteran but do have some experience with this subject and a family member by marriage. This individual suffered from PTSD and was essentially killed by the VA via drugs. They did absolutely nothing to help him other than feed him drugs which resulted in his death, he was my friend. I wouldn't trust the VA to take out my garbage after this experience. I realize this is a very narrow experience but I agree completely with the above post.

 

[U201491]

Taku you are a foolish individual and only see one side of everything. You are a product of common sensationalist media (from both the left and the right), bigotry, and racism. You label people based on the opinions they choose to share, and if they do not see things your way then they are somehow your enemy.

Lastly this is not a pro 2nd Amendment forum, it is a forum for shooting enthusiasts frequented by a good number of people, who believe it or not, do not share your archaic fear mongering beliefs, and would like to make the shooting community and accessible place for everyone within the bounds of the law.

Then why is there a political section. Is this your forum?
I guess it must be.
Every gun forum seems to get leftist subversives that try to disrupt and condition. This forum has more than its share.
In case you have not noticed, there will be nothing to be enthused about unless every aspect of gun related information is openly shared, and that to a very great depth includes politics. Sorry to shock you with that, but with your head so deep into the mud, its about the only way you might hear and see the important things.
Open discussions also bring out the leftist shills and subversives and those willing to sell out the second at the drop of a hat. Alinsky is very much alive and well at this forum and exposing the followers as they can't help themselves using the tactics. I think the real second amendment backers here see through that mask. Even the silent ones .

Keep it up, you are doing great

 

[renfield]

I am not a veteran but do have some experience with this subject and a family member by marriage. This individual suffered from PTSD and was essentially killed by the VA via drugs. They did absolutely nothing to help him other than feed him drugs which resulted in his death, he was my friend. I wouldn't trust the VA to take out my garbage after this experience. I realize this is a very narrow experience but I agree completely with the above post.

I agree that getting help out of the VA is like getting blood from a stone. Unfortunately its the only "help" a lot of vets get.