Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Listen to the Buck Sexton Show Live on TheBlaze Radio

Government

Should Mentally Ill Veterans Be Banned From Buying Guns?

Dec. 3, 2012 7:10am Billy Hallowell

WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — Should veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their own financial affairs be prevented from buying a gun?

The issue, for a time last week, threatened to become the biggest sticking point in a $631 billion defense bill for reshaping a military that is disengaging from a decade of warfare.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sought to amend the bill to stop the Veterans Affairs Department from putting the names of veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their finances into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which prohibits them from buying or owning firearms.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., objected, saying the measure would make it easier for veterans with mental illness to own a gun, endangering themselves and others.

Should Mentally Ill Veterans Be Banned From Purchasing Guns?

In this Jan. 25, 2011 file photo, Sen, Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., left, talks with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., on Capitol Hill in Washington, during President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address in Washington. Should veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their own financial affairs be prevented from buying a gun? (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)

“I love our veterans, I vote for them all the time. They defend us,” Schumer said. “If you are a veteran or not and you have been judged to be mentally infirm, you should not have a gun.”

Currently, the VA appoints fiduciaries, often family members, to manage the pensions and disability benefits of veterans who are declared incompetent. When that happens, the department automatically enters the veteran’s name in the Criminal Background Check System.

A core group of lawmakers led by Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., has for several years wanted to prohibit the VA from submitting those names to the gun-check registry unless a judge or magistrate deems the veteran to be a danger. This year’s version of the bill has 21 co-sponsors. It passed the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee by voice vote, a tactic generally reserved for noncontroversial legislation. Coburn’s amendment to the defense bill contained comparable language.

“All I am saying is, let them at least have their day in court if you are going to take away a fundamental right given under the Constitution,” Coburn said in the Senate debate last Thursday night.

Photo Credit: AP

Congressional aides said Coburn will likely drop his effort to amend the defense bill with his proposal, but that he intends to try again on other bills coming to the Senate floor.

The number of veterans directly affected by the VA’s policy doesn’t appear to very large. Only 185 out of some 127,000 veterans added to the gun-check registry since 1998 have sought to have their names taken off, according to data that the VA shared with lawmakers during a hearing last June.

Still, the legislation over the years has attracted strong support from the National Rifle Association and various advocacy groups for veterans.

“We consider it an abject tragedy that so many of our veterans return home, after risking life and limb to defend our freedom, only to be stripped of their Second Amendment rights because they need help managing their compensation,” Chris Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist, wrote last year in an editorial.

The NRA did not respond to queries from the AP about Coburn’s latest effort.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said gun control advocates consider the VA’s current policy reasonable.

“We’re talking about people who have some form of disability to the extent that they’re unable to manage their own affairs,” Gross said. “If you’re deemed unable to handle your own affairs, that’s likely to constitute a high percentage of people who are dangerously mentally ill.”

Tom Tarantino, chief policy officer for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said veterans with a traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder but who pose no threat to others are possibly being barred from gun ownership. The current restrictions might even be a disincentive for veterans to seek needed treatment, he said.

Credit: AFP/Getty Images

“We want to remove these stigmas for mental health treatment. It’s a combat injury,” Tarantino said. “They wouldn’t be doing this if you were missing your right hand, so they shouldn’t be doing it if you’re seeking treatment for post-traumatic-stress-disorder or traumatic brain injury.”

VA officials have told lawmakers they believe veterans deemed incompetent already have adequate protections.

For example, they said, veterans can appeal the finding of incompetency based on new evidence. And even if the VA maintains a veteran is incompetent, he can petition the agency to have his firearm rights restored on the basis of not posing a threat to public safety.

What do you think? Should mentally-ill soldiers who can’t manage their finances be banned from purchasing guns? Take the poll:

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (119)

SquidVetOhio
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 8:31am
“If you’re deemed unable to handle your own affairs, that’s likely to constitute a high percentage of people who are dangerously mentally ill.”

Proving once again that Congress is mentally ill.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SpankDaMonkey
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 8:42am
  .
  I think they should be armed and put on a bus to Washington ASAP………….
  
  Report this comment
- Zipit
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 8:56am
  Squid! My thoughts exactly! If not being able to handle ones own finances, deems a person mentally incompetent, then fitting Obama and that egghead Geitner for a couple of straight jackets would be at the top of the “to do list”!
  
  Report this comment
- rangerskippy
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 9:41am
  I tell soldiers to be careful in getting the PTSD stuff in their records. One day, they will look to exclude PTSD folks from owning a gun.
  
  If an inability to handle your money leads you to not be able to own a firearm, then what gives our Government the ability to run our military? They sure cannot handle money.
  
  Report this comment
- Wolf
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 9:56am
  You scored a bullseye, Squid. Just reading the headline brought that thought to me. Mentally incompetant people claiming someone mentally incompetant- but it isn’t just the politicians. It’s unbelievable how many ameriKans want to disarm all of us.
  
  Report this comment
- WhataBunchOfShi
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 11:32am
  And WHO exactly decides who’s mentally ILL????
  
  Report this comment
- toto
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 12:48pm
  Brilliant, and unbelievably true.
  
  Report this comment
- 338_LM
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 12:58pm
  Squid, THANK YOU for my laugh of the day! Great comment; it’s such a shame it’s so true.
  
  FIWI, my dear friend, a ‘Nam Army vet, said the VA is always trying to get him to say he has PTSD and he simply refuses. They offer “more benefits” just for saying he has trouble sleeping, which he tells them he doesn’t. They’ve been at it for YEARS trying to get him to say he has “issues”.
  
  Things have to change in a major way.
  
  Report this comment
- Jonhenry
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 2:05pm
  I agree with the concept that Congress and WH are not compentent to run the financial affairs of USA. Where I disagree is that Financial competence is not to be confused with Danger to one self and Others, that is the judgement call of a Judge in Court. No stripping of Rights without Judicial oversight.
  
  Report this comment
- AZRACISTBIGOT
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 3:57pm
  This is just another slight of hand trick to single out and disarm a group of people who are predominently right leaning. It wasn’t so long ago that the whack jobs like Janet Napalitano wanted Vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan to be monitored for being potential domestic terrorists.
  
  Like so many folks have pointed out on this post, if not being able to balance a checkbook is proof of the onset of dementia, what does that say for the president and his minions during the last four years?
  
  Report this comment
- Secret Squirrel
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 6:57pm
  .
  Ever buy a gun?
  You have to fill out a “4473″ which asks if you have been declared mentally ill.
  Yes is a dis-qualifier. End of discussion.
  A mentally ill civilian and a mentally ill soldier are the same.
  
  Report this comment
- dmerwin
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 11:00pm
  Depends on the definition of “mentally ill”. Paranoid schizophrenic you bet. Situational depression definitely NOT. The wording on the background check form used to be more restrictive (have you ever been treated for…), then it is now.
  
  Report this comment
- SquareHead
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 5:31pm
  Who will define mentally ill? Pelosi?
  
  Report this comment
- DeOppressoLiber
  Posted on December 5, 2012 at 8:51am
  Do not have PTSD in your records or TBI. This is from a reliable source.
  
  The move right now is get their foot in the door and set the precedence on banning the ownership of guns by people who know how to use them.
  
  First step take the guns of veterans who can not take care of themselves, then veterans with PTSD, then veterans with a TBI because it leads to PTSD.
  
  This should scare the $hit out of everyone who loves freedom.
  
  Report this comment
StormRider
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 8:20am
Hey Chuckie, if you are so worried about this problem, why don’t you go to veterans homes and take the guns personally? Lots of mouth, no guts, typical NY sewer dweller. We left NY because of morons like you. Oh and by the way Chuckie, you’re a lying POS, you don’t give a shite about veterans, so STFU.
This vet isn’t fooled by your BS.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
GuruMeditation
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 8:19am
Our entire government cannot handle our countries finances. So if were gonna talk like this they should be disarmed first as an example. Handling finances and mental illness are two very different things. In addition, I think liberals are mentally ill, so should they be stripped after we strip our law makers of the right?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- mikem1969
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 8:43am
  amen brother.
  
  Report this comment
- mercenary4freedom
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 12:11pm
  Bottom line here is the tyrants in Washington are afraid of our vets. Afraid of what we have been trained & know how to do & that is defend our nation, our constitution from all enimies foriegn and domestic.
  
  Chucky Shumer & the rest of them like their little sneaky ride on the gravy train.
  
  Report this comment
- Jonhenry
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 2:08pm
  Yes!
  
  Report this comment
Taurnil
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 8:11am
No they shouldn’t. Main reason; the faux science of psychology can always redefine behavor patterns constituting mental illness. I note their recent rumblings of doing away with the term ” Asperger’s Syndrome” and put under a much broader category of Autism Spectrum Disorder.

So what’s to stop these folks from redefining any personality trait, behavior pattern, etal making anyone a ******, malcontent, socially antagonistic, etc, etc? As Mr. Prosser said to Arthur Dent about how much damage to his bulldozer would suffer after running over him; “None at all”.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- mikem1969
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 8:46am
  You are so right there. Just the other day I was reading an article where shrinks were wanting to classify toddlers that have temper tantrums as mentally ill. You know what precedent they are trying to set with our kids now, 99.9% of toddlers are going to have temper tantrums, and if they say they are mentally ill because of it, that means that 99.9% of toddlers when they come of age would not be able to buy a firearm because of a mental illness of just being a kid not getting their way.
  
  Report this comment
Slipstick
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 8:06am
What does “too mentally incompetent to handle their finances” have to do with overall mental health?
These poor schmoes are gradjutates of the pubic skul systum. They probably can’t read or write very well, either.

My take? The progressive / libs will use ANY excuse to try and strip us of our rights. ( And not just the 2ns Ammdt one.) It’s a power & control thing.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
reaganindependant
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 8:03am
The correct question is: Should anybody deemed mentally incompetent be banned from purchasing a firearm?

The correct answer is: Yes.

However, placing these people on the same list as criminals is not the way to do it. Especially our veterans. What really amazes me, is the level of ignorance of the men and women we send to Capitol Hill. Truly mind-numbing.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DadRocked
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 8:15am
  There is only 1% of the U.S. population, either currently in uniform or a vet, like myself.
  Easy target for them to go after.
  
  Report this comment
- Former_Road_Finisher
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 8:28am
  If you have any history of mental illness, a question that is on the application for a purchase permit, you are already banned from owning a gun.
  
  Report this comment
- sputnik
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 11:40am
  @Former_road_finisher
  
  Sounds like a problem with the bureaucrats who make the forms to own a firearm. There is a major difference between severely persistently mentally ill (SPMI) and someone feeling grief because a loved one died. There are strict laws for confidentiality and the state does not (yet) keep track of people (non-SPMI) who seek mental health counseling. Maybe that will change with the “surprises” of obamacare.
  
  Report this comment
rrice66
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 8:02am
Was it a voice vote like the one at the democrtic national convention, to change the language of their platform?

I no longer have any confidence in our lawmakers when judging a voice vote!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
welloddyfriggindah
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 8:02am
On the surface I thought, I don’t really want anyone who is mentally ill to be able to buy a gun. But when talking about our rights I ask:

1. Who decides what mental illness is? Some unelected bureaucrat will because no congressional group will ever agree.
2. Is the gun control lobby scanning the field looking for any bit of control to be gained? Yes…we already know that’s the left’s strategy.

Eventually proponents of the 2nd amendment will fit their definition of mentally ill.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- lowerclassrepublican
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 8:13am
  I agree, this is the loop hole they have been wanting to keep anyone from getting a gun. If you got in a fight back in school, you are mentally unstable. If you didn’t take ridilen as a child you are mentally unstable. If your not a democrat you are mentally unstable.
  
  Report this comment
RIGHT_WHERE_IT_HURTS
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 8:01am
Our poor forgotten Heroes can’t even get quality physical care in those VA rattraps, let alone decent mental assessments. Half-baked over-educated shrinks anywhere are a waste of time and money. They spend some much time ‘learning’ that it makes them stupid and forget all common sense. All that aside, this is only a very thin disguise for one of the first steps of weapons confiscation anyway. VERY THIN DISGUISE.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- objectivetruth
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 9:37am
  Its even worse than you think.The VA was infiltrated by the eos decades ago.Its only gotten worse.Think its an accident the high number of foriegn doctors?Did you know that the VA has contracts with many medical schools teaching hospitals?That many of these schools have campus’s and contracts with schools in the middle east?That the eos used the VA to cover some of their scams and tortures.
  Please everyone wake up and realize that its not just the normal human incompetence laziness at work.Its not just the liberal progressive political machine at work.The enemy is well within.The first two only make it easier for them to continue to operate.Unless this fact is faced and confronted nothing else you do will make any difference in the long run.
  
  Report this comment
- sputnik
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 11:33am
  @Right_where
  
  Not all “shrinks” are terrible as you say. Even in the VA there are some really good people who care enough to do good work. Those who do suffer from PTSD, a lot of vets do, get help and you never hear about it.
  
  @Objectivetruth
  
  Some VA’s are better than others. The mental health units are separate from the physicians. Just like there are worthless doctors, there are worthless psychotherapists, but that doesn’t mean they are all worthless.
  
  Report this comment
DadRocked
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 8:01am
They know that they can not stop the Second Amendment.
We have seen them skirt other Constitutional issues… And this article shows it yet again.
If you have any form of depression or even just being bummed out at being unemployed, marriage, children, whatever can stop your gun ownership

When you get discharged from being in uniform, it takes time to acclimate back into a civilian lifestyle, add to this not being able to obtain work and it is NOT going to be an easy transition.

This will stop anyone from seeking even minimal assistance.
It will be that your mental health issue, no matter how small, will be a red flag.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- kickagrandma
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 9:04am
  Morning, DADR~~~ Thanks for your note.
  
  Guess what?
  
  Posting on THE BLAZE will be one of the AMERICAN enemies’ red flags for those with mental illness. Next will come those with ROKU’s and then those who watch Glenn, buy his books, attend his rallies, etc., etc. At the same time, CHRISTIANS will be rounded up because they have or are attending the church of their choice.
  
  Report this comment
RebelBroker
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 8:00am
The burden of proof should rest on the shoulders of the government to prove that these men and women are a danger to themselves or others. It is ridiculous to force the vet to prove a negative. The simple fact that a service person may or may not be able to manage their own finances has no relevance to whether or not they should own a firearm.

More disturbing is that if this is allowed, it is a very short step to curtail veteran gun ownership rights when vets are being treated for just about any mental health related issue that would normally be considered confidential if being treated in the public sector.

It is so completely clear that the government should NOT be allowed to do this that I am amazed it is even being discussed.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- lordjosh
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 8:37am
  I would like to see the government prove that they have any auhority what so ever.
  
  Report this comment
- objectivetruth
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 9:57am
  Yeah that really rich.Government officials many who should be in a straight jacket are going to make decisions for someone else?Yes, the lunatics think they are running the asylum, dont they?
  Personally I think its high time for a constituional violation lawsuit against our government.They have upsurped the powers the founders intended.They came after other disenfrachised members of our society to remove their rights to gun ownership.No one back then said much its only the felons, well guess what its actually everyone.If any of you think our forefathers ever intended to remove the permanent gun ownership rights of any one save those clearly convicted of treason.You are dead wrong.Our forefathers clearly reconized the right of defense.They also realized that an unarmed man is a dangerous man.That those armed use more reason.Those who have been disarmed operate on complete instinct[eventually]and that fear and terror will eventually turn, not only deadly, but usually in a very savage and brutal manner.Furthermore our forefathers reconized that even the most peaceful person when disarmed and confronted with brutality would behave like an animal.
  
  Report this comment
kickagrandma
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 7:54am
NO! Only criminals and escaped felons (read: members of Congress) should be prohibited from purchasing guns. Of course, guns without ammo are useless, so there you have it.

Excuse me, but what veteran isn’t touched by having to go to war? Include in that list our fire fighters, policemen and REAL teachers…. It is a war zone, folks, and those of us who have served, or still do, are influenced by it forever. Geesh, you could add marriage to that list. Oh, goody, that would mean only the elites could own guns and they are allergic to them, so we are gun-free!

NOT IN THIS LIFE TIME, baby!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DadRocked
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 8:02am
  Your posting was read after I just submitted mine, which echoes your post.
  
  Report this comment
MiCurmudgeon
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 7:53am
Well, we have mentally ill politicians making laws and political appointees making regulations , so why not weapons for an person with menatl illness problems? NOT !!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
lordjosh
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 7:48am
This one is easy. Thet don’t have the authority to do any of it.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GuruMeditation
  Posted on December 4, 2012 at 9:38am
  and enforcing it will be a bad day for many regardless of which side you support.
  
  Report this comment
Thighmaster
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 7:46am
This argument relies on one’s interpretation of “shall not be infringed” it wasn’t accidently put there by the slip of a quill…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 7:39am
I wouldn’t necessarily trust the diagnosis given by most in the “mental health” dept of the VA anyways with their diagnosis.

If anyone has spent time at their local VA’s like I have… they know exactly what I’m writing about. Many of these warriors have no alternative BUT to use the VA system. Trust, but have someone else verify (second… non-VA opinion) if you’re able…

Some Vets are between a rock and a hard place getting the care they deserve (and need), but don’t let the VA be the final determining factor if at all possible. Mental illness is nothing to fool around with and some of the VA fools… fool around with it on many an occasion.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- loriann12
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 7:49am
  OMG, gotta second that. My husband had no choice but to use the VA system to repair a badly broken leg. First he went to a civilian, but after 14 months, it rebroke because the civilian screwed bone to bone with no plates. The doctor that everyone was so excited to even scrub in with, worked with the VA. They had to take bone grafts from his hip. The incision looks like a 3rd grader sewed it back together. I think I could have done better. We haven’t seen the leg incision yet, he goes back tomorrow. He had the first bout of pain hit him at home (after 6 days in the VA Hospital) and started having flashbacks. i know what flash backs are, I dealt with them a few years back from childhood trauma. He started recalling vivid details of how he was treated, including one man coming in and telling he they would take Fox News off the TV because it was all propaganda. I was so reminded of Born on the 4th of July.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 7:59am
  Time2
  how do you feel about liberty supporters owning guns
  
  Report this comment
- TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 8:01am
  LORIANN12. Yep, I hear ya’. I’ve had some very good experiences with the VA, but the crappy experiences far outway those good one’s. I’m a 30% disable Vet, but most of the time (because I am Retired) choose to use TRICARE just to not have to deal with the truly “uncaring, lame and lazy” civilians who work within in the VA system. My disability resulted from being on “Jump Status” and involves my leg. That’s the only reason I use the VA (service-connected treatment).
  
  Best wishes to your husband… and good luck.
  
  Report this comment
- TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 8:27am
  SOY. Pffft. And by the way SOY… from what I’ve read from you “liberty supporters” for Obama enabling… a gun is probably NOT in your best interest. Being “spring-loaded-in-the-dumbs&!t-position” usually results in one shooting himself in his own @ss.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 8:36am
  ok dude. i asked a serious question but everything is a game to you
  
  Report this comment
- TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 11:32am
  SOY. You’re an ankle biter… not unlike a chihuahua or a chigger. Read between the lines dead eye. My last comment previous to this wouldn’t post. Guess I was being too brutally honest in that other response…
  
  Report this comment
- ANTISOCIAL-IST
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 12:16pm
  @time: in the one year you’ve been here, i have yet to find one redeeming quality that you possess or one thing i like about you. you are always abrasive, insulting, and attack anyone who doesn’t lockstep agree with you.
  you act just like a totalitarian dictator. ease up a little.
  
  Report this comment
- TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 1:18pm
  Lmao…. and the ANTI abrasive guy wrote in a previous comment to another poster while chastising me…
  
  “…you sound just like a limp-wristed, yellow-belly, weak-constitution, boot-licker…”
  
  Hmmmmmm. Lol.
  
  Report this comment
- TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 1:25pm
  AND… the ANTI abrasive guy also wrote….
  
  “you, rag, do not possess the american spirit of liberty and freedom.
  one-way tickets to france are on the cheap right now. bon voyage.”
  
  I guess whomever YOU disagree with gets the Luv… or would THAT BE the Louvre… ?
  
  Freakin’ hypocrites…
  
  Report this comment
- ANTISOCIAL-IST
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 2:34pm
  @time: yes, but those quotes are completely out of context and do not reflect the entirety of the conversation being had. i read/have read the entire threads that i commented on in re: YOU. yes, i admit, i will be abrasive to anyone trying to attack/elimate my Constitionally preserved/God-given rights. you attack just for you enjoyment of the attack. big difference.
  you pulled a couple of quotes out of two years of posts, that show absolutely no context. i have read all of your posts and you’re like a rabid animal to fellow posters, only that they don’t wish to carry on with the blood/crips, left/right agenda of scre wing us all over with every unConstitutional action they carry out. your blind following of the establishment agenda to enslave we, the people, makes you just as bad as the sc um that are RULING we, the people. now, go send romney and mccain an appreciation letter, for all their protecting of our Constitionally protected, God-given rights. pfft.
  
  Report this comment
grimmster
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 7:37am
My guess is, they only want to ban guns from white so called “mentally ill” vets,but let the black and hispanic gang bangers keep theirs,since the military seens to prefer criminials in the military………

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
justangry
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 7:37am
Chuck Schumer wants to take everyone’s guns.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RIGHT_WHERE_IT_HURTS
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 7:53am
  …and hide them in Bwaney’s ****, after Weiner rubs his miniscule self all over them first.
  
  Report this comment
JohnnyRaiden
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 7:32am
I know soldiers who couldn’t manage finances before getting deployed. Wouldn’t have thought being bad with money could strip you of rights.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
TexPat
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 7:32am
It appears to more of a move to disarm Americans. And to disarm those that are familiar with weapons and tactics. If you apply the “Trust but verify” rule you will see that our elected officials are not looking out for WE THE PEOPLE.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DougHuffman
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 7:43am
  What does it say of an elected official that is afraid of his constituency and electorate armed?
  
  Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and Guns and the Truth. God Bless Bitter Clingers, damn progs. MERRY CHRISTMAS
  
  Report this comment
- objectivetruth
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 10:02am
  This is because they are in bed with the enemy of the state.Thier goal isn’t to protect us but to smother our rights and eventually kill us.The faster all of you face this nasty prospect, the quicker it can be recitifyed
  
  Report this comment
DennisNJ
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 7:31am
That would prevent PTSD vets from owning guns. If they had them the biggest fear should be them using it on themselves, not others.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- sputnik
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 12:17pm
  @Dennisnj
  
  You are right about the fear of them using it on themselves. I believe I’ve seen a report where a greater number of Iraq/Afghanistan war vets have died to suicide than in combat. However, having PTSD does not mean one is actively suicidal and should not prevent anyone from buying/owning a firearm.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 4:08pm
  Here’s the problem. Would a veteran having troubles with PTSD seek help if they knew their god-given rights would be taken from them for doing so? This is essentially a corrupt government trying not to take responsibility for making servicemen kill people for a few greedy NWO elites. Nothing more.
  
  Report this comment
DougHuffman
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 7:27am
This is but another increment in the medicalization, the embrace of social issues in medical jargon, of dissent. Homosexuality is OK but dissent is not, particularly effective dissent.

If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law, then we all can be legally disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony, as has been done to alleged abusers and stressed veterans.

Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and Guns and the Truth. “From my cold, dead hands” works for me.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- loriann12
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 7:53am
  I didn’t read in the constitution where it gave us the right to bear arms any exceptions, like well, unless the government sent you to war and you got PTSD, or a brain injury. I don’t see where it says unless you can’t handle money. Of course, like the answer to my post below, that WOULD exclude all of Congress and the President as well. I like your theory that all they have to do is lower the bar of felony, never thought of it that way. That’s the slippery slope we don’t see. Everyone is fine with felons not having guns. Problem: only the felons know the low lifes to get a gun from illegally.
  
  Report this comment
lel2007
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 7:23am
So we deem the financially incompetent soldiers ‘safe’ when they’re actively serving, and it’s when they take their uniform off they become a dangerous when armed?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- justangry
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 7:34am
  Exactly. While they’re still serving they get scripts and sent back with their gun.
  
  Report this comment
ZAP
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 7:22am
I think Eric Holder should be banned from purchasing guns

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- yode
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 7:31am
  I think Eric withHolder should be……banned……period.
  
  Report this comment
- RIGHT_WHERE_IT_HURTS
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 7:55am
  Permanently. In public.
  
  Report this comment
- GuruMeditation
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 9:02am
  Banned? I think Eric Holder should be Banished!
  
  Report this comment
loriann12
Posted on December 3, 2012 at 7:18am
Should citizens deemed mentally ill be barred from holding a Senate or House of Representatives office?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- M24
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 7:24am
  Roger that
  
  Report this comment
- yode
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 7:30am
  should read…..
  
  “Should citizens *** deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their own financial affairs***
  be barred from holding a Senate or House of Representatives office?”
  
  I think not
  
  Report this comment
- dublinthewagons
  Posted on December 3, 2012 at 7:32am
  Jessie Jackson Jr. Al Sharpton. The democrrap list is long
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.