Platinum Supporter
Bronze Lifetime
- Messages
- 15,721
- Reactions
- 39,291
|
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
|
...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.
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.
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'.