I always knew she was nuts....now I have government proof.

[fredball]

Feinstein: "All vets are mentally ill and government should prevent them from owning firearms" Kurt Nimmo: "Senator Feinstein insults all U.S. veterans as she flays about in a vain attempt to save her bill." Quote of the Day from the Los Angeles Times "Frankly, I don't know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I'm not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington , we're Number One. There's no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Maxine Waters, and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on 'Macbeth'. The four of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of blab. You don't know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words." -- Columnist Burt Prelutsky, Los Angeles Times Thankfully, Feinstein’s bill will most certainly be dead on arrival and – for now – the American people (with the exception of Americans unfortunate enough to live in New York state) will have their Second Amendment rights spared.​ Feinstein’s remark, however, reveals a deep-seated mistrust and contempt for America’s veterans. It also reveals the fear by government of the revolutionary potential of veterans, a fear dutifully expressed by the Department of Homeland Security when it said returning veterans are “right wing extremists” who may challenge the government. Incidentally, Feinstein is way off the mark. Although PTSD is a relatively new definition, soldiers returning from combat have experienced anxiety disorders since time immemorial. It is nothing new. She is merely exploiting a modern psychology term in order to add substance to her argument that veterans are insane and as such must have their Second Amendment rights nullified.

Read More

 

[jricker3]

Could you provide a link to the source of the first quote please? I was hoping to see the whole article, but couldn't find anything in the Times.

 

[samuelm16]

» Feinstein: All vets are mentally ill and government should prevent them from owning firearms Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

 

[Ralgha]

That's not an actual quote, it is inferred from what she said, which was nearly incoherent babble that I had to read three times before I figured out what she was trying to say. She's basically saying all vets are assumed crazy until proven otherwise.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus that ate your iPhone.

 

[speeddemon94]

lolwut? She thinks that PTSD did not happen before the Iraq war?!!! What a moron. I believe the term in WW2 was Shell Shocked, not sure about Vietnam, but come on, really? I can not believe that she actually thinks she is speaking truth.

 

[Kevatc]

First things first: Diane Feinstein is a prime time idiot and for me a poster child for term limits. However ...... I did some research to try and confirm the statement suppossedly made by Feinstein .... "all vets are mentally ill and government should prevent them from owning firearms." As far as I can tell she never actually said that specifically.

This brief YouTube will clarify exactly what Feinstein did say in regards to the topic of vets, PTSD, and mentally illness etc.: Diane Feinstein military vets are mentally ill - YouTube

She does not specifically state that all vets are mentally ill or incapacitated. What she does say (I paraphrase) is that the transfer of firearms to vets who may have some substantial mental issues is cause for concern. To an extent I agree. I think we can all agree that had folks like Cho, Loughner, Lanza, and Holmes been found to be the mentally ill folks that they were then I don't think any of us would want them to have had access to guns.

Is that to say a vet with PTSD is automatically disqualified to be able to own/shoot guns? NO WAY. But if a vet does have mental issues from their service that a psychologist/psychiatrist has concerns about then just like any of the aforementioned shooters I believe it would be a good idea, to at the very least, temporarily keep them and guns apart for their safety and their families and for the public at large. I am not saying that this applies to all vets.

I am currently reading a book entitled The Things they Can Not Say. It is a collection of interviews about vets from Viet Nam through Afghanstan. Some of these vets carry the scars with them for a very long time but seem to be well adjusted in society but are nonetheless affected by their wartime experiences. Other vets talk about being prescribed a variety of drugs to help them cope, sleep, and deal with depression/anger, plus they supplement with alcohol or other illicit drugs just to get through the day. They often admit that they have anger and/or paranoia issues and aren't coping well. Personally, until these folks can overcome their issues perhaps it is a good idea to keep them and guns seperate. Does it have to be a life long suspension from owning guns? NO WAY.

To me the most effective and prescient thing to be done for violence control is mental health access and the de-stygmatization of utilizing those resources. Not all vets have mental issues or PTSD. Not all vets that have mental issues or PTSD need to be disqualified from owning guns. However, some vets do have substantial and significant issues and those folks are no different than any civilian who also exhibits substantial and significant mental issues.

The crux of the guns and mental health issue is a tough one when it comes to folks who haven't done anything to warrant a suspension of their 2A rights but who might be having some serious mental issues like PTSD. There is no easy answer. The problem Feinstein has but doesn't understand is that she thinks the solution is easy. Just make a law. Just classify "this group" as folks who can't do this or that. She is a great example of someone who is so invested in a certain outcome that she can't step back and look at the issue as a whole. It's human nature to do this. But as a policy maker what I expect out of her is not knee jerk reaction but rather thoughful and logical analysis and the public acknowledgement that this is a very difficult issue where a solution on the one hand might be a an infringement on the other.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

What she actually said:

...this adds an exemption of retired military. As I understand our bill, no issue has arose in this regard during the 10 years the expired ban was effect... and what we did in the other bill was exempt possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States... that included active military. The problem with expanding this is that you know with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it's not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this. So you know I would be happy to sit down with you again and see if we could work something out but I think we have to — if you're going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally don't have access to this kind of weapon.

 

[kumabear17]

The three witches from California have always been clear they are Left leaning, anti-Military, "anti-gun-nuts". There is no giving them the benefit of doubt by thinking she was misunderstood. There ought to be an Alzheimer's test given to politicians on a yearly basis. To heck with term limits. The test alone would thin out much of the ranks on both sides and it would be worth to get rid of Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi. The real point after my rant – is these people will never change their views. It looks like they are entrenched in office due to the mental climate of California. We have to work that much harder to be sure our voice is heard by the Legislators who still have sufficient brain power to remember the Constitution "acknowledges" our Rights. The Government didn't "give" us anything. Court adjudicated individuals determined to be mentally ill and a threat already, I thought, were suppose to be added to the NICS database, but many States refuse. I applaud the VA – one of the few times – for refusing to provide the Government any information on Veterans seeking help for PTSD – and yes it's been around as long as there has been war.

 

[Caveman Jim]

The Hippy Tramps from Kalifornication. I despise them so.

 

[Stomper]

First things first: Diane Feinstein is a prime time idiot and for me a poster child for term limits. However ...... I did some research to try and confirm the statement suppossedly made by Feinstein .... "all vets are mentally ill and government should prevent them from owning firearms." As far as I can tell she never actually said that specifically.

This brief YouTube will clarify exactly what Feinstein did say in regards to the topic of vets, PTSD, and mentally illness etc.: Diane Feinstein military vets are mentally ill - YouTube

She does not specifically state that all vets are mentally ill or incapacitated. What she does say (I paraphrase) is that the transfer of firearms to vets who may have some substantial mental issues is cause for concern. To an extent I agree. I think we can all agree that had folks like Cho, Loughner, Lanza, and Holmes been found to be the mentally ill folks that they were then I don't think any of us would want them to have had access to guns.

Is that to say a vet with PTSD is automatically disqualified to be able to own/shoot guns? NO WAY. But if a vet does have mental issues from their service that a psychologist/psychiatrist has concerns about then just like any of the aforementioned shooters I believe it would be a good idea, to at the very least, temporarily keep them and guns apart for their safety and their families and for the public at large. I am not saying that this applies to all vets.

I am currently reading a book entitled The Things they Can Not Say. It is a collection of interviews about vets from Viet Nam through Afghanstan. Some of these vets carry the scars with them for a very long time but seem to be well adjusted in society but are nonetheless affected by their wartime experiences. Other vets talk about being prescribed a variety of drugs to help them cope, sleep, and deal with depression/anger, plus they supplement with alcohol or other illicit drugs just to get through the day. They often admit that they have anger and/or paranoia issues and aren't coping well. Personally, until these folks can overcome their issues perhaps it is a good idea to keep them and guns seperate. Does it have to be a life long suspension from owning guns? NO WAY.

To me the most effective and prescient thing to be done for violence control is mental health access and the de-stygmatization of utilizing those resources. Not all vets have mental issues or PTSD. Not all vets that have mental issues or PTSD need to be disqualified from owning guns. However, some vets do have substantial and significant issues and those folks are no different than any civilian who also exhibits substantial and significant mental issues.

The crux of the guns and mental health issue is a tough one when it comes to folks who haven't done anything to warrant a suspension of their 2A rights but who might be having some serious mental issues like PTSD. There is no easy answer. The problem Feinstein has but doesn't understand is that she thinks the solution is easy. Just make a law. Just classify "this group" as folks who can't do this or that. She is a great example of someone who is so invested in a certain outcome that she can't step back and look at the issue as a whole. It's human nature to do this. But as a policy maker what I expect out of her is not knee jerk reaction but rather thoughful and logical analysis and the public acknowledgement that this is a very difficult issue where a solution on the one hand might be a an infringement on the other.

Thoughtful, well stated and I would agree with you, BUT it's predicated that this hag has honorable intentions and goals. She has stated herself that if she could get a law passed, she would tell "Mr. & Mrs. America" to "turn them all in" (your guns). The ONLY reason these elietist putzes (Feinstein, Pelosi, Bloomberg, etc.) want to disarm the general population is so they can rule our lives with impunity. They aren't the least bit concerned with "public safety" or our kids. If they were they would enforce the current laws, and practice real "criminal control".

This is nothing more (and nothing less) than incrementalist steps of transforming us from "free" CITIZENS into SUBJECTS that serve them and they're insane whims and interests. I believe they have sorely underestimated the willingness (and ability) of the American people to resist these attempts (up to and including armed resistence). I was standing not 15' from Sen. Wyden in a downtown Portland street a couple months ago, and I was armd to the teeth... just sayin'.

 

[Stomper]

First things first: Diane Feinstein is a prime time idiot and for me a poster child for term limits. However ...... I did some research to try and confirm the statement suppossedly made by Feinstein .... "all vets are mentally ill and government should prevent them from owning firearms." As far as I can tell she never actually said that specifically.

This brief YouTube will clarify exactly what Feinstein did say in regards to the topic of vets, PTSD, and mentally illness etc.: Diane Feinstein military vets are mentally ill - YouTube

She does not specifically state that all vets are mentally ill or incapacitated. What she does say (I paraphrase) is that the transfer of firearms to vets who may have some substantial mental issues is cause for concern. To an extent I agree. I think we can all agree that had folks like Cho, Loughner, Lanza, and Holmes been found to be the mentally ill folks that they were then I don't think any of us would want them to have had access to guns.

Is that to say a vet with PTSD is automatically disqualified to be able to own/shoot guns? NO WAY. But if a vet does have mental issues from their service that a psychologist/psychiatrist has concerns about then just like any of the aforementioned shooters I believe it would be a good idea, to at the very least, temporarily keep them and guns apart for their safety and their families and for the public at large. I am not saying that this applies to all vets.

I am currently reading a book entitled The Things they Can Not Say. It is a collection of interviews about vets from Viet Nam through Afghanstan. Some of these vets carry the scars with them for a very long time but seem to be well adjusted in society but are nonetheless affected by their wartime experiences. Other vets talk about being prescribed a variety of drugs to help them cope, sleep, and deal with depression/anger, plus they supplement with alcohol or other illicit drugs just to get through the day. They often admit that they have anger and/or paranoia issues and aren't coping well. Personally, until these folks can overcome their issues perhaps it is a good idea to keep them and guns seperate. Does it have to be a life long suspension from owning guns? NO WAY.

To me the most effective and prescient thing to be done for violence control is mental health access and the de-stygmatization of utilizing those resources. Not all vets have mental issues or PTSD. Not all vets that have mental issues or PTSD need to be disqualified from owning guns. However, some vets do have substantial and significant issues and those folks are no different than any civilian who also exhibits substantial and significant mental issues.

The crux of the guns and mental health issue is a tough one when it comes to folks who haven't done anything to warrant a suspension of their 2A rights but who might be having some serious mental issues like PTSD. There is no easy answer. The problem Feinstein has but doesn't understand is that she thinks the solution is easy. Just make a law. Just classify "this group" as folks who can't do this or that. She is a great example of someone who is so invested in a certain outcome that she can't step back and look at the issue as a whole. It's human nature to do this. But as a policy maker what I expect out of her is not knee jerk reaction but rather thoughful and logical analysis and the public acknowledgement that this is a very difficult issue where a solution on the one hand might be a an infringement on the other.

Thoughtful, well stated and I would agree with you, BUT it's predicated that this hag has honorable intentions and goals. She has stated herself that if she could get a law passed, she would tell "Mr. & Mrs. America" to "turn them all in" (your guns). The ONLY reason these elietist putzes (Feinstein, Pelosi, Bloomberg, etc.) want to disarm the general population is so they can rule our lives with impunity. They aren't the least bit concerned with "public safety" or our kids. If they were they would enforce the current laws, and practice real "criminal control".

This is nothing more (and nothing less) than incrementalist steps of transforming us from "free" CITIZENS into SUBJECTS that serve them and they're insane whims and interests. I believe they have sorely underestimated the willingness (and ability) of the American people to resist these attempts (up to and including armed resistence). I was standing not 15' from Sen. Wyden on a downtown Portland street a couple months ago, and I was armd to the teeth... just sayin'.

 

[Kevatc]

Thoughtful, well stated and I would agree with you, BUT it's predicated that this hag has honorable intentions and goals. She has stated herself that if she could get a law passed, she would tell "Mr. & Mrs. America" to "turn them all in" (your guns). The ONLY reason these elietist putzes (Feinstein, Pelosi, Bloomberg, etc.) want to disarm the general population is so they can rule our lives with impunity. They aren't the least bit concerned with "public safety" or our kids. If they were they would enforce the current laws, and practice real "criminal control".

This is nothing more (and nothing less) than incrementalist steps of transforming us from "free" CITIZENS into SUBJECTS that serve them and they're insane whims and interests. I believe they have sorely underestimated the willingness (and ability) of the American people to resist these attempts (up to and including armed resistence). I was standing not 15' from Sen. Wyden on a downtown Portland street a couple months ago, and I was armd to the teeth... just sayin'.

Just for the record ... nowhere did I ever say that Pelosi, Bloomberg, or Feinstein were honorable folks. I find all of these folks as positively nauseating as Sarah Palin. I am absolutely amazed at Bloomberg though. First it's pop and then hide the cigs. Next thing you know it will be illegal to partake of any caviar he doesn't eat. I sincerely hope he runs for POTUS so he can be smacked down like a pesky mosquito. I know this will get sensored but Bloomberg is a dou..e receptacle.

 

[DeanoAF97]

They first started doing research on it in Great Britain during WWI it was called Shell Shock then. In WWII they changed the name and a few of the symptoms and called it combat stress reaction. PTSD is not the same, it is the result of. Usually the result of return to combat right after CRE or traumatic brain injury. You are absolutely right this is a well known problem and one that has over 100 years of research. The recent fear comes from a lack of service experience on the part of the civilian population. It is called culture lag and it is taking away our rights

 

[BigStick]

How do some people still insist that "they don't want to take away your guns" or "no one is going to take away your guns" when people like her continually state that they do want to and are trying to. The vets are just the most dangerous because they have been trained and organized.

 

[lucky guy]

That is not what said, not even close. Don't get me wrong, she's a flake and the sooner she's gone the better. But the blogger does nothing but lose credibility with this kind of mischaracterization.

No disrespect intended, but let's at least stick to the facts where we can.

 

[hermannr]

In WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. MOST (not all) that saw combat were either Regular Army, or draftees. There were some Reservists, but no National Guard.

The difference is, in the recent conflicts, the NG has carried a lot of the burden, If you were regular Army, and you came back from a combat zone, you just got reassigned within the military...all of the standard military medical services were available to you (this is where I was during Vietnam). If you were a draftee, you rarely saw any more than one tour in the combat zone, then you were free to get on with your life, same with most reservists, MOST (not all) only did one combat tour, then they went home and got on with life.

The problem today is a lot of NG and reservists have had 3, 4 or even 5 tours. These are citizen soldiers, these are not regular army (or other branch type professional soldier). Just how are they supposed to get on with their lives when they come back to uncertainty? The NG should NEVER leave the state they are formed in, except to support another state.

I know the difference because after 8 years active duty, I went into the WA NG for a short period. The unit I belonged to did not train in WA, we trained in Belgium, to me, that just was not correct,

 

[gearheadbill]

]"The problem with expanding this is that you know with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War,..."

Am I reading this quote correctly? Ms. Feinstein believes PTSD is a new condition? Tell that to my wife who works with Vietnam, Gulf war and Iraq/Afghanistan vets. What a crock! Ms. Feinstein is truly uninformed and delusional. Ever read about WWI 'shell shock'....classic PTSD. PTSD has been around since war began.

 

[boarder4life81]

Here is a link to the actual c-span video ( <broken link removed> ). It is quite long but if you jump to 1:34:00 that is the beginning of Feistein's speech against veterans and idiotic belief that PTSD is a new illness brought on by the Iraq war.

 

[gearheadbill]

Thanks for the link