Gun Control

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

One of the many symptoms of PTSD is, "Feeling that one can never relax and must be on guard all the time to protect oneself." If one experiences this symptom and has access to a gun (or any weapon), this could (might, maybe, perhaps) lead to a lethal combination which may manifest itself by harming oneself or others. The fact that one may experience a paranoid or unrealistic or irrational need to protect oneself does not give that person the right or obligation to own a weapon, especially a gun. The condition is a mental illness and needs to be treated as such with medication and counseling, not guns.

True, this is one of the many symptoms of PTSD, and not all who suffer from PTSD manifest this symptom. In fact it occurs only in a minority of Veterans with PTSD, usually in those who were in extremely unusual conditions of eminent danger during their experience.

This tactic of attributing one rare symptom to all with PTSD is a new kind of disability discrimination, as insidious as racial, religious or cultural discrimination.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

Is everybody diagnosed with PTSD banned from owning guns? Do they do some kind of assessment, or is it just a blanket ban?

If a person is diagnosed with PTSD by the Veteran's Administration, they are automatically put on the "deny purchase" list for the NICS, much the same as a felon would be (if the police were as competent, which they are not). This occurs for ANY PTSD diagnosis, no matter how slight.

According to the Vietnam Veterans Association, most PTSD symptoms are mild and ultimately non-violent. These include:

Memory Impairment

Hyper-vigilance (tendency to notice more things than the average person, this can range from noticing tools discarded by the roadside to awakening from a small sound)

Mild paranoia, mostly manifesting as excessive caution.

Flashbacks (which range from feelings of being in Vietnam to simply remembering what it was like - usually triggered by familiar conditions)

Reacting to a situation if it were a wartime danger; protecting potential victims.

Taking chances where one should be more careful (in rescuing others, performing difficult tasks, etc.)

Though these are the most common, there are also other symptoms, including withdrawal, self-medication, and others.

Not all people with PTSD should be denied firearm ownership; each case should be evaluated on its own merits rather than a blanket denial. Veterans in general are well-trained in the use of firearms, and can be a benefit to their community and country should the need arise.

In fact, it makes more sense to demand a blanket denial for individuals who continually rant about a single subject on the Internet. I believe Timothy McVeigh fell into this category. I think Matapule does, as well, but I will offer him the benefit of the doubt until he is assessed by a competent mental professional. His angry and often irrational rants against the Second Amendment to the US Constitution reveal an unstable personality that could prove to be dangerous - or not. Dismissing well-established historical events that disagree with his worldview is troubling, at the least.

I'm glad I have a measure of confidentiality here in HT, so I may speak my perception of the truth without worrying about reprisal.

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

Is everybody diagnosed with PTSD banned from owning guns? Do they do some kind of assessment, or is it just a blanket ban?

One of the many symptoms of PTSD is, "Feeling that one can never relax and must be on guard all the time to protect oneself." If one experiences this symptom and has access to a gun (or any weapon), this could (might, maybe, perhaps) lead to a lethal combination which may manifest itself by harming oneself or others. The fact that one may experience a paranoid or unrealistic or irrational need to protect oneself does not give that person the right or obligation to own a weapon, especially a gun. The condition is a mental illness and needs to be treated as such with medication and counseling, not guns.

[Kalalau]

Re: Gun Control

Is everybody diagnosed with PTSD banned from owning guns? Do they do some kind of assessment, or is it just a blanket ban?

[Kaonohi]

Re: GE is onboard

GE Capital has moved to stop all loans to gun shops. It is nice to see that even corporate giants see how out of control the gun nuts are in the US.

STRICT gun control NOW!

STILL no sensible solutions????

Just some minor commercial support and more whining?

What do you propose for "strict gun control?????" Wishing? Prayers? Magic?

[Kaonohi]

Gun Nuts vs. Patriotic Citizens

Just a year or so ago, some lunatic came swaggering down the home street of my town with a powerful rifle.

The local police had to take him out.

Enforcement of state statutes is the job those gentlepeople sign up for.

I am glad that somebody else packs all that heat.

Yes, there ARE some "GUN NUTS," but Matapule demeans the terminology when he throws Constitutional Protectors in the pot.

Matapule doesn't know the difference between a "Gun Nut" and a Patriot.

So sad.

[lensperson]

Re: Gun Control

Just a year or so ago, some lunatic came swaggering down the home street of my town with a powerful rifle.

The local police had to take him out.

Enforcement of state statutes is the job those gentlepeople sign up for.

I am glad that somebody else packs all that heat.

[matapule]

Re: GE is onboard

GE Capital has moved to stop all loans to gun shops. It is nice to see that even corporate giants see how out of control the gun nuts are in the US.

STRICT gun control NOW!

[TATTRAT]

Re: Gun Control

Like what do you propose?

We already have mandatory background checks for every commercial sale.

Several categories of people are prohibited from owning guns: all those with felony convictions and some with misdemeanor convictions, veterans reported by the VA to have been treated for PTSD of any kind (whether adjudged to be a danger or not), people who have a record of treatment by a psychiatrist, and several other categories.

Most of the mass-killings were done with illegally-acquired weapons (laws which mandate secure storage of guns would be a good place to start), and strangely enough, most of the perpetrators of mass-murder were either registered Democrats, or from Democratic families, many were also progressive liberals. Should we add Liberal Democrats to the list of those denied gun purchase?

I suppose you would pull a 'Nancy Pelosi' and say "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them (guns) all in?" Unfortunately only law-abiding citizens would comply, which leaves all the illegal guns out there.

Sometimes, to solve a problem you have to look at the causes. These mass-killings are a relatively recent phenomenon, and they reflect something that is wrong with our society. Some were committed by estranged young people, which reflects our recent trend toward liberal, permissive upbringing. Some were protestations against overly restrictive government.

We need sensible solutions, not vitriolic rants of a discriminatory nature (like calling people "Gun Nuts" because they support a portion of the Bill of Rights).

Do you even have any sensible solutions? Or are you just going to whine until you get your way?

"Strict Gun Control Now" is meaningless, unless you spell out those controls.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

Gun nuts! STRICT GUN CONTOL NOW!

"CONTOL?" I think you're letting your temper get the best of you.

Like what do you propose?

We already have mandatory background checks for every commercial sale. There is no "gun show loophole," that is a lie perpetrated by, well, liars deliberately trying to deceive you - or ignorant followers. The only ways you can get a gun without a background check is via illegal acquisition (gift or sale), or by inheritance (that's a good place to insist on background checks!)

Several categories of people are already prohibited from owning guns: all those with felony convictions and some with misdemeanor convictions, veterans reported by the VA to have been treated for PTSD of any kind (whether adjudged to be a danger or not), people who have a record of treatment by a psychiatrist, and several other categories.

Most of the mass-killings were done with illegally-acquired weapons (laws which mandate secure storage of guns would be a good place to start), and strangely enough, most of the perpetrators of mass-murder were either registered Democrats, or from Democratic families, many were also progressive liberals. Should we add Liberal Democrats to the list of those denied gun purchase?

I suppose you would pull a 'Nancy Pelosi' and say "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them (guns) all in?" Unfortunately only law-abiding citizens would comply, which leaves all the illegal guns out there.

Sometimes, to solve a problem you have to look at the causes. These mass-killings are a relatively recent phenomenon, and they reflect something that is wrong with our society. Some were committed by estranged young people, which reflects our recent trend toward liberal, permissive upbringing. Some were protestations against overly restrictive government.

We need sensible solutions, not vitriolic rants of a discriminatory nature (like calling people "Gun Nuts" because they support a portion of the Bill of Rights).

Do you even have any sensible solutions? Or are you just going to whine until you get your way?

"Strict Gun Control Now" is meaningless, unless you spell out those controls.

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

Gun nuts! STRICT GUN CONTOL NOW!

[Kalalau]

Re: Gun Control

That explains so much!

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

The crux of the matter is the portion of the second amendment which states

Well Regulated.

This condition has never been implemented.

Quite right, because it has been misunderstood for 200+ years.

In the late 1700's, "well regulated" often meant "sufficiently armed and trained", not, as many believe, 'well-controlled.'

"well regulated = according to an eternal standard, unspecified."

I belive that a 'WELL-REGULATED' militia was one that maintained its own firepower in good condition, with adequate ammunition, without external support. Since there was NO central control in those years, it is the only logical determination of those words.

In the years following freedom from Britian, there were many important things to which the colonists must attend, including the protection, by arms, of their new-found freedom. It was essential that the common man (and Woman) MUST PRESERVE THEIR LIbERTY AT LEAST PARTIALLY BY FORCE OF ARMS. Without a 'standing army' (many yeaRS in THE future), tHE COUNTRY DEPENDED UPON A Civilian militia, WELL REGULATed (armed) to protect it's interests.

[lensperson]

Re: Gun Control

The crux of the matter is the portion of the second amendment which states

Well Regulated.

This condition has never been implemented.

______


Strict Gun control now

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

When it comes to legal registration by veterans, most all were done as proposed, except for a few illegal - a minority, which were caught and prosecuted.

We tried to block illegal weapons from coming in.

No one can say we didn't, not even OBummer. It didn't work. How can we expect him to do better than the current NICS? We need to fix NICS FIRST!!!!

No one can say we didn't, not even OBummer.

I hardly know all the impacts,but I do know invisible PTSD keeps me from my guns. And I resent having fought for my country at age 19, and being denied the right to be part of the "well-regulated militia" at age 20.

I AM a part of the 'well-regulated militia' (every armed citizen is!) but what do they expect me to do? Throw rocks?

I hardly know all the impacts,but I do know invisible PTSD keeps me from my guns. And I resent having fought for my country at age 19, and being denied the right to be part of the "well-regulated militia" at age 20.

I'll stack up my rocks....