Posted on 10/29/2007 11:48:25 AM PDT by neverdem
As a veteran who has been diagnosed with PTSD....”from my cold dead, and I mean DEAD fingers..”
Meadow Muffin
ADHD, huh?
Instead of the usual counter-productive argument which is designed to divide allies in the gun freedom camp, how about we simply agree that ANY LEGISLATION that ANY LAWYER can write is going to be riddled with "INTERPRETATIONS" meant to insure confusion and endless litigation which we ALWAYS LOSE !!!
As plain as the wording of the 2nd is, we are still fighting an uphill battle to 'prove' what the obvious meaning is and has been for 200 years.
Lets simply put this POS bill where it belongs and get back to taking back our rights ...
Considering the high number of boys prescribed ritalin, that could turn into huge numbers!
Off topic, but I did a search on ADD and ADHD and military eligibilty one day. They have to be off the meds for one year prior to enlistment.
There is no bill to take guns away from veterans. If you have been involuntarily committed to inpatient treatment in a mental hospital, or a court has found you either a danger to yourself or others, or mentally incompetent to manage your affairs, you can’t own a gun under federal law. The feds want states to report these findings to the FBI for inclusion in the NICS check required when you buy a gun.
Again, how many vets with PTSD have been forced to submit to inpatient psych. care?
This isn’t about seeing a shrink, it’s not about family counseling, it’s not about ADHD, it’s not about whose taking psych. drugs. It’s limited to reporting cases where people have had a court or commission with due process protections finding them a danger to themselves or others, or sending to the a psych hospital against their will.
This bill came out of the Va. Tech. shooting, but there have been a number of other cases before that have attracted attention.
The GOA is being deceptive. You can’t invent your own name for a bill, describe it inaccurately, have people call their Congressmen about it, and then accuse those Congressmen of lying about not knowing what bill they are talking about.
I have also seen where a young man, as good as they come, was diagnosed with ADHD or somesuch and forced to take Ritalin, and as a direct result now he can't even get into the miltary because of his previous prescription to the drug. Sounds like a typical big-government operation to me!
Of course, the end-game to this sort of legislation is the eventual "consensus" among the "psychiatric community" that you're mental unbalanced just to want to own a gun, and it's Catch-22 time.
Bump to that. Any law is one too many when it comes to firearms nowadays.
My experience with this was about five years ago; the boy was the oldest son of a friend of mine. He was attempting to enlist in the Marines. Perhaps the USMC has its own criteria on this, or has changed its policy since then.
As if that would be a first
Gun restrictions have never been shown to be effective as crime control. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Has this passed or is it still lingering in committee?
Meadow Muffin
“Are Senate Offices Lying To You?”
Are thier lips moving?
H.R. 2640 passed the House on an unrecorded voice vote. Senator Coburn has placed a "hold" on it in the Senate. It's probably one of the Senate's arcane rules.
“Are Senate Offices Lying to You?”
Does a bear go poo-poo in the woods?
Folks, we’re talking about politicians here; some Senators, some representatives, some just lobbyists for the NRA or the GOA but all politicians. Of course they lie! That’s how they communicate!
Never, never, ever believe what they say. Don’t even believe what they say they’ve done because someone else probably did it and now the politician who’s talking to you is trying to steal the glory!
As for those who think the NRA is perfectly capable of walking on water, let me disabuse you of that myth - the NRA lies too! But then, so does the GOA, so the proper thing to do is go read the bill yourself, then consider each and every part of it in a way that some liberal gun grabber might, because if it passes you can bet that some day a liberal gun grabber will read it differently than it may have been intended and they’ll use it to shove some new gun confiscation scheme up your . . .
The only way to avoid such an outcome is to make it an automatic death sentence for anyone in Congress to file, back or vote on any bill that contains any reference to guns, firearms, weapons, clubs, knives, bows, spears or large rocks. Even then some lawyer type would find some way to infringe on the Second Amendment.
Never give the government anything it doesn’t need. In most cases, we’d be better served if the government fell rather than give up more of our rights. Remember, while anarchy can be a bad thing it need not be. Tyranny, on the other hand, is always a bad thing.
Or “other lawful entity”, don’t forget. I’m not sure just who they mean by that, since the original law just said court or commission.
BATFE just got a fed court to define “other lawful entity” to be two physicians signatures, if I remember correctly. Others on the thread will, I’m sure, flog me if I’m wrong.
I find reason for extreme care on this bill, Schumer and Brady et al would hardly be pushing hard for a bill that allowed more people to get or keep guns, or make it easier for people to get them back once taken away.
Using V Tech as an excuse is also odd- a state failure to report is a state issue and should not require a federal response.
Of course, the end-game to this sort of legislation is the eventual "consensus" among the "psychiatric community" that you're mental unbalanced just to want to own a gun, and it's Catch-22 time.
Precisely. For example:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1908448/posts?page=27#27
Offices are not people and thus have no lips to move.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.