This is topic VETERANS DISARMAMENT ACT in forum Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk at Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.allstocks.com/stockmessageboard/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/14/t/003682.html

Posted by Relentless. on :
 
VETERANS DISARMAMENT ACT TO BAR VETS FROM OWNING GUNS


By Larry Pratt
September 22, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

Hundreds of thousands of veterans -- from Vietnam through Operation Iraqi Freedom -- are at risk of being banned from buying firearms if legislation that is pending in Congress gets enacted.

How? The Veterans Disarmament Act -- which has already passed the House -- would place any veteran who has ever been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on the federal gun ban list.

This is exactly what President Bill Clinton did over seven years ago when his administration illegitimately added some 83,000 veterans into the National Criminal Information System (NICS system) -- prohibiting them from purchasing firearms, simply because of afflictions like PTSD.

The proposed ban is actually broader. Anyone who is diagnosed as being a tiny danger to himself or others would have his gun rights taken away ... forever. It is section 102(b)(1)(C)(iv) in HR 2640 that provides for dumping raw medical records into the system. Those names -- like the 83,000 records mentioned above -- will then, by law, serve as the basis for gun banning.

No wonder the Military Order of the Purple Heart is opposed to this legislation.

The House bill, HR 2640, is being sponsored by one of the most flaming anti-Second Amendment Representatives in Congress: Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). Another liberal anti-gunner, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), is sponsoring the bill in the Senate.

Proponents of the bill say that helpful amendments have been made so that any veteran who gets his name on the NICS list can seek an expungement.

But whenever you talk about expunging names from the Brady NICS system, you’re talking about a procedure that has always been a long shot. Right now, there are NO EXPUNGEMENTS of law-abiding Americans’ names that are taking place under federal level. Why? Because the expungement process which already exists has been blocked for over a decade by a "funds cut-off" engineered by another anti-gunner, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY).

So how will this bill make things even worse? Well, two legal terms are radically redefined in the Veterans Disarmament Act to carry out this vicious attack on veterans’ gun rights.

One term relates to who is classified a "mental defective." Forty years ago that term meant one was adjudicated "not guilty" in a court of law by reason of insanity. But under the Veterans Disarmament Act, "mental defective" has been stretched to include anyone whom a psychiatrist determines might be a tiny danger to self or others.

The second term is "adjudicate." In the past, one could only lose one's gun rights through an adjudication by a judge, magistrate or court -- meaning conviction after a trial. Adjudication could only occur in a court with all the protections of due process, including the right to face one's accuser. Now, adjudication in HR 2640 would include a finding by "a court, commission, committee or other authorized person" (namely, a psychiatrist).

Forget the fact that people with PTSD have the same violent crime rate as the rest of us. Vietnam vets with PTSD have had careers and obtained permits to carry firearms concealed. It will now be enough for a psychiatric diagnosis (a "determination" in the language of the bill) to get a veteran barred ­for life ­ from owning guns.

Think of what this bill would do to veterans. If a robber grabs your wallet and takes everything in it, but gives you back $5 to take the bus home, would you call that a financial enhancement? If not, then we should not let HR 2640 supporters call the permission to seek an expungement an enhancement, when prior to this bill, veterans could not legitimately be denied their gun rights after being diagnosed with PTSD.

Veterans with PTSD should not be put in a position to seek an expungement. They have not been convicted (after a trial with due process) of doing anything wrong. If a veteran is thought to be a threat to self or others, there should be a real trial, not an opinion (called a diagnosis) by a psychiatrist.

If members of Congress do not hear from soldiers (active duty and retired) in large numbers, along with the rest of the public, the Veterans Disarmament Act -- misleadingly titled by Rep. McCarthy as the NICS Improvement Amendments Act -- will send this message to veterans: "No good deed goes unpunished."
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
I agree with it to a certain extent... I'm always for gun control but in this case show statitistics of whether the mentally ill have committed more violent acts or suicide then the general public... if so then I'm for it... people with mental problems whether a vet or a non vet should not own a gun...
 
Posted by Relentless. on :
 
Do you disagree with all of the constitution or just parts of it?
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
That bill would open up a real can of worms.
Does that mean that you cannot serve in a combat zone if you have these symptoms. I guess most of our combat troops will be coming home soon or will not be allowed to carrying any type of weapon.

How many jobs will veterans be discriminated against under this bill. More lawsuits coming.

Will this allow a ton more veterans to become 100% disabled under veterans law? If Veterans are not allowed to get employment in their respective field,(law enforcement,
security guard etc.) they will be considered 100% disabled under Veterans law, i guess they will have to change that law just in case this one goes through.

Will this include All people that have symptoms of PTSD?
Here is just a brief explanation of PTSD.


What is Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)?
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is an anxiety disorder that can occur after you have been through a traumatic event. A traumatic event is something horrible and scary that you see or that happens to you. During this type of event, you think that your life or others' lives are in danger. You may feel afraid or feel that you have no control over what is happening.

Anyone who has gone through a life-threatening event can develop PTSD. These events can include:

Combat or military exposure
Child sexual or physical abuse
Terrorist attacks
Sexual or physical assault
Serious accidents, such as a car wreck.
Natural disasters, such as a fire, tornado, hurricane, flood, or earthquake.

After the event, you may feel scared, confused, and angry. If these feelings don't go away or they get worse, you may have PTSD. These symptoms may disrupt your life, making it hard to continue.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
good post Iwsih..
maybe this is a way to scare Vets into NOT getting help they EARNED, and deserve.
 
Posted by Relentless. on :
 
This is a classic divide and conquer technique.
On the face of it there is little impact on "Us"...
Ohhh it's just them... well they don't need that right... It's not me...
They plan for you to say that about every group they steal rights from till it's you.
Funny they use a diagnosis that can easily be assigned to any one of us at any time.
 
Posted by andrew on :
 
Seemss like Relentless has taken over the Role of Bdgee. Nice job.
 
Posted by Relentless. on :
 
We were going to get munchy to take your place... but he was a bit too swooft.
[Smile]
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
This issue really is a joke, not necessarilly a funny one. For me guns have been something i want no part of for many years now. But if i needed one i am sure i could get one with little trouble.

Most new laws or issues seemed to be to save us from them, unfortunatly the majority of us are the "Thems". Just like Relentless said.

Diagnosing PTSD can be done by doctors and indivuals in VET centers(not doctors) who are there specifically for this diagnosis and treatment.

Veterans PTSD can be rated once diagnosed, the rating percentage can be from 0-100%.
This rating is based on how it affects a veterans life.

Under the criteria the VA or military use to reach a determination for PTSD, you could probably put every combat veteran and soldier (especially those in infantry, etc.) in this PTSD classification.

Our Government would like to take the right to bear arms away from soldiers and veterans, yet the VA (Gov.)will not want to adequatly compensate these veterans for the loss of this right.

Again how do you say to soldiers that have been diagnose with PTSD (in the service now) that the gov. will allow you to bear arms while in the service, yet that same Government will not let you bear arms when you are out of the service because you are to much of a danger.

Again this is not just a soldiers problem, yet they seem to be singled out at this point. I wonder how far this bill would have gone if they tried to do this to the firemen or policeman after 911.

I do realize that soldiers do have more exposure to the conditions that cause PTSD.

How can you take right to bear arms away from one group? Isn't that discrimination? We all know it is.
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Relentless.:
Do you disagree with all of the constitution or just parts of it?

Do you agree with EVERYONE having a gun(s)? . Let's not forget the numerous of mass killings since the 60's committed by ex-vets who had mental problems of some sort from their war experiences like the ones who went "Postal" at post offices and gave birth to the term Postal or going Postal.Let's not even get into the ones who have committed suicide over the years. I'm not saying all mass killings are committed by vets but the majority or more like the most destructive ones barring the school/campus killings since Columbine are committed by Vets.

As for Gun Control in general. I have to laugh at people who say it's their right to own a gun to protect themselves. But what are you protecting yourself from? Yes from mentally ill people or criminals having guns due to lax Gun Control laws that have loopholes etc. If you are a legit gun owner then what do you have to fear from about Gun control laws?. So you can't own a assault rifle that has no legitimate means for ownership other then mass destruction of a human being and/or to fulfill some freakin fantasy that your GI Joe from your childhood games... either that or you lack something between your legs that makes you want to own a Big Gun to make up for it...

Ok, so you perhaps some of the laws does some more stringent background check before you are approved to own a gun or make take 1 week more then it does now... what is the rush? ... isn't it better to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands?.. if your legit then you'll pass the background check and get the gun... perhaps a week later but you still get it... I wish for once that gun owners think about the big picture about what Gun Control is and not think it is some sort of conspiracy from letting you own a gun... it's about keeping guns away from illegitimate hands and not your legitimate hands...

Disclaimer: This is not to single out Relentless at all but gun owners in general who fear Gun Control laws for no reason if they are not illegitimate owners... [Razz]
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
This potential law is such an open gate for lawsuits and major problems that i am not sure i really care what happens with it. If passed i see nothing but eventual problems when they try to enforce it. What happens when a large number of vets(lets say rolling thunder) decide to protest the law by packing and they force the police to have to arrest them and the media gets involved. Many of these Vets are not what some politicians are trying to portray them as, many have a lot more pull than many think and a lot more money than most think they do, even though many are combat vets.

What some of these politicians try and make people think is that the majority of combat vets are nuts, maybe so, but they still want our votes. The majority of vets are not the ones committing these acts that Machiavelli is talking about it's a very very small percentage.

Machiavelli are you talking about a weapon or a gun in your phrase? [Smile]

Again are they allowed to discriminate against a particular group because a very small percentage do something wrong. In the 2000 Census there were 26,549,000 vets in the US and Puerto Rico. I am not sure how many combat veterans are in the US now, but with the amount increasing everyday from Iraq the number has to be very large.

The wording on this document is rather vague maybe it is suppose to be that way. The pharse "Anyone that is a tiny bit of a danger to himself or others will have his gun rights taken away". That catagory could be singled out for many citizens not just Vets. The big question is, if someone wanted to hurt themselves or others why would they need to buy a legal gun, it really does not matter to them in the end and no law will stop that from happening.

This new law does not solve any problem, it will just create more problems, and a lot more expenses.

An issue that i am actually much more concerned about is the dwindling of the Code of Federal Regulations(CFR) and the way the VA is misinterpreting these laws to turn down veterans seeking disability compensation. The VA is really hurting Veterans(especially the young ones) by misusing (misinterpreting) the laws.
 
Posted by Relentless. on :
 
quote:
Do you agree with EVERYONE having a gun(s)?
The founding fathers did.
There are no causes in the 2nd amendment.
Why can't people just read the damned thing and stop interpreting it.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
Let's not forget the numerous of mass killings since the 60's committed by ex-vets who had mental problems of some sort from their war experiences like the ones who went "Postal" at post offices and gave birth to the term Postal or going Postal.Let's not even get into the ones who have committed suicide over the years. I'm not saying all mass killings are committed by vets but the majority or more like the most destructive ones barring the school/campus killings since Columbine are committed by Vets.

how about some facts here instead of biased slur...

i seriously question the veracity of this statement.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
#1
Edmond, Oklahoma in 1986

On August 20, 1986, 14 employees were shot dead and six wounded at the Edmond, Oklahoma, post office by a postman, Patrick Sherrill, who then committed suicide with a shot to the forehead.


he was not in the nam:


On August 20, 1986, Sherrill killed 14 employees in a post office in Edmond, Okla., before turning the gun on himself. The local news reported that Sherrill was a Vietnam veteran, and repeated that assertion even after a Navy spokesman had said it wasn't true and Burkett had contacted the news room and told them about the Navy's statement. Sherrill had served stateside in the Marine Corps in the mid-Sixties. Burkett concluded that the only thing most people would likely remember was that a "Vietnam vet" had killed 14 people, and noted the terrible irony that went largely unreported: Two of the seven men killed by Sherrill were real Vietnam veterans, one the grandson of Knute Rockne.


http://www.nationalreview.com/kob/obeirne200409290830.asp

#2 this guy was "born bad"

Ridgewood, New Jersey in 1991

On October 10, 1991, Joseph Harris shot and killed four people, including his former boss and two other USPS employees a year after being fired.
1991 : A former postal worker commits mass murder

Former U.S. postal worker Joseph Harris shoots two former co-workers to death at the post office in Ridgewood, New Jersey. The night before, Harris had killed his former supervisor, Carol Ott, with a three-foot samurai sword, and shot her fiance, Cornelius Kasten, in their home. After a four-hour standoff with police at the post office, Harris was arrested. His violent outburst was one of several high-profile attacks by postal workers that resulted in the addition of the phrase "going postal" to the American lexicon.

Harris, who was born in prison and had a lifetime of psychiatric problems, was fired from his job in April 1990. Harboring a grudge against his ex-employer, he began to stockpile automatic weapons, grenades, and ninja swords. Two years later, he learned that he had lost as much as $10,000 by investing it with broker Roy Edwards. Dressed in a black ninja costume, Harris entered Edwards' Montville, New Jersey, home and handcuffed the family. After sexually assaulting Edwards' wife and two daughters, he shot Edwards to death. Since hundreds of investors had lost money while dealing with Edwards, police never even considered Harris a suspect in his death until after the mass slaying on October 10.

Arguing that he was insane, Harris' lawyers said that he had told psychiatrists that he was driven by the "ninja spirit" to commit the crimes. In 1992, Harris was convicted of both the Montville and Ridgewood attacks and was sent to death row. But in September 1996, two days before a New Jersey State Supreme Court battle to overturn its death-penalty law was to start, he died of natural causes.

From 1983 to 1993, there were 11 murderous rampages in U.S. post offices. On August 20, 1986, the worst of these incidents took place in Edmond, Oklahoma. Pat Sherrill, who was about to be fired, killed 14 mail workers, wounded another five, and then shot himself to death as the SWAT team arrived.

 
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
 
What a smack in my face by a government that tells me it supports the troops. I cant believe we spend 15 months on an extended tour in a dump they call Baghdad to come home and be told I cant go duck hunting or ever teach my future children how to hunt because of a diagnosis. This just makes me not want to talk to anyone about what I had to go through ever.


This is ridiculous. Again more laws against guns when the current laws just need to be enforced more. You might find one or two bad apples here and there of someone with some sort of PTSD going looney.

Hey guess what congress....all these cases of PTSD are a byproduct of this so called chase for WMDs. Now we are bogged down in a troop surge that should never have had to happen in the first place if this was done right from the get go.


troops suffer because of politicians mistakes. what a joke. seems like a repeat pattern from a haunting past.
 
Posted by BooDog on :
 
and what's next... oh... simply drawing disability

give an inch... they take a mile.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
i have spent alot of time socially and professionally with Nam Vets that have suffered from PTSD to some degree or another...

when i was enlisted, the Navy was being run by Nam vets. as amatter of fact? that's who runs the military, people with experience.


the worse stuff that i ever saw was drinking...
and yes alot of that was to to the point of being self destructive.

IMO, the problems they have faced have alot more to do with being treated like crap by the system that put them thru crap already.
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
BooDog I know what you meant about your statement, and it is a good one.

There is nothing simple about drawing Disability in most cases, you better have a lot of time,(years)persistence and money (pay bills) or you will end up on the short end and in the street. That is not the way it was suppose to be, but welcome to the future. That would apply to VA Disability and SS Disability.

Glass that is so true. Any problems the Vets or others are having are compounded by dealing with the system. This system in most cases is suppose to protect them not fight them.
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
Some questions that should be asked by veterans and the public about these Veterans that are to be the recipients of this new law. 1. How much disability compensation are these Vets receiving since they are such a danger to themselves and others. I think many people would be very surprised at how low that number would be. 2. Does the government have adequate housing, hospital facilities and staff to take care of these vets that obviously need more care to help cure them. We know the answer to that.
 
Posted by BooDog on :
 
i think there are a lot of vets on this board alone. (retired navy myself) and i think many would agree that todays vets (baby boomers just now retiring from the service or out due to disability) do not fight for their rights as a whole. in the norfolk area alone i used to see legionnaires and vfw vets trying to recruit new blood. even todays unions are having a tough time getting people to step forward and keep the ball rolling. my union is hanging on but each time the govt takes a step forward without the union - instead of things being brought back for debate we only get half way back - if that imo. anyway - before going off on a tangent - more people need to step forward to protect their rights.
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
I agree BooDog. Vets can make a big differance because of the numbers involved, our politicans know that if they unite, Vets can make a big differance in the elections. The politicians will listen if they think Vets are generally united on an issue.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
i'm not a VFW, do they accept Vets that haven't seen action now? i know thew were talking about it before the first gulf war.
 
Posted by BooDog on :
 
i don't think so glass. a friend of mine is a commander at one of the post around richmond and i tried to get him to let me in. lol. http://www.jointheelite.org/index.php?option=com_eligibility&Itemid=34

i was in a lot of different places but never on the line.
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Relentless.:
quote:
Do you agree with EVERYONE having a gun(s)?
The founding fathers did.
There are no causes in the 2nd amendment.
Why can't people just read the damned thing and stop interpreting it.

It was a different world then ... and its not a matter of interpreting but modifying to fit the times...

Again you didn't answer the question... should EVERYONE own a gun... that includes criminals and the mentally ill...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
i think felons should lose the right.

i don't know anybody who isn't mentally ill tho [Wink]

i suppose it's a matter of degrees..

let's say somebody is diagnosed with ADHD that's a "mental illness" but it doesn't make them likely to shoot somebody..

try again...

as for this being a "changed time"? some things never change..
the constituaion was written by REBELS, revolutionaries who recognised that when the King of England controlled who had guns and who didn't he controlled everything...

that hasn't changed, and never will...

you see? this isn't really about hunting ducks in th fall or turkeys in the spring.. it's about a 70 to 150 million person army that will NEVER be run over by a tank..
 -
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
quote:

how about some facts here instead of biased slur...

i seriously question the veracity of this statement.

WWII Vet: http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/howard_unruh/index.html

Ex Marine Charles Whitman: http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/whitman/index_1.html

Ex Marine Postal worker: http://massmurder.zyns.com/patrick_sherrill_04.html

There are others but these are well known... didn't want to paste the articles and make this post long...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
Charles Whitman never served a day of combat duty try again...

n August 1962, Whitman married Kathleen Frances Leissner, another University of Texas student, in a wedding that was held in Kathy's hometown of Needville, Texas, but presided over by Fr. Leduc. The following year, he returned to active duty at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, where he was both promoted to Lance Corporal and involved in an accident in which his Jeep rolled over an embankment. After rescuing his pinned comrade, Whitman was hospitalized for four days.[9] That November, Whitman was court-martialed for gambling, possessing a personal firearm on base, and threatening another Marine over a $30 loan for which Whitman demanded $15 interest. He was sentenced to 30 days of confinement and 90 days of hard labor and was demoted to the rank of Private.[12]

In December 1964, Whitman was honorably discharged from the Marines and returned to the University of Texas,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
Patrick Sherrill i already told you about he never served in combat duty...

try again...
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
i think felons should lose the right.

i don't know anybody who isn't mentally ill tho [Wink]

i suppose it's a matter of degrees..

let's say somebody is diagnosed with ADHD that's a "mental illness" but it doesn't make them likely to shoot somebody..

try again...

as for this being a "changed time"? some things never change..
the constituaion was written by REBELS, revolutionaries who recognised that when the King of England controlled who had guns and who didn't he controlled everything...

that hasn't changed, and never will...

you see? this isn't really about hunting ducks in th fall or turkeys in the spring.. it's about a 70 to 150 million person army that will NEVER be run over by a tank..
 -

I didn't say all mental diseases.. just the ones that are more likely to do such a thing... that is left up to the experts and not us...

I know the old saying that guns don't kill people... that people kill people... yeah well that's true to a certain extent... but guns sure the hell make it easier to kill people and alot more of them then a knife or other weapons... perhaps you did not read my post carefully... I didn't say people should not own guns... I said if you do not have a criminal background (note: felon) and do not have a mental disease (note: schizophrenia and other diseases that can cause someone to kill.. and not ADD and other miscellaneous ones that are obviously not dangerous ones) that will harm themselves or others then by all means own a gun... but for legitimate reasons only...

You all make it sound like murders are not committed everyday in this country by guns and kill more people collectively when used as a murder weapon then other weapons... and your solution is to own more guns... which is not a solution but a contributor to the problem... alot of guns get stolen from private homes etc. that are used in violent crimes... and to say you do not want any gun control whatsoever to prevent them from being in the hands of people that should not have them because they are criminals and/or mentally Ill (seriously ill so let's cut it out with the BS)is very absurd and perhaps the only way a gun owner can learn that some gun control is needed is to tragically lose a loved one to a gun by a criminal and/or mentally ill person... like what happened in Long Island years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Ferguson
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
Patrick Sherrill i already told you about he never served in combat duty...

try again...

I have not said anything a about combat that i recall... and i do use the word Vet but loosely to mean anyone in the military... point is alot of people get into the military with mental diseases (though I don't know how) and come out worst sometimes like those two... some get diagnosed with mental diseases as they are getting out of the military... these as well as SOME combat vets should not own guns and that is what i support...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
the WW2 vet you mentioned, Unruh was a little wierd when he was in the military indicating that he was dysfunctional to begin with too

Always a reserved man, he had turned into a recluse in the three months before his spree. The World War II veteran was unemployed and lived with his mother. During the war, he was reportedly a brave tank soldier who kept meticulous notes of every German killed, down to details of the corpse.

thats' just wierd man...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
some get diagnosed with mental diseases as they are getting out of the military... these as well as SOME combat vets should not own guns and that is what i support...

the case specifically brought up by Congrees is about PTSD...


that's a combat issue for the most part..

it is possible to acquire it from abusive relationships and other stressfull experiences, like car accidents...

i agree that there are mentally ill people that should not have firearms....

but like i said, there's mentally ill and then there's psycho... where do you draw the line?

and how do you make the decision?
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
Patrick Sherrill i already told you about he never served in combat duty...

try again...

I have not said anything a about combat that i recall... and i do use the word Vet but loosely to mean anyone in the military... point is alot of people get into the military with mental diseases (though I don't know how) and come out worst sometimes like those two... some get diagnosed with mental diseases as they are getting out of the military... these as well as SOME combat vets should not own guns and that is what i support...
here's your exact wording:

Let's not forget the numerous of mass killings since the 60's committed by ex-vets who had mental problems of some sort from their war experiences like the ones who went "Postal" at post offices and gave birth to the term Postal or going Postal
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
some get diagnosed with mental diseases as they are getting out of the military... these as well as SOME combat vets should not own guns and that is what i support...

the case specifically brought up by Congrees is about PTSD...


that's a combat issue for the most part..

it is possible to acquire it from abusive relationships and other stressfull experiences, like car accidents...

i agree that there are mentally ill people that should not have firearms....

but like i said, there's mentally ill and then there's psycho... where do you draw the line?

and how do you make the decision?

Should not have firearms but do because there is no law that I'm aware of barring them from owning any... perhaps the application process should include psychiatric evaluation or mental health background check...

As for the "decision"... like i said not us but the experts should... and not a quick decision but a "study" they come to collectively and agree upon along with the politico's who make the laws for such a thing... didn't say it was a easy task but it can be done fairly... like i said serious mental diseases... not passive ones... I'm not a expert but I would include schizophrenia, bipolar, personality disorder etc.. among others...
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
the WW2 vet you mentioned, Unruh was a little wierd when he was in the military indicating that he was dysfunctional to begin with too

Always a reserved man, he had turned into a recluse in the three months before his spree. The World War II veteran was unemployed and lived with his mother. During the war, he was reportedly a brave tank soldier who kept meticulous notes of every German killed, down to details of the corpse.

thats' just wierd man...

He sounded more like a Serial killer to me in the making then a spree/mass murderer...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
yeah he does...
interesting "character" as long as you aren't his victim...

As of 2007, he is 86 years old and still resides in Trenton Psychiatric Hospital. Shortly after his arrest he was reported to have said to a psychiatrist, "I'm no psycho. I have a good mind. I'd have killed a thousand if I had bullets enough."

that's definitely a soshapath...
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
quote:
Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
Patrick Sherrill i already told you about he never served in combat duty...

try again...

I have not said anything a about combat that i recall... and i do use the word Vet but loosely to mean anyone in the military... point is alot of people get into the military with mental diseases (though I don't know how) and come out worst sometimes like those two... some get diagnosed with mental diseases as they are getting out of the military... these as well as SOME combat vets should not own guns and that is what i support...
here's your exact wording:

Let's not forget the numerous of mass killings since the 60's committed by ex-vets who had mental problems of some sort from their war experiences like the ones who went "Postal" at post offices and gave birth to the term Postal or going Postal

I expanded my answer after that post and that was obvious that I did... so quoting a earlier post is pointless if in later ones i expanded my statements like you and everyone else does when we debate... to even include non-military people with mental diseases...
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
yeah he does...
interesting "character" as long as you aren't his victim...

As of 2007, he is 86 years old and still resides in Trenton Psychiatric Hospital. Shortly after his arrest he was reported to have said to a psychiatrist, "I'm no psycho. I have a good mind. I'd have killed a thousand if I had bullets enough."

that's definitely a soshapath...

hmmm he interests me now... perhaps I should seek out a book on his crimes... true crime books are a passion of mine though I'm usually more interested in organized crime then mass murderers,spree killers, serial killers etc...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
my problem with the bill is that it will make troops AVOID professional treatment..

and they have earned it, and we owe it to them...

there are a lot of shytbirds in the medical profession that don't mind pencil screwing people for the pure joy of doing it...

i've run into a few of them in the miltary/VA system and even at prestigious hospitals like Johns Hopkins..

i refused a frivolous surgery on my wrist (for supposed carpal tunnel that i most definitely did not have) one time at Hopkins and the surgeon screwed me over with my insurance company...
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
And some troops do AVOID mental health treatment regardless because a Man isn't suppose to go to a therapist... they feel people look down on them if they do... Machismo we call it in spanish... woman troops as well because they constantly have to prove they are just as good or better then a male troop.....

Btw any doctor can phuck you over regardless if your a vet or not... happens all the time whether there is a law or not...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
as for keeping guns out of criminals and truly mentally ill peoples hands? i doubt most law-abiding and responsible gun owners would disagree..

they/we want to keep our rights intact, and whenever some a-hole goes postal it brings the problem back to the front..

my understanding is that the guy at VA Tech was not supposed to have been able to buy his gun, but the system failed...
he was under court ordered mental care...

Cho, a South Korean who had moved to the United States at age eight, was a senior English major at Virginia Tech. Cho had been diagnosed with and treated for a severe anxiety disorder beginning in middle school, and he continued receiving therapy and special education support until his junior year of high school. While in college in 2005, Cho had been accused of stalking two female students and was declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
see? failed system....
your tax dollars being mismanaged again...


A federal law passed in 1968 in response to the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King,[85] also prohibits those "adjudicated as a mental defective" from buying guns. This exclusion applied to Cho after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment.[6][4] Because of gaps between federal and Virginia state laws, the state did not report Cho's legal status to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

the key word is ADJUDICATED mentally defective..
as in a JUDGE decides...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
So how will this bill make things even worse? Well, two legal terms are radically redefined in the Veterans Disarmament Act to carry out this vicious attack on veterans’ gun rights.

One term relates to who is classified a "mental defective." Forty years ago that term meant one was adjudicated "not guilty" in a court of law by reason of insanity. But under the Veterans Disarmament Act, "mental defective" has been stretched to include anyone whom a psychiatrist determines might be a tiny danger to self or others.

The second term is "adjudicate." In the past, one could only lose one's gun rights through an adjudication by a judge, magistrate or court -- meaning conviction after a trial. Adjudication could only occur in a court with all the protections of due process, including the right to face one's accuser. Now, adjudication in HR 2640 would include a finding by "a court, commission, committee or other authorized person" (namely, a psychiatrist).

 
Posted by glassman on :
 
here's a link to the bill itself:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110xsZUoB::


Votes on Passage
Jun 13, 2007: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative's position was not kept.
This bill has been passed in the House. The bill now goes on to be voted on in the Senate.
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
Am i missing something here? Wasn't the point of this issue that veterans with PTSD are going to be discriminated against? And, that the government won't need much of anything to back up their claim that veterans are a threat to society and themselves.

We are not talking about a few combat vets that will fall into this category.
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
Sorry, my statement falls out of context you guys write to fast for me. By the time it takes me to write one statement you are able to write five. [Embarrassed]
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
see? failed system....
your tax dollars being mismanaged again...


A federal law passed in 1968 in response to the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King,[85] also prohibits those "adjudicated as a mental defective" from buying guns. This exclusion applied to Cho after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment.[6][4] Because of gaps between federal and Virginia state laws, the state did not report Cho's legal status to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

the key word is ADJUDICATED mentally defective..
as in a JUDGE decides...

A judge decides but he is not a mental health expert... so of course he is guided by psychiatrists etc... which is the way it should be.. anyways the system is not perfect and does fail sometimes but it's better then none and not having gun control laws is even worst... means any mental case or criminal can get a gun... as for someone postal bringing it to the front page... wouldn't that be even be more a reason to have the law so that person does not committ the crime and there would be no need for more stringent laws? ... kind of makes sense... [Razz]
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
From time to time, Machiavelli, you like to compare apples to oranges. On this topic you have tried to switch the attention from the real issue, which is many veterans being discrimanated against, to that of of few veterans that are seriously sick and gun control in general.

The issue that most of us were addressing was that millions (guess)of veterans will have their legal rights taken away without due process of the law. Most of us realize certain veterans should not have guns, knives, prescription drugs(although prescription drugs are needed in some cases) etc.

This bill as i read it is addressing many if not most PTSD sufferers as defined by VA criteria. This will take rights away from many veterans that should have the right to go hunting etc.

Why should veterans not have the right to bear arms unless due process of law has been allowed? This due process, it appears, will be taken away by this law. All this because the veteran served his country.

The indivuals diagnosing PTSD (or other illnesses at VA facilities) tend to write up explanations of illnesses in funny ways. Many times when you are seen at VA facilities you are seeing trainees and physician assistants. Doctors at the VA often oversee many interns and aids. The care at many of these facilities is good, but the written charts can be very unusal and the information is not always correct. It is always important to get copies of your medical records (which many do not) after a visit to keep your own records. Always make side notes on these records if the records do not state what you or the doctor, aid or intern stated in the room. This is very important for Iraq vets or any vet just in case they ever need to apply for disability compensation.

I hope more veterans seek out the help they need and deserve for their illnesses and they do not have more reasons not to get help ( such as new laws). I also hope that more politicians spend time getting money funded for these veterans. Politicians need to improve the VA system for the next wave of veterans--but unfortunatly things seem to be getting worse.
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
I am not comparing Apples to Oranges IWish... because as Glassman pointed out Non Vets can get PTSD under different conditions and also should not have guns etc.

As for "Due Process"... well they are not being charged for a crime... they are just being prevented from harming themselves and others... and that to me is more important then someone getting special treatment and being allowed to do anything just because they served their country... they are special for doing that.. serving their country but they are by no means superhuman because of it... they are still human with a mental flaw that can be triggered at any moment that can harm others and themselves... we see mental patients committ violent acts all the time and be barred from possessing weapons so why should Vets be different? ... give me a break...

If you are a vet or ex military and that is your reasoning then just say so but your rationale of letting someone with mental problems have weapons is ridiculous... Policemen across the country have their weapons taken away because they suffer PTSD or similar mental diseases due to what they see everyday on their job... and in fact Policemen to me deserve a little more respect because they work a job to keep our communities safe domestically from our own worst enemies... our own criminal and mental citizens... no one argues when a gun should be taken away from a cop but when it comes to a Vet because your a Vet or ex military everyone gets their panties in a bunch... I wonder if you would feel the same way if you were never in the military and were directly affected by a violent crime from a mental patient (military and non military alike)....

Perhaps if you do not have such faith in the diagnosis of a VA facility then the Vet can be sent to a private facility with a good reputation... if the vet is still considered a danger to others and himself do you still think they should still carry or possess guns? .... that is question... are you giving a fair opinion or a biased one? ...
 
Posted by T e x on :
 
I heard on the radio tonight, driving in from work, that the Pentagon and the VA can't agree on how to share medical records.

[Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]

don't know whether that's true, but? if so...how desperately, fundamentally troubling!
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
we see mental patients committ violent acts all the time and be barred from possessing weapons so why should Vets be different? .

taken away after ADJUDICATION... this bill would bypass th ejudge and is fundamentally a violation of the constitution..

Policemen across the country have their weapons taken away because they suffer PTSD or similar mental diseases due to what they see everyday on their job

hmmmm.... they may take away their SERVICE peice, but they can't take away their personal guns without a judge...

we alaready have pretty good and fair gun laws, we just need the system to work properly..

sound familiar? like we had Zack Massaui in custody before 9-11 for taking flying lessons but not landing lessons [Eek!]
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by T e x:
I heard on the radio tonight, driving in from work, that the Pentagon and the VA can't agree on how to share medical records.

[Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]

don't know whether that's true, but? if so...how desperately, fundamentally troubling!

it's always been that way..

the VA never had my service medical records as i found out in the 80's...
apparently they are in some big warehouse in Kansas, and can't be found [Roll Eyes]

prolly got misfiled heh!!!
 
Posted by T e x on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
quote:
Originally posted by T e x:
I heard on the radio tonight, driving in from work, that the Pentagon and the VA can't agree on how to share medical records.

[Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]

don't know whether that's true, but? if so...how desperately, fundamentally troubling!

it's always been that way..

the VA never had my service medical records as i found out in the 80's...
apparently they are in some big warehouse in Kansas, and can't be found [Roll Eyes]

prolly got misfiled heh!!!

Has this ever been an election issue before?
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
Machiavelli,

It is not as simple as you and these politicians are trying to make it. If these indivuals are diagosed as being that much of a threat to themselves and others, shouldn't they be under special care?

When i made the statement about very sick veterans it could apply to anyone, but since we were talking about vets i felt i would stay there. I was the one that posted the brief ptsd discription that listed different possible causes of ptsd, some are not necessarily military related.(page 1)

What violent acts have these veterans committed that they are going to be banned for life from owning a gun?

Should people with mental problems have weapons? Why not? There are varying degrees of mental problems. But if you think that is a reason for not allowing someone ever to have a weapon, then there is no point to anything else.

Why do many veterans not go outside of VA for medical care? Many cannot afford to.

Are these veterans that are banned going to get money to go outside the VA? I really doubt it.

Is my reasoning as a vet affecting my judgement? I don't think so. I do not like guns. But to take that right away from someone for life just because they are a vet with ptsd is ridiculous. It appears they will not do an extensive diagosis or have a court hearing to prove ALL these vets are a major threat to themselves or others, which is just sad.

You cannot take several indivuals and say, see they are a major threat to themselves and others, and thereby concluded that all these millions of other vets fall into that same category. At least i didn't think so. Like i have said before that is discrimination against a disabled vet.

This law appears to make a general statement in order to take a constitutional right away from a lot of vets. Kinda makes you wonder why they were serving their country, doesn't it?
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IWISHIHAD:
Machiavelli,

It is not as simple as you and these politicians are trying to make it. If these indivuals are diagosed as being that much of a threat to themselves and others, shouldn't they be under special care? [/qb] Travel to NYC and the streets here to see mentally ill who should be under special care then you can get back to me why Vets should get more special treatment then the mentally ill street people in NYC among other places... we are all first and foremost human beings and should be equal.. not Vets getting special treatment over other people because of their past duty... they did their duty for our country and not to be treated more special then others... most vets i talk to just tell me they are not heroes... they did their duty for their coutry and the real heroes are the ones who died...

[quote] When i made the statement about very sick veterans it could apply to anyone, but since we were talking about vets i felt i would stay there. I was the one that posted the brief ptsd discription that listed different possible causes of ptsd, some are not necessarily military related.(page 1)

Again why should Vets be treated differently if others who are no Vets have the same disease? ... I believe it was Bgeesus who once said to me that no one on this board can say how the debate should go... it can start out with the original topic but progress from there which it has... this law should not only apply to Vets with this disease but all who have this disease is my opinion... as for who posted different possible causes of PTSD... i can only recall Glassman posting it before you since I was originally talking to Glassman about this in this thread and not you... you came later... as you always do when you feel the need and superiority to debate me in any thread...

quote:
What violent acts have these veterans committed that they are going to be banned for life from owning a gun?
Oh , excuse me. You are Dr. Xavier and can connect to each person on earth to know what they did or didn't do? Didn't know you were a mutant X-Men. My bad. Sorry I couldn't help myself but in this case your assuming not one vet has committed a violent act after they got out of the service.

quote:
Should people with mental problems have weapons? Why not? There are varying degrees of mental problems. But if you think that is a reason for not allowing someone ever to have a weapon, then there is no point to anything else.
There you go again. Putting words in my mouth. I have said more then once in this thread that only serious mental patients should not have guns ala schizo, bipolar, personality disorder, PTSD (perhaps, further studies needed) etc. Scroll back and reread some of my posts for when I said these things.

quote:
Why do many veterans not go outside of VA for medical care? Many cannot afford to.
there are adequate free clinics with competent professionals imo that are not VA facilities...

quote:
Are these veterans that are banned going to get money to go outside the VA? I really doubt it.
Read above post

quote:
Is my reasoning as a vet affecting my judgement? I don't think so. I do not like guns. But to take that right away from someone for life just because they are a vet with ptsd is ridiculous. It appears they will not do an extensive diagosis or have a court hearing to prove ALL these vets are a major threat to themselves or others, which is just sad.
Is it affecting your judgement? yup.. very much so and you do not have to like guns to have this affect your judgement. You being a vet has to do with it. Anything that has to do with Vets you will always be in favor of the Vet no matter the issue and that is clear. You do not see a Vet and a non Vet as the same even if both have the same diseases etc. I see both the same because to me both are first and foremost a human being. Btw I don't think they said anything about banning for life. More like till they get better and pose no danger to themselves or others. That to me is reasonable and fair and right.

quote:
You cannot take several indivuals and say, see they are a major threat to themselves and others, and thereby concluded that all these millions of other vets fall into that same category. At least i didn't think so. Like i have said before that is discrimination against a disabled vet. [quote] Sure I can. You can take any individual and stigmatize the group as a whole. It's done all the time in other areas in this country. It is a democracy afterall lol And not for nothing but I don't think "millions" are said to have this disease and no one is saying that and are not under any illusions that they are since not "millions" have been in combat since WW2 or Korean War.

[quote]This law appears to make a general statement in order to take a constitutional right away from a lot of vets. Kinda makes you wonder why they were serving their country, doesn't it?

They served their country and not for any benefit derived from it. That's how I see it.
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
"This law appears to make a general statement in order to take a constitutional right away from a lot of vets. Kinda makes you wonder why they were serving their country, doesn't it?"
-------------------------------------------------
My explanation of this statement i made.
Part of serving our country in the military is protecting our constitutional rights, in the case of this law, veterans are having that right taken away from them by serving their country.

Definition discrimination

Unlawful discrimination can be characterised as direct or slightly less direct. Direct discrimination involves treating someone less favourably because of their possession of an attribute (e.g., sex, age, race, religion, family status, national origin, military status, disability), compared with someone without that attribute in the same circumstances.

Is forever and life about the same time?

Like i said you can take my statements and apply them to non vets, but i have decided to stay pretty much to the original post, what you do is your business.

I have no problem with standing up for servicemen or vets in most cases Machiavelli. If you think im biased that's fine, does not bother me in the least. I could go into a lot more depth but it would make this just get worse, so i will leave it here for now.
 
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
 
I am for gun control, but I don't agree with this bill. Seems to me that PTSD ( and I am not meaning to belittle the disorder here) is the ADHD of the military medical system. War changes you. PTSD is the name they give to those who have trouble with that change. To bar them access to guns for the sole reason of PTSD is like barring me from eating cheese just cause I live in Minnesota on the grounds that I am more likely to eat too much of it. (Which I do, but it has nothing to do with me being a Minnesotan.)

As to the constitution and the right to bear arms. Let's put this in historical context please.

At the time of the writing of the constitution America was a fledgling country defying an oppressive and increasingly militaristic British government, carving new communities out of an unknown wilderness totally dissimilar to the countries of origination for most of its people, with neighbors of dubious intent like the French and the Spanish (not to mention the Native Americans who were fantastical in appearance, culture, and not to be trusted.)

We do not live in that world anymore (unless you are a Jon Candy "Canadian Bacon" type thinker). [Smile]

As to the guns of the period? Muskets were expensive, not terribly accurate, and took a good 20-30 seconds to reload. Pistols were only good in close range, were even more expensive, and still had accuracy issues. Bullets were a hunk of lead. They didn't pierce armor, they didn't explode in your body to do the most amount of damage possible, and they sure as hell didn't have automatic or semi-automatic fire. A good knife or sword/spear was just as reliable and a whole lot easier to get your hands on.

If we lived in circumstances such as those I would insist on the right to bear arms too. If the examples listed above were the extent of the arsenal an individual could aspire to I wouldn't care. And as a hedge against political and militaristic extremism I believe it is good to have a public that has the ability to enforce its will when all else goes to pot.

But I will never agree that the right to bear arms as written in the constitution gives carte blanche to citizens to own weapons capable of killing hundreds within minutes and it was never intended to do so.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
i have to disagree about the large differences in damage a firearm could to a person at the different times...

i would MUCH rather take a non-lethal wound from a standard nine millimeter made today than a 50 caliber ball... the wounds from musket balls and even pistol balls were pretty bad.


then consider that they had NO antibiotics...

i think the differences are about evened out...

most firearm "incidents" are close range and even among family members...

as for the "native american" comment? i have no idea where to begin...
they were no less likely to be trusted than anybody else. as matter of fact? if you do some reading on how the US Govt broke just about every treaty they ever made with them? you would understand why the "frontier" people needed guns to defend themselves from pissed off people.

now? take that "propensity" to break treaties and you come back full circle to not trusting the govt. and you get back to what the founders were saying about the govt they had just disposed of.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
the During the Napoleonic Wars (1799-1815) the very best musketeers could fire 4-5 times per minute.. thier accuracy was abysmal

rifles appeared in British army infantry at this time and the very best riflemen could only go 3 times per minute, but with deadly accuracy up to 100 yds...

a rifleman could fire as fast as a musketeer too, but without the accuracy... they would forget the patch and "tap" the ball down instead of ramming it, which was required with a patch to "match" the rifle grooves

the constitution was ratified only a dozen years before...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed.


seems pretty clear to me, the only way to regulate the militia is for the people to have the same power they do...

what else COULD this mean? [Razz]
 
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
 
[Razz]

How COULD they write it with the foresight of current warfare technology?

I was writing my description of history from the perspective of that time period. Wasn't meaning to imply I think American Indians are not to be trusted. With hindsight we know who the aggressors were. Back then it wasn't nearly so clear. Kind of reminds you of current times eh?

Bullets may or may not be less painful but penetration and lethality of the bullet itself is much more dangerous now days. That many died back in those days due to subsequent infection is immaterial but actually bolsters this assertion. When discussing gun control and the constitutions intent behind bearing arms the invention of antibiotics is a significant but irrelevant achievement to the topic itself.

From the way your position is framing the right there is nothing to prevent me from putting together a nuclear bomb since the military currently has a stockpile of these items. I think you and I would both agree that argument is ridiculous and the government would find it criminal. So...there is a line. Since there is a line then the discussion turns to where is that line drawn?

The current bill being considered by the senate would suggest that anyone that fulfills a selective criterion (military service) and shows any possible propensity for violence should be denied the right to bear arms. I disagree with this. It smacks of guilty until proven innocent which is counter to what America stands for.

However, I would suggest that the right should be restricted to the modern equivalent to what was used when the constitution was written. That would mean shotguns and rifles principally for hunting and hand guns for self defense. Nothing automatic, nothing semi-automatic. There is no demonstrable need for these devices to be in the publics hands, nor were they in use at the time of the signing of the constitution therefore any suggestion of how the founding fathers would have reacted to such weapons is mere conjecture.


Leno's on. [Smile]
 
Posted by T e x on :
 
Your various arguments imply a further argument: weapons according to license grade, ie, sumpin like ==> handguns only, less than .380/9mm; handguns & shotguns; all previous plus rifles 30-caliber and lesser; all previous + all rifles; etc etc...
 
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
 
That sounds right, but I gotta tell you Tex that other than using a friends to go hunting now and then I don't use guns and probably never will unless something goes wrong in the world again and my company puts one on my belt.

Really...if gun enthusiasts want to make sure all these specialty guns stay available...they gotta help the government find a way to keep track of weapons that works. It's the street market on guns that is fueling the whole debate. They say country wide that while overall crime is down, youth violence and confiscation of illegal firearms are skyrocketing. Find a way to stop that and you'll stop the issue cold.
There will be talk now and then when some new guys goes postal but there really is very little a society as a whole can do about that. Virgina Tech boy's ilk will only be stopped by good clinical services and intervening friends who care. No law in Washington is gonna change that.
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
quote:

But I will never agree that the right to bear arms as written in the constitution gives carte blanche to citizens to own weapons capable of killing hundreds within minutes and it was never intended to do so.

Exactly... I agreed with this statement 100%... the constitution was written in a different era and world... they had no inclination of what the future was going to be like and therefor it is the modern politician's job to modify things in the constitution that are outdated... for all we know our founding fathers thought their way of life in those times would be forever and we all know that isn't true... we have gangs, guns, drugs, school shootings etc.. that were not precedented in those times... they were pretty much non existent in the 1700's and early 1800's or very little if at all... it's just too funny to hear gun proponents say that what we need more is not less guns but more guns and more powerful guns to protect ourselves... lol

Anyways as for the anti gun controllers... here's a couple of stories lately in which we don't need Gun Control laws to prevent this for the mentally ill or otherwise [Roll Eyes] :

http://www.wnbc.com/news/14211196/detail.html?rss=ny&psp=news

http://breakingnews.nypost.com/dynamic/stories/S/SCHOOL_SHOTS_FIRED?SITE=NYNYP&S ECTION=HOME

Makes me wonder if you care about your children's future with less violence and such or you only care about your selfish selves and your childhood fantasies of blowing things up with a gun...
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
No gangs on the streets in 1700-1800? No shoot outs? Guns? History?
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
For someone who said he will leave it for now so it doesn't get worst... you sure don't keep your promises lol... I said very little of those things existed in those times then now... it can even be argued that the evolution of weapons in particular guns contributed to the rise of gangs and violence after those times and into the present times... because of no Gun Control and letting every Dick, Tom & Harry own a gun with very little restrictions... our Founding Fathers did not intend a free for all when it comes to guns and I'm sure they thought people would be responsibly mature when it came to guns though however misguided they were about that... Laws sometimes have to change with the times and not live in the past for the sake of our children's future... don't you agree? ...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
it can even be argued that the evolution of weapons in particular guns contributed to the rise of gangs and violence after those times and into the present times..

holy crap:

this mean anything to you?
 -

not a damn thing has changed. the only thing that's changed is the technology...

several million, probably tens of millions of Native Americans were wiped out with those "outdated weapons"
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
Now is not forever Machiavelli. I do read your statements from time to time and try and understand them.

You seem interpret history way different than i do. From what i have read about the past, guns, gangs, drugs, prostitution were very prevalent in the US. Isn't that how guys like Wyatt Earp, Bat Masterson, Jesse James Gang, Dalton Gang, etc.etc got there reputations. Sorry forgot Matt Dillion of Gunssmoke.

As far as a free for all, in many of these towns it sounded like thats pretty much what it was. The Wild West

Maybe the right to bear arms did not get changed because of this issue? (bad guys and guns)

I thnk the only way we are going to slow up the bad guys (gangs,robbers,etc.) from using guns
against others is to have a lot more surveilliance and i do not like the trade off myself.

I will get back to you on the new law.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.
---Alexander Hamilton
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IWISHIHAD:
Now is not forever Machiavelli. I do read your statements from time to time and try and understand them.

You seem interpret history way different than i do. From what i have read about the past, guns, gangs, drugs, prostitution were very prevalent in the US. Isn't that how guys like Wyatt Earp, Bat Masterson, Jesse James Gang, Dalton Gang, etc.etc got there reputations. Sorry forgot Matt Dillion of Gunssmoke.

As far as a free for all, in many of these towns it sounded like thats pretty much what it was. The Wild West

Maybe the right to bear arms did not get changed because of this issue? (bad guys and guns)

I thnk the only way we are going to slow up the bad guys (gangs,robbers,etc.) from using guns
against others is to have a lot more surveilliance and i do not like the trade off myself.

I will get back to you on the new law.

Do you not see it IWish... those very same guys/gangs you named from the old West came to be when better guns that can kill more people came about... and were more prevalent to them... what would you want in terms of killing people? Guns from the 1700's or the mid to late 1800's? ... As for saying that the right to bear arms were not changed because there were bad guys... how about the flip side.. more bad guys came about because the right to bear arms was not changed... make sense? ...

As for surveillance and such... Bush is already tried or is trying to do that under the banner of stopping Terrorism... wouldn't you say criminals who rob, rape and kill are terrorists in a way against our own citizens? ... But anyways we already have surveillance on gun runners/dealers, gangs etc... it's obviously not working much like the War on Drugs...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).


everybody who wants to give up their right to bear arms?

EXIT here:

 -
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
quote:
holy crap:

this mean anything to you?
 -

not a damn thing has changed. the only thing that's changed is the technology...

several million, probably tens of millions of Native Americans were wiped out with those "outdated weapons"

That technology and the lack of good and effective gun control laws is what created out of control criminals then and now... instead of saying we should have very strict gun control laws so the guns and such do not get into the wrong hands you all b*tch about your rights being trampled on about owning guns... but no one's rights are being trampled on except the criminals and mentally ill... make sense? ...

As for the Native Americans being wiped out with those outdated weapons... we'll even if one bullet missed it's intended target it would most likely hit another behind or beside hime... but that was warfare and not guns being used in non-war use like robberies and other crimes... besides I also recall that small pox was used to try to wipe out the Native Americans... I don't see us possessing that in the private sector.. the right to bear Germs in "self-defense"?... wonder why... oh yeah that's right because it causes death and destruction... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.
---Alexander Hamilton

He also got blown away by a gun so I think if he were still alive he may think a little differently about the issue lol .. .
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).


everybody who wants to give up their right to bear arms?

EXIT here:

 -

Yeah we'll I'm sure alot of people in this country feel drug laws are very oppressive & unjust... want to have a free for all with drugs on your children as well... Guns contribute nothing good to society except death... All I'm saying is if you must own a gun because it makes you feel like man then so be it... but why let everyone own guns... what is so wrong with putting controls so the wrong people do not own them like criminals and mentally ill people?... We tend to have more stringent background checks in the job interviewing/application process then we do with guns... hell would you want to get a blood transfusion without having it checked first to see if it has AIDS or not? .. same thing.. if you want guns then fine... but there is no reason WHATSOEVER that there shouldn't be gun control laws that make it very difficult for criminals and mentally ill people to own them.... gun control laws are pretty much left to the states right now and the guns on the streets of NY are bought in states like Virginia and other southern states why? ... because the South don't give a sh*t about more guns ending up on the streets... if Gun Control Laws are not passed to prevent such things then I'm all for Bloomberg and other politicians from other states in suing out of state gun store owners... maybe if you hit them and their state in the pockets then perhaps they will listen and learn...
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
Not much disagreement in what you said Machievalli.

We make things better and better in most cases as time go on. Is it necessarily better in a long run. Sometimes it is sometimes it is not, at least that's how i look at it.

As far as talking about what came first the chicken or the egg, that's another discussion. (guns, bad guys)

But for me there is a bottom line to this. I think the only way you stop a lot of the bad guys with guns is to increase surveilliance a lot more. Like you said Machieville we are getting more and more of that any way, that's what really scares me. The bads guys with guns scare me a lot less than all the rights we are losing to protect us.
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
I don't mind surveillance on criminals and such as long as it's done legally... with a court order... but a guy with a gun shooting me scares me more then rights violations... rights violations can be battled in courts... but the cycle of a bad guy shooting people doesn't stop... but can be prevented...

Read today in my local newspaper that a 16 yr old was shot by a black youth after the youth asked the 16 yr old for directions... no heated exchange of words happened.. just shot him for no reason in the neck... luckily he survived... and this happened in my neighborhood which is very middle to upper middle class and about the most exciting crime that happens here is juvenile vandalism... so it seems this violence is spreading into quiet neighborhoods now.. and i have no doubt the shooter in this case acquired a gun in the black market that was probably and most likely bought in the South somewhere in a gun shop and then transported here... this 16 yr old could of been your kid... so perhaps you should think about that and not yourselves for once...
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
The surveilliance will not and is not just on criminals, that is the point.

Machiavelli, I do not think anyone here is disagreeing with certain restrictions on gun possession.
The question is are the restrictions being placed on these indivuals fair and just as far as this law (page 1) is concerned?

I still have no idea where you stand on vet law issue. It seems like one time you are on one side of the issue then the next you are on the opposite by your statements.

Are you saying that All mentally ill people should have there gun rights taken away for forever?
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
but why let everyone own guns... what is so wrong with putting controls so the wrong people do not own them like criminals and mentally ill people?... We tend to have more stringent background checks in the job interviewing/application process then we do with guns...

this is just not true.

i already showed you the laws, they exist, and they should be enforced...

if you went to legally purchase a gun tomorrow, you'd have to get a background check. what goes in the background check is the question here.

In 2005, two female Virginia Tech students reported being stalked by Cho, but they chose not to press charges. Yet after talking to him, campus police recommended he be detained for mental evaluation.

Cho was evaluated at a local psychiatric hospital. A doctor there found him depressed, but said Cho denied being suicidal. The next day, a state magistrate found Cho "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness," but did not find he was a threat to others.

The magistrate recommended outpatient treatment as opposed to involuntary commitment. It's unclear what follow-up treatment Cho had.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june07/guncontrol_04-20.html


if you want to open all medical records to anybody and everybody? you are crazy...
people will then be asking for your medical records before they hire you too...

The Federal Gun Control Act, ever since 1968, has prohibited the possession by a person or the sale to a person who is what they call mentally defective. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms wrote a regulation, and that regulation says that that category includes a person who has been found by some kind of official body to be a danger to himself or others.

Cho was found to be a danger to himself or others when he was brought before a magistrate. The magistrate had the option to commit him but found that less restrictive treatment, the outpatient treatment, would be sufficient. Yet even though he wasn't committed, that's sufficient under federal law to bar him for the rest of his life from ever possessing a firearm.

And, in fact, there's a case from the federal district court of Michigan, U.S. v. Vertz, that finds exactly that, that, in a very similar situation, the Federal Gun Control Act did apply and prohibited the person from having a gun.

 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IWISHIHAD:
The surveilliance will not and is not just on criminals, that is the point.

Machiavelli, I do not think anyone here is disagreeing with certain restrictions on gun possession.
The question is are the restrictions being placed on these indivuals fair and just as far as this law (page 1) is concerned?

I still have no idea where you stand on vet law issue. It seems like one time you are on one side of the issue then the next you are on the opposite by your statements.

Are you saying that All mentally ill people should have there gun rights taken away for forever?

I don't think Vet's should be singled out but the law should be expanded to mean anyone with a severe enough case of PTSD... that does not mean everyone who has this disease but to mean only the more severe cases that shows a prevalence for violence or suicide attempts...

And nope not all mentally ill people should have their gun rights taken away. Should be on a case by case basis and some mental diseases should be automatic like schizophrenia for example. And once you are ruled a danger to yourself or others it should be put in a national database when the background check for gun ownership is conducted. As of now it seems there is only a background check within the state where the gun is being purchased and not outside of that state. Hence why alot of guns end up on the streets of NY that are bought out of state by people who have criminal backgrounds or mental incapacity.
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
quote:

this is just not true.

i already showed you the laws, they exist, and they should be enforced...

if you went to legally purchase a gun tomorrow, you'd have to get a background check. what goes in the background check is the question here.

Laws get outdated and should be updated... anyways the laws you cited are not enforced and gun owners such as yourself don't make a big stink about them not being enforced because it's not hitting your wallet... perhaps if you made a big stink about the laws being enforced the issue of Gun Control will never come up again... make sense? ... And it should be a national background check and not a local/state background check the way it seems now...

quote:
if you want to open all medical records to anybody and everybody? you are crazy...
people will then be asking for your medical records before they hire you too...

not to anybody or everybody... just for gun background checks and only mental health records... it would prevent alot of deaths in the long run... you sign a waiver letting mental health records to be included in such things for gun ownership... not unreasonable in my book... if you still want your right to own a gun and want to prevent them from getting into the wrong hands... make sense?

quote:
The Federal Gun Control Act, ever since 1968, has prohibited the possession by a person or the sale to a person who is what they call mentally defective. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms wrote a regulation, and that regulation says that that category includes a person who has been found by some kind of official body to be a danger to himself or others.

Cho was found to be a danger to himself or others when he was brought before a magistrate. The magistrate had the option to commit him but found that less restrictive treatment, the outpatient treatment, would be sufficient. Yet even though he wasn't committed, that's sufficient under federal law to bar him for the rest of his life from ever possessing a firearm.

And, in fact, there's a case from the federal district court of Michigan, U.S. v. Vertz, that finds exactly that, that, in a very similar situation, the Federal Gun Control Act did apply and prohibited the person from having a gun.

Obviously with Cho it didn't work :

"Cho paid $571 for a 9 mm Glock 19 pistol just over a month ago, the owner of Roanoke Firearms told CNN Tuesday. He also used a .22-caliber Walther pistol in the attack, police said. (Interactive: The weapons used in the shootings)

John Markell said Cho was very low-key when he purchased the Glock and 50 rounds of ammunition with a credit card in an "unremarkable" purchase.

Cho presented three forms of identification and did not say why he wanted the gun, Markell said. (Watch how quickly these guns can be fired, reloaded )

State police conducted an instant background check that probably took about a minute, the store owner said."

Hell of a background check there Glass... a 1 minute background check... DNA, job and other "checks" take longer then that & done properly...

a background check imo should take 30 days or have a waiting period of 30 days to be conducted properly and nationally and not statewide only like in Virginia... there is no need to get the gun now if your a legit person... you can wait 30 days...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
background checks are national...

i suggested ahwile back that this program could also be used to ID illegal immgrant employees...

because it works pretty well. there's always exceptions to every rule tho:

In November 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (Brady Act), Public Law 103-159, was signed into law requiring Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to request background checks on individuals attempting to purchase a firearm. The permanent provisions of the Brady Act, which went into effect on November 30, 1998, required the Attorney General to establish the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) that any FFL may contact by telephone or by other electronic means for information, to be supplied immediately, on whether receipt of a firearm by a prospective transferee would violate section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18, United States Code, or state law.

The NICS is a national system that checks available records in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), Interstate Identification Index (III), and the NICS Index to determine if prospective purchasers are disqualified from receiving firearms.



The FBI developed the NICS through a cooperative effort with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and local and state law enforcement agencies. The NICS is designed to respond within 30 seconds to background inquiries to provide FFLs with an immediate answer as to whether the transfer of a firearm would violate state or federal law.



http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsindex.htm
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
Definitions of Prohibiting Categories
1) Persons who are aliens and are illegally or unlawfully in the United States

2) Persons who have renounced their U.S. Citizenship

3) Persons who have been adjudicated as a mental defective or have been committed to a mental institution

Criteria for Entry

The Department of Veteran Affairs, the Depart-ment of Defense, and state law enforcement have the authority to enter and update records on persons who have been adjudicated as mental defectives or have been committed to mental institutions.

4) Persons who have been discharged from the armed forces under dishonorable discharge conditions

5) Persons who are unlawful users of or addicted to any controlled substance
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
quote:
background checks are national...

i suggested ahwile back that this program could also be used to ID illegal immgrant employees...

because it works pretty well. there's always exceptions to every rule though

Works pretty well? LOL I'm not sure what world you are living in Glass but it's not ours... look at the news... obviously it's not working "pretty well"... and obviously a persons criminal background and not their mental background is about the only thing that is checked... and if it's national then why is it so easy to buy in some states as opposed to other states if the same national check is being used? ...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
i think in Mexico the people aren't allowed to have guns...

but they are all coming here for some reason? maybe we have it right?
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
yeah the reason is economics more and not guns... so not sure why you bringing another country citizens into this... were discussing the U.S. and it's citizens gun rights...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
because it's part of the system of freedom...

in Mexico? aren't the Federales pretty much in charge of every facet of life?

don't they skim off everybody? isn't that why Mexico is so "economically depressed"?
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
we'll Glass... if you want to dodge my question about background checks with a non issue as Mexico about gun control then so be it... it just shows me you don't have a answer for the question...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Machiavelli:
we'll Glass... if you want to dodge my question about background checks with a non issue as Mexico about gun control then so be it... it just shows me you don't have a answer for the question...

you mean this?

and if it's national then why is it so easy to buy in some states as opposed to other states if the same national check is being used? ...


each state has it's own laws, i thought it was a rhetorical question...

nobody on th elist can buy a gun legally tho...

of course nobody can buy METH legally either, but plenty do and will..

and the meth mostly comes from Mexico now... where the Federales run the show.
 
Posted by Relentless. on :
 
The second amendment doesn't have clauses.. just as the First doesn't.
The constitution is NOT a living document... it does NOT adapt.
The constitution was written as regulations for government.. with the full knowledge that government is inherently evil and power hungry.
Why is it that so many wish to give government more rights than we the people hold?
Perhaps it's intentional amnesia.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
fear.
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Relentless.:
The second amendment doesn't have clauses.. just as the First doesn't.
The constitution is NOT a living document... it does NOT adapt.
The constitution was written as regulations for government.. with the full knowledge that government is inherently evil and power hungry.
Why is it that so many wish to give government more rights than we the people hold?
Perhaps it's intentional amnesia.

It evolves when a amendment does not work such as when Prohibition was repealed...
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
quote:
Originally posted by Machiavelli:
we'll Glass... if you want to dodge my question about background checks with a non issue as Mexico about gun control then so be it... it just shows me you don't have a answer for the question...

you mean this?

and if it's national then why is it so easy to buy in some states as opposed to other states if the same national check is being used? ...


each state has it's own laws, i thought it was a rhetorical question...

nobody on th elist can buy a gun legally tho...

of course nobody can buy METH legally either, but plenty do and will..

and the meth mostly comes from Mexico now... where the Federales run the show.

Exactly... individual state laws is what puts guns in the black market easier therefor making that national background check void & useless... there needs to be a national law for it at least in regards to out of state buyers to make it tougher on them to purchase a gun if they are not suppose to have one for either criminal or mental reasons....

Other then that what is your obsession with Mexico? ... we are not talking about their right to bear arms under our Constitution...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
you mean NYC whines because they can't keep people from getting guns if they want them?

isn't that the same argument about illegal immigrants and drugs?
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
I'm not talking just about NYC... illegal guns is a major problem just as big as illegal immigration and drugs but you do not seem to see that... and because it is our local and national laws should be looked at to close loopholes or other problems... if it did Cho perhaps would not have been in possession of weapons and the VA Tech massacre might not have happened... is that so difficult to understand? no one is trying to take your legal guns... just the illegal guns that are used in crimes year in and year out... because it is so easy to cross a state line and buy from a state such as Virginia which is very lax in their laws to buy a gun for criminals etc...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
uh? i do know that ILLEGAL guns are problem. i lived in VA for about 7 years. and i am quite familiar with the fact that VA residents sell guns in other states..

however? that's gun-running, and is a felony...

Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases, however, is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. So the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification addresses only the state criteria, which list two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police: someone who was “involuntarily committed” or ruled mentally “incapacitated.
Because Cho was not involuntarily committed to a mental health facility as an inpatient, he was still legally eligible to buy guns under Virginia law. According to Virginia law, "A magistrate has the authority to issue a detention order upon a finding that a person is mentally ill and in need of hospitalization or treatment." The magistrate also must find that the person is an imminent danger to himself or others. Virginia officials and other law experts have argued that, under United States federal law, Justice Barnett's order meant that Cho had been "adjudicated as a mental defective" and was thus ineligible to purchase firearms under federal law.

what makes you think he couldn't have gotten a gun illegally if he wanted a gun? he could buy drugs, get a hooker, why not a gun?

During February and March 2007, Cho began purchasing the weapons that he later used during the killings. On February 9, 2007, Cho purchased his first handgun, a .22 caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic pistol, from TGSCOM Inc., a federally-licensed firearms dealer based in Green Bay, Wisconsin and the operator of the website through which Cho ordered the gun. TGSCOM Inc. shipped the Walther P22 to JND Pawnbrokers in Blacksburg, Virginia, where Cho completed the legally-required background check for the purchase transaction and took possession of the handgun. Cho bought a second handgun, a Glock 19 semiautomatic pistol, on March 13, 2007 from Roanoke Firearms, a licensed gun dealer located in Roanoke, Virginia.

Cho was able to pass both background checks and successfully complete both handgun purchases after he presented to the gun dealers his U.S. permanent residency card, his Virginia driver's permit to prove legal age and length of Virginia residence and a checkbook showing his Virginia address, in addition to waiting the required 30-day period between each gun purchase. He was successful at completing both handgun purchases, even though he had failed to disclose information on the background questionnaire about his mental health that required court-ordered outpatient treatment at a mental health facility.

he lied, how do expect to catch every single liar out here? heck the White House lies every day Clinton and Bush both.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
gun-running happens at all levels too:

Allegations of Blackwater gun-running
Malaysia Sun
Saturday 22nd September, 2007

U.S federal prosecutors are investigating whether employees of the private security firm Blackwater illegally sold U.S bought weapons on the Iraqi black market.

Officials are concerned about the activities of some Blackwater staff, who they say might have sold weapons to a U.S-designated terrorist organisation.

U.S. attorneys have already concluded there is enough evidence to file charges.

 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
I didn't say VA residents going to NY or whatever state to sell guns... I am saying NY residents or whatever state residents going to VA to buy guns because it's easier to in VA with their lax laws as is the case with Cho who under federal law should not have been sold a gun but did under state law... cannot have two laws but only follow one because you want to make a fast buck and could care less about the publics safety...

As for Cho buying a illegal gun.. well he would have to have connections and from what I read about him... he didn't sound very sociable or have any friends to do so .... I myself wouldn't know where to buy a illegal gun and i live in NY which is probably the biggest illegal gun market...

I guess you did not read my earlier post where the gun dealer in Va said the background check took only 1 minute to do for Cho to purchase the 9mm Glock... so what 30 days? ... as for him lying on a questionairre about his mental state.. what did you expect Cho to say? that he's a mental psycho? LOL ... that's not a way to block mentally ill people from possessing guns... by asking them if they are mentally ill? LOL ... get real... geez... in the background check to see if someone has a criminal record there should be something about a person's mental state... that is the problem in the case of Cho... there is no national database for such a thing and it is a loophole or flaw...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
and i'm telling you i KNOW EXACTLY how it works..
VA resident sell the guns, NOT licensed dealers..
but they are no better than drug dealers...

re-read that paragraph about how he waited 30 days to get each gun and filled out all the proper forms..

VA laws are not lax anymore...
they were a few years back, and NYC complained like hell until they changed them.. you have to prove you are a resident of the state you purchase a handgun in..


two factors in this case are glaring

1) the judge didn't commit Cho, he "allowed" Cho to go voluntarily.. a plea deal..
2) the two girls he stalked refused to press charges.. had they pressed charges? he woulda had to buy the guns illegally... which he woulda done.. cuz it's not the guns, it's the people that are "messetup"
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
gun-running happens at all levels too:

Allegations of Blackwater gun-running
Malaysia Sun
Saturday 22nd September, 2007

U.S federal prosecutors are investigating whether employees of the private security firm Blackwater illegally sold U.S bought weapons on the Iraqi black market.

Officials are concerned about the activities of some Blackwater staff, who they say might have sold weapons to a U.S-designated terrorist organisation.

U.S. attorneys have already concluded there is enough evidence to file charges.

Mercernaries who do illegal things... you wouldn't think lol ...
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
and i'm telling you i KNOW EXACTLY how it works..
VA resident sell the guns, NOT licensed dealers..
but they are no better than drug dealers...

re-read that paragraph about how he waited 30 days to get each gun and filled out all the proper forms..

VA laws are not lax anymore...
they were a few years back, and NYC complained like hell until they changed them.. you have to prove you are a resident of the state you purchase a handgun in..


two factors in this case are glaring

1) the judge didn't commit Cho, he "allowed Cho to go voluntarily.. a plea deal..
2) the two girls he stalked refused to rpess charges.. had they pressed cahrges? he woulda had to buy the guns illegally... which he woulda done.. cuz it's not the guns, it's the people that are "messetup"

30 days background check eh? reread my earlier post: "Cho paid $571 for a 9 mm Glock 19 pistol just over a month ago, the owner of Roanoke Firearms told CNN Tuesday. He also used a .22-caliber Walther pistol in the attack, police said. (Interactive: The weapons used in the shootings)

John Markell said Cho was very low-key when he purchased the Glock and 50 rounds of ammunition with a credit card in an "unremarkable" purchase.

Cho presented three forms of identification and did not say why he wanted the gun, Markell said. (Watch how quickly these guns can be fired, reloaded )

State police conducted an instant background check that probably took about a minute, the store owner said."

As for Virginia's licensed gun dealers are not selling guns illegally?... read this article and many more i can post :

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/2007/04/17/2007-04-17_yes_virginia_gu ns_kill_innocents-2.html

"You even yukked it up with a "Bloomberg Gun GiveAway" raffle at a gun shop that sold at least 22 guns used in crimes in New York.

You went into a tizzy when Mayor Bloomberg sued some of your gun shops after undercover agents made fraudulent "straw purchases."
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
the mercs have in the past also been known to be very disrepectful to the troops...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
in addition to waiting the required 30-day period between each gun purchase

this law was set up to cut down on gun-running...
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
in addition to waiting the required 30-day period between each gun purchase

this law was set up to cut down on gun-running...

30 days does not stop gun running.. just delays it...
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
buy 12 hand guns a year and you'll be on the "to do list" at the ATF...

it's not VA's fault that the only people wth guns in NYC are criminals and cops.. and there's 1000 criminals for every cop, and there always will be.
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
no it's not VA's fault there are criminals in this world... it is VA's fault if they sell to those criminals...
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
Below is an article of some problems i wish these politicians would spend more of their time and our money on instead of this bill. If they would get more help for vets and soldiers like they deserve, there would be a lot less seriously sick veterans and a lot less problems.

This article deals more with the soldiers issues but vets are facing the same problems also, many waiting several months to be seen.


The Institute of Medicine reported last month that Veterans Affairs’ methods for deciding compensation for PTSD and other emotional disorders had little basis in science and that the evaluation process varied greatly. And as they try to work their way through a confounding disability process, already-troubled vets enter a VA system that chronically loses records and sags with a backlog of 400,000 claims of all kinds.
The disability process has come to symbolize the bureaucratic confusion over PTSD. To qualify for compensation, troops and veterans are required to prove that they witnessed at least one traumatic event, such as the death of a fellow soldier or an attack from a roadside bomb, or IED. That standard has been used to deny thousands of claims. But many experts now say that debilitating stress can result from accumulated trauma as well as from one significant event.

In an interview, even VA’s chief of mental health questioned whether the single-event standard is a valid way to measure PTSD. “One of the things I puzzle about is, what if someone hasn’t been exposed to an IED but lives in dread of exposure to one for a month?” said Ira Katz, a psychiatrist. “According to the formal definition, they don’t qualify.”

The military is also battling a crisis in mental-health care. Licensed psychologists are leaving the armed forces at a far faster rate than they are being replaced. Their ranks have dwindled from 450 to 350 in recent years. Many said they left because they could not handle the stress of facing such pained soldiers. Inexperienced counselors muddle through, using therapies better suited for alcoholics or troubled marriages.


Poor access; inadequate training
A new report by the Defense Department’s Mental Health Task Force says the problems are even deeper. Providers of mental-health care are “not sufficiently accessible” to service members and are inadequately trained, it says, and evidence-based treatments are not used. The task force recommends an overhaul of the military’s mental-health system, according to a draft of the report.

Another report, commissioned by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in the wake of the Walter Reed outpatient scandal, found similar problems: “There is not a coordinated effort to provide the training required to identify and treat these non-visible injuries, nor adequate research in order to develop the required training and refine the treatment plans.”

But the Army is unlikely to do more significant research anytime soon. “We are at war, and to do good research takes writing up grants, it takes placebo control trials, it takes control groups,” said Col. Elspeth Ritchie, the Army’s top psychiatrist. “I don’t think that that’s our primary mission.”

In attempting to deal with increasing mental-health needs, the military regularly launches Web sites and promotes self-help guides for soldiers. Maj. Gen. Gale Pollock, the Army’s acting surgeon general, has proposed doubling the number of mental-health professionals and boosting the pay of psychiatrists.

But there is another obstacle that those steps could not overcome. “One of my great concerns is the stigma” of mental illness, Pollock said. “That, to me, is an even bigger challenge. I think that in the Army, and in the nation, we have a long way to go.” The task force found that stigma in the military remains “pervasive” and is a “significant barrier to care.”

Surveys underline the problem. Only 40 percent of the troops who screened positive for serious emotional problems sought help, a recent Army survey found. Nearly 60 percent of soldiers said they would not seek help for mental-health problems because they felt their unit leaders would treat them differently; 55 percent thought they would be seen as weak, and the same percentage believed that soldiers in their units would have less confidence in them.

Lt. Gen. John Vines, who led the 18th Airborne Corps in Iraq and Afghanistan, said countless officers keep quiet out of fear of being mislabeled. “All of us who were in command of soldiers killed or wounded in combat have emotional scars from it,” said Vines, who recently retired. “No one I know has sought out care from mental-health specialists, and part of that is a lack of confidence that the system would recognize it as ‘normal’ in a time of war. This is a systemic problem.”

Officers and senior enlisted troops, Vines added, were concerned that their careers could be damaged or that they would have trouble getting security clearances if they sought psychological help. They did not trust, he said, that “a faceless, nameless agency or process, that doesn’t know them personally, won’t penalize them for a perceived lack of mental or emotional toughness.”



Commander: PTSD diagnosis overused
For the past 21/2 years, the counseling center at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, Calif., was a difficult place for Marines seeking help for post-traumatic stress. Navy Cmdr. Louis Valbracht, head of mental health at the center’s outpatient hospital, often refused to accept counselors’ views that some Marines who were drinking heavily or using drugs had PTSD, according to three counselors and another staff member who worked with him.

“Valbracht didn’t believe in it. He’d say there’s no such thing as PTSD,” said David Roman, who was a substance-abuse counselor at Twentynine Palms until he quit six months ago.

“We were all appalled,” said Mary Jo Thornton, another counselor who left last year.

A third counselor estimated that perhaps half of the 3,000 Marines he has counseled in the past five years showed symptoms of post-traumatic stress. “They would change the diagnosis right in front of you, put a line through it,” said the counselor, who asked not to be named because he still works there.

“I want to see my Marines being taken care of,” said Roman, who is now a substance-abuse counselor at the Marine Corps Air Station in Cherry Point, N.C.

In an interview, Valbracht denied he ever told counselors that PTSD does not exist. But he did say “it is overused” as a diagnosis these days, just as “everyone on the East Coast now has a bipolar disorder.” He said this “devalues the severity of someone who actually has PTSD,” adding: “Nowadays it’s like you have a hangnail. Someone comes in and says, ‘I have PTSD,’ ” and counselors want to give them that diagnosis without specific symptoms.

Valbracht, an aerospace medicine specialist, reviewed and signed off on cases at the counseling center. He said some counselors diagnosed Marines with PTSD before determining whether the symptoms persisted for 30 days, the military recommendation. Valbracht often talked to the counselors about his father, a Marine on Iwo Jima who overcame the stress of that battle and wrote an article called “They Even Laughed on Iwo.” Counselors found it outdated and offensive. Valbracht said it showed the resilience of the mind.

Valbracht retired recently because, he said, he “was burned out” after working seven days a week as the only psychiatrist available to about 10,000 Marines in his 180-mile territory. “We could have used two or three more psychiatrists,” he said, to ease the caseload and ensure that people were not being overlooked.
 
Posted by BooDog on :
 
This kid isn't a vet and all the more reason to call BS on this whole act imo. Efforts and resources could be spent so much better. Now ask who the kid is a by product of and how the gun came into his posession. That may lead us in a circle. Yet the kid did this, not a vet.

--------------------
Gunman in Custody After Shots Fired at Northern California High School, Schools Locked Down
09-29-2007 1:10 AM
By JULIET WILLIAMS, Associated Press Writer

OROVILLE, Calif. (Associated Press) -- A student gunman held a high school drama class hostage Friday, firing shots and holding three of the students for more than an hour before police persuaded him to surrender, authorities said. No one was hurt.

Police would not say what the 17-year-old's motive might have been, but several students said he was distraught over a breakup with his girlfriend the night before.

The gunman initially took about 30 students and a substitute teacher hostage in a band room at Las Plumas High School. He eventually released all of them except for three girls, Capt. Jerry Smith of the Butte County Sheriff's Department said.

Turbo Her, an 18-year-old senior who was in the class, said other students initially thought it was a joke. "I said, 'Oh no, this is a real gun,'" Her said. "The girls were crying and hysterical. He wanted to scare them, to let them know it's real."

One shot was fired into the ceiling, Her said. Authorities said at least two shots were fired from the .22-caliber handgun the boy was carrying.

Her said the boy told students he did not want to hurt them and just needed to hide out for a bit. At least two students talked with family members by cell phone while they were being held hostage, Lt. Al Smith said.

Her said that after about 30 minutes, the gunman said that "anyone who's scared can leave," and about 25 students and the teacher left. Sheriff's officials said three remaining hostages did not stay there voluntarily, but they did not know why the gunman chose them to remain.

Smith said the gunman's only demand to deputies during the standoff was that they "back off." He asked for cigarettes, but Smith said he did not know whether the boy was given any.

Six schools in the Oroville Union High School District were locked down while a deputy talked to the hostile student on a cell phone.

"We made him realize that the best thing for him and everyone concerned was to release the remaining three hostages," Smith said.

Another student, Candace Carey, 18, said she was in algebra class next door to the drama classroom where students were taken hostage. She said she and her classmates crawled out a window to flee.

The boy's name was not released because of his age. Smith said he was a student at the school.

Deputies took the boy for questioning after he gave up and placed him in custody at Butte County juvenile hall, where he would remain at least until his first court appearance, authorities said.

Parents were directed to an Oroville church to be reunited with their children, and cars were backed up for half a mile leading to the church. Friday night's high school football game was canceled.

Oroville is 80 miles north of Sacramento.
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
no he's not a vet but he had a GUN and the issue of how he came into possession of it is a issue which leads to the debate of gun control anyways...
 
Posted by BooDog on :
 
lol. So as a vet.... taking controls to maintain... i should be attacked because some prick can't keep it together?

gimme a break
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
he shouldn't have a gun in the first place... and somewhere the "system" broke down or just plain doesn't work and a new system is needed...
 
Posted by BooDog on :
 
What I meant was why should the vets rights be challenged? There are enough issues keeping local and state enforcement agencies busy trying to maintain what laws are already in place.
We don't know this case. The kid may have been taught how to handle the gun by his parents for whatever reason. Or maybe his father was a cop and he took it. Who knows. The "system" isn't ever going to be perfect. Why target ptsb vets? Are they trying to act like they are doing something right in the name of gun control? Just to save face that they are doing something? I believe in gun control and the bad guys shouldn't be allowed to buy them - and there is a process already in place to aid in preventing them from buying them. I also know federal agencies issue weapons to individuals for their duties and they usually have a psych eval beforehand. If they fail the evaluation they can still go out in town and buy their own and thats with complying with the wait period. So work on the system that's already in place. Leave the vets alone imo.
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
As i see it the basis for this law is the interpretation of veteran's thoughts, not their actions. If we were to take rights away from everyone that had thoughts that were interpreted as illegal, we might not have any politicians to make and change laws. Actually, sometimes we see politicians that actually perform illegal acts and still never have any rights taken away! But that's a topic for another day.

I wish i could believe that our government is really trying to do the right thing to protect us when then put new laws into effect. I also would love to believe some of the things Machiavelli said. Wouldn't it be nice if surveillance was only used to catch criminals.

Maybe my age and history has made me a bit skeptical about how our government looks at our constitutional rights. Unfortuantly some of the older gereration (over 50) can be partly to blame. Many seem to feel more volnerable as they get older and feel the need to be more protected, thus wanting the government to step in and help protect them. These same people will not be the ones that will be most affected by our eroding rights and lack of privacy. Future generations will have very few rights or privacy if this trend continues.

The proposed law posted here is just another example of how quickly the rights of one targeted group can be eroded. The real issue for me is not guns but rather the "right" to own a gun. The interpretation of "thoughts" is not a reason to take those rights away.
 
Posted by Machiavelli on :
 
we'll if the interpretation of "thoughts" is not a reason then perhaps we should let people with schizophrenia, multiple personalities and other mental diseases that are severe have guns then... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by turbokid on :
 
not sure if anyone saw this but i thought id post it up for discussion.

-------

There is NO such bill as the "Veterans Disarmament Act"....it doesn't exist.

The bill this person is referring to is H.R. 2640 which would just continue certain policies...and, actually, protect many veterans.

It would require government agencies and states to provide NCIC with names of persons who have a "court order" denying them the right to buy a firearm, who have been legally declared a "mental defective" or who have been "committed to a mental institution", and those convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."

This is all pretty standard stuff and has been going on for years.

This has NOTHING to do with PTSD. In fact, PTSD patients are protected....see (C) below. A medical diagnosis does NOT get a vet on the list. The protections are all listed below from the bill. And, the states would be required to update this info on a quarterly basis.

(1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication or determination related to the mental health of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

(A) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;

(B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

(C) 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.

The legislation would actually give veterans, and others, the chance to get off the NCIC list if they were put on it in the past. This is a major step forward.

I am NOT a believer in gun control. I, like many veterans, keep a legal weapon in my home. So, I am disappointed that the person who wrote this article is distorting the facts. We do NOT need misinformation like this making the rounds in the veterans' community.


Larry Scott
Founder & Editor
VA Watchdog dot Org
www.vawatchdog.org

 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
It seems logical to me that these 'severe' mental patients should already be institutionalized if they were diagosed as severe. That is if the system worked properly. The law will not make any differance of what these indivuals do or don't do.

Most of the veterans(included in this law) with a diagnosis of PTSD are being treated with a general recommendation for counseling sessions. How dangerous do the proponents of this bill really think the veterans are given the 'treatment' veterans are receiving if they want it?
 
Posted by turbokid on :
 
also...

----
Voluntary Psychological Treatment

Neither current federal law, nor H.R. 2640, would prohibit gun possession by people who have voluntarily sought psychological counseling or checked themselves into a hospital:

Current law only prohibits gun possession by people who have been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to any mental institution.” Current BATFE regulations specifically exclude commitments for observation and voluntary commitments. Records of voluntary treatment also would not be available under federal and state health privacy laws.

Similarly, voluntary drug or alcohol treatment would not be reported to NICS. First, voluntary treatment is not a “commitment.” Second, current federal law on gun possession by drug users, as applied in BATFE regulations, only prohibits gun ownership by those whose “unlawful [drug] use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct.”

In short, neither current law nor this legislation would affect those who voluntarily get psychological help. No person who needs help for a mental health or substance abuse problem should be deterred from seeking that help due to fear of losing Second Amendment rights.


http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=246&issue=018
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
Turbokid, you sure know how to kill a argument.

But there is a one main point to all of this, there is a lot of stigma around mental health and especially ptsd. That's why veterans are so hesitant to seek help.
 
Posted by turbokid on :
 
killing arguments with facts is my forte [Smile]

you guys can continue to argue if you wish,dont let me stand in your way, i say a good heated discussion on racist homosexual illegal aliens who support bush favor bombing iran own guns and favor abortion should be a good topic. [Smile] LOL
-god im funny! [Smile]
 
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
 
As long as we are on the issue of veterans, i will state a few facts about the VA disability compensation system. I had stated ealier that this bothered me more than this potential law did.

The VA disabilty system has a backlog of claims of 400,000 and rising. Some Veterans are losing their homes and living in the streets
because of this. Average time to evaluate a claim the first time is about a year sometimes longer.

If these claims go beyond the first stage, which many do, the time frame to a final decision on a claim can be 4-7 years. The solution to this problem is not adding more people to the VA as the government would like us to believe. The solution is to hire better people that follow the laws(cfr's) that were set up to judicate a claim.

I do not know if the reason for this mess is that we do not have enough money to support these vets, thus making the system so tough that many veterans just give up. Many that give up should have received disability or a higher rating for their disabilty.

The laws (cfr's) were set up to give the benefit of the doubt to the veteran if there is one. This does not happen.

If a claim is denied or if the disability rating is not agreed on by the vet, then the vet must file a letter of disagreement. The vet under most cicumstances has 60 days from the date of mailing of his decision to do this. Unfortuantly the date of mailing is not necessarily the date the letter was mailed. It can be delayed weeks. Also there is a second part to the law and that states the vet has one year period from his intial claim, but this usually has been eaten up in the backlong process and he gets penelized if his claim goes to the next level.

This time period that veterans have to disagree with a claim has other issues. None of these claims are sent registered mail, if a claim does not reach a veteran or is delayed futher the vet loses, that claim is thrown out, and the only choice for the vet is to start over if there is new evidence. A ton of wasted money in this process, if thats what you want to call it.

There are no time requiirements or penealties that the VA has, this is a one way street.

It also appears that a vet is required to keep records for life, i cannot find any thing that says otherwise, of course if the VA loses your records it is your problem. Thus if the VA decides to re-evalute a claim and a veteran does not have records to support his claim, it can be thrown out or a reverse discision made.

This list can go on and on and nothing much favors the vet.

I sure hope that someday our politicians will correct this judication system back to where it was intended to be and help support the new wave of veterans that are having to enter into it, but realistically i only see it getting worst.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by turbokid:
killing arguments with facts is my forte [Smile]

you guys can continue to argue if you wish,dont let me stand in your way, i say a good heated discussion on racist homosexual illegal aliens who support bush favor bombing iran own guns and favor abortion should be a good topic. [Smile] LOL
-god im funny! [Smile]

i posted a link to the actual bill at the library of congress last week, and the old link is now no good, here's a new link, read it for yourself to see what it says instead of listening to special interest groups:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2640


if you want a govt for the people and by the people? you, we, the people, have to participate

this part is why i said the system is working, imperfectly, but working:

1) Approximately 916,000 individuals were prohibited from purchasing a firearm for failing a background check between November 30, 1998, (the date the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) began operating) and December 31, 2004.

(2) From November 30, 1998, through December 31, 2004, nearly 49,000,000 Brady background checks were processed through NICS.

 
Posted by andrew on :
 
I like cake.
 
Posted by glassman on :
 
cake is popular

 -
 
Posted by BooDog on :
 
Brush your teeth!!

Nice pic LOL!!
 


© 1997 - 2021 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2