Marty Daniels, Owner of Daniel Defense, goes full gun control.

[kwelz]

I was really shocked to see this last night. When I first started reading about it I figured it was people twisting his words. But it is there clear as day on the DD Facebook page..

Of all the companies to go full retard I really didn't think DD would be one of them...

https://www.facebook.com/DanielDefense/posts/1510727965641724

50898

[Dist. Expert 26]

I wouldn't say that's "full gun control", but given the current climate it's certainly a God-awful business decision.

[thei3ug]

I'm with Marty. The NICS is a disgrace. The bill would allow controls to ensure states and enforcement agencies are submitting the data they should have, but failed to for decades.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2135/text

[Kain]

I wouldn't say that's "full gun control", but given the current climate it's certainly a God-awful business decision.

I agree with this. I was talking with a few last night who kind of were that is isn't a bad thing, per say, since it basically requires things to be enforced that are already there. I haven't had time to read deep into it, so there could be negatives in there, I just haven't had time for a full break down of it. But considering your average Fudd, it is something that might very well lose them business since they will brand him a traitor and start throwing DD gear out. Though they will demand 120% retail since it was pre-bad0-DD. :rolleyes:

[Digital_Damage]

I agree with Marty...

They need to update the system and keep guns out of the hands of criminals... I do not see how this is a bad thing.

[Dist. Expert 26]

I agree with Marty...

They need to update the system and keep guns out of the hands of criminals... I do not see how this is a bad thing.

It's not. What's bad is the optics of a prominent gun manufacturer supporting a "gun control" bill. It's going to cost him business and give the left more ammunition. "See, even assault weapon manufacturers think we need gun control".

[kwelz]

If this was just about cleaning up the NICS system I might agree. But this is going to be far to open ended. The way it is written you could see people losing their rights for unpaid child support, PTSD diagnosis, etc. And I am not ok with that.

[thei3ug]

People already are temporarily restricted for these things. The problem is in the reporting regulatory agency, as seen with the SSA. NICS is supposed to aggregate specific classes of people, and will be as good (or as poor) a database as the data inputted. However, at this point, agencies, local, state, and federal, are simply not fulfilling their reporting obligation. If there is a problem with the data reported by another agency, that's another issue to address, and any potential due process rights can be addressed in court. If NICS eventually proves to be ineffective because of bureaucratic nonfeasance, we, as a community, will have a bigger problem.

I am concerned with errors or abuses from the reporting agency. Those issues exist now and will in the future. Stopping NICS from working, however, is just as bad a solution.

[SteyrAUG]

I'm also not seeing a problem with FIX NICS. I don't think it will fix much, but it seems focused on prohibited persons and that is better than being fixed on guns or a specific class of guns. I'd also like to see illegals added to that reporting.

[Det-Sog]

Imho, DD is running full damage control. Rather than dig in, DD is doing this to prolong what many deem inevitable now, which is a forthcoming AWB version 2.0. Could be six months, could be two through ten years, but it's on the way. So, do we take steps too prolong it, or dig in and fight back legally to STOP IT from happening?

I have chosen the latter. I have recently joined the GOA, and as an existing life member of the NRA, I have made additional donations to the NRA-ILA.

Meanwhile, these issues DD is supporting could possibly erode the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments regarding due process. When does it end??? Edited... How about "compromise"... We relax a bit on "fix NICS" and get national reciprocity??? Remember, gun control is not about compromise... We give more, and get nothing in return but to keep some of the stuff we already legally own...

[mack7.62]

Marty seems to be set on a course to destroy his business, I guess he is looking for an excuse to retire. First he won't provide the products that customers want, loses money making products customers don't want, lays experienced work force off and now endorses gun control. Yep that's a winning business model....NOT.

[wildcard600]

Marty seems to be set on a course to destroy his business, I guess he is looking for an excuse to retire. First he won't provide the products that customers want, loses money making products customers don't want, lays experienced work force off and now endorses gun control. Yep that's a winning business model....NOT.

Yeah, him stepping on his own dick like this seems like a sure way to scuttle his company, especially after the other things you mentioned. Maybe he can look into building bolt action FUDD guns once he finishes burning down his current company.

[Vgex2]

I wish his remaining staff the best, but this could not come at a worse time. If Mr. Daniel's wanted to "fix the NICS system", I would have recommended not being the face of gun manufacturers for gun control this will result. With the X-Products' marketing disaster, I can't think anyone in his marketing dept. thought this was a good idea. But, he probably didn't run it by anyone. After all, it's his company.

[Coal Dragger]

I don’t see anything overly objectionable to the Fix NICS bill, that can’t be sorted out with a few amendments. Some of the people on here might consider not freaking out at everything, and learning to read.

[kwelz]

I don’t see anything overly objectionable to the Fix NICS bill, that can’t be sorted out with a few amendments. Some of the people on here might consider not freaking out at everything, and learning to read.

Then get those amendments in there before we push it. As a rabid gun owner I actually don’t hate the NICS system and feel it is a good compromise. I do have a problem with something this open ended being pushed by people in the gun industry.

With all the talk of mental health lately this bill has the potential to block a lot of people unjustly from purchasing firearms. I am actually behind the idea of fixing the NICS system and making it more accurate. But it has to be done right.

GOA and a couple other groups posted a pretty good analysis of why this is a dangerous bill as written. It can be expanded too easily though interpretation. And we know how dangerous that is.

[wildcard600]

I don’t see anything overly objectionable to the Fix NICS bill, that can’t be sorted out with a few amendments. Some of the people on here might consider not freaking out at everything, and learning to read.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R_LuBwf76w

[Digital_Damage]

If this was just about cleaning up the NICS system I might agree. But this is going to be far to open ended. The way it is written you could see people losing their rights for unpaid child support, PTSD diagnosis, etc. And I am not ok with that.

Then they should quit being a POS and pay their child support (if they can't do that then how can they be responsible gun owners), and if they have a PTSD diagnosis they should be heavily scrutinized.

[RetroRevolver77]

Sucks. I liked DD.

[kwelz]

Then they should quit being a POS and pay their child support (if they can't do that then how can they be responsible gun owners), and if they have a PTSD diagnosis they should be heavily scrutinized.

Yes because nobody ever loses their job, or is screwed over by the courts.


Also I didn’t know we were going after Vets now. I guess that is the new trend.

[Digital_Damage]

Yes because nobody ever loses their job, or is screwed over by the courts.


Also I didn’t know we were going after Vets now. I guess that is the new trend.

Yep... it is always the courts fault... it is never personal responsibility. Don't knock up someone it you are not willing to see the whole thing through.

I deal with a lot of people with legitimate PTSD, I would not allow most of them around my firearms. I have also met a ton of people sucking on the .gov disability teat claiming it when they clearly were never in a traumatic situation. It is a blanket bullshit diagnosis that people have been exploiting just like the comfort animal bullshit.

[TomMcC]

I suppose that prior restraint isn't actually an infringement. What we'll do to feel safe in an unsafe world.

[MountainRaven]

How do you spell, "fudd"?

F you, DD.

[Dist. Expert 26]

How do you spell, "fudd"?

F you, DD.

We may not agree on much, but that's pretty good.

[LowSpeed_HighDrag]

SO, we sit here and say don't take our guns, fix the mental health system, blah blah blah. Then somebody actually supports a bill that actually could help in keeping new guns out of the hands of mentally ill and you freak out. LOL! We are our own worst enemy sometimes.

I support a system that prevents crazy people and criminals from buying guns at the gun store. We can'r prevent private or illegal sales, but we can stop nutso from getting guns at the store.

[Digital_Damage]

SO, we sit here and say don't take our guns, fix the mental health system, blah blah blah. Then somebody actually supports a bill that actually could help in keeping new guns out of the hands of mentally ill and you freak out. LOL! We are our own worst enemy sometimes.

I support a system that prevents crazy people and criminals from buying guns at the gun store. We can'r prevent private or illegal sales, but we can stop nutso from getting guns at the store.

Yep... Lots of hypocrisy rolling around in here the last few months.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

It's not. What's bad is the optics of a prominent gun manufacturer supporting a "gun control" bill. It's going to cost him business and give the left more ammunition. "See, even assault weapon manufacturers think we need gun control".


It's not gun control, it is people control. If you don't want to lose your toys, we need to NICS guns for some of these boys.

We need to make a distinction between the two and take the focus off the guns and on the crazies that shouldn't have guns.

If we can shift the focus from 'what' to 'who'- which we know is more effective (and preferable) to us.

Plus, change the name from 'gun control' to something that fits our agenda.

I didn't hear people complaining about this when it passed the House (it passed the House, right?).




Then get those amendments in there before we push it. As a rabid gun owner I actually don’t hate the NICS system and feel it is a good compromise. I do have a problem with something this open ended being pushed by people in the gun industry.

With all the talk of mental health lately this bill has the potential to block a lot of people unjustly from purchasing firearms. I am actually behind the idea of fixing the NICS system and making it more accurate. But it has to be done right.

GOA and a couple other groups posted a pretty good analysis of why this is a dangerous bill as written. It can be expanded too easily though interpretation. And we know how dangerous that is.

I don't know the details, and I'd like to see the what the problem is. I do think that no law would ever be acceptable to some people because they think that the local PoPo is just waiting to get their guns. People have to have some serious head trash to think that they are that close to crazy that someone will come and take your guns. Look at Parkland. Look at the states with laws in place already. Do people think that they are that indiscernible from that kind of crazy?

This is were anti-social A-holes hide behind the libertarian label.

[Averageman]

SO, we sit here and say don't take our guns, fix the mental health system, blah blah blah. Then somebody actually supports a bill that actually could help in keeping new guns out of the hands of mentally ill and you freak out. LOL! We are our own worst enemy sometimes.

I support a system that prevents crazy people and criminals from buying guns at the gun store. We can'r prevent private or illegal sales, but we can stop nutso from getting guns at the store.

I got this email from DD the other day on my phone and because of the size of the type I couldn't read the message, so thanks for posting this.
I'm not surprised Marty Daniels went this route and I can't say that I disagree with him. I believe a couple of DD guns were inside the hotel room with the Las Vegas shooter, so we don't know what legal stuff he may be dealing with.

I will say this though; My wife works in an ER at the VA. Everyday I worry about her working inside a gun free zone and every day I hear from her about some of the patients she deals with. Most of the folks she deals with have severe substance abuse issues and some level of PTSD, which concerns me a lot.
Of course yesterday a Vet with PTSD comes in and shoots up a care center in Ca., that part of that care center was specifically for PTSD patients.
I dunno another answer at this point, the VA isn't going to let her carry her G-19, the Veterans she works with aren't going to become better overnight and the States seem to be dropping the ball when it comes to reporting.

So good people, gun people, are either going to pay the entire price for the lunatic fringe or we are going to have one of these shooting every couple of weeks. Forcing the States to comply with the laws already on the books seems a lot smarter than much of what has been put forward. I will have to agree with Marty at this point.

[Dist. Expert 26]

It's not gun control, it is people control. If you don't want to lose your toys, we need to NICS guns for some of these boys.

We need to make a distinction between the two and take the focus off the guns and on the crazies that shouldn't have guns.

If we can shift the focus from 'what' to 'who'- which we know is more effective (and preferable) to us.

Plus, change the name from 'gun control' to something that fits our agenda.

I didn't hear people complaining about this when it passed the House (it passed the House, right?).


At what point will you stop promoting the delusion that "we" are controlling any of this? Diane Feinstein supports this bill. If that doesn't tell you who's really in control nothing will.

Not saying the bill is all bad, it's not. Just pointing out some cognitive dissonance.

[wildcard600]

It's not gun control, it is people control. If you don't want to lose your toys, we need to NICS guns for some of these boys.

We need to make a distinction between the two and take the focus off the guns and on the crazies that shouldn't have guns.

If we can shift the focus from 'what' to 'who'- which we know is more effective (and preferable) to us.

Plus, change the name from 'gun control' to something that fits our agenda.

I didn't hear people complaining about this when it passed the House (it passed the House, right?).


the NICS bill being talked about NOW is NOT the same as the one that was attached to the reciprocity bill from last year.

[jpmuscle]

It's not gun control, it is people control. If you don't want to lose your toys, we need to NICS guns for some of these boys.

We need to make a distinction between the two and take the focus off the guns and on the crazies that shouldn't have guns.

If we can shift the focus from 'what' to 'who'- which we know is more effective (and preferable) to us.

Plus, change the name from 'gun control' to something that fits our agenda.

I didn't hear people complaining about this when it passed the House (it passed the House, right?).





I don't know the details, and I'd like to see the what the problem is. I do think that no law would ever be acceptable to some people because they think that the local PoPo is just waiting to get their guns. People have to have some serious head trash to think that they are that close to crazy that someone will come and take your guns. Look at Parkland. Look at the states with laws in place already. Do people think that they are that indiscernible from that kind of crazy?

This is were anti-social A-holes hide behind the libertarian label.

There you go again with this omg we have to do something before it’s done to us nonsense. Just sit in the corner and color.

I’ll make this as succinct as possible. With respect to mental health issues and legitimate issues of violence risk NICS is not necessarily the problem. The dismissal of due process is.

A practitioner identifies someone as a viable risk, cool, follow due process and get a judge to sign off on it, whilst putting actionable mechanisms in place to permit restoration of rights after the fact.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jewell]

Then they should quit being a POS and pay their child support (if they can't do that then how can they be responsible gun owners), and if they have a PTSD diagnosis they should be heavily scrutinized.



The amount of ignorance in this statement as far as PTSD goes is unbelievable.

For starters, having PTSD doesn't automatically make a person damaged goods or any more dangerous than anyone else.

Do you consider a woman that was raped and now has nightmares b/c of the traumatic event she went through to be damaged or dangerous? You apparently think that she needs to be "heavily scrutinized".

Do these kids that were shot up in Florida need to be heavily scrutinized? B/C if they happened to survive, there is no doubt they will have PTSD.

Do some research. You obviously don't understand what PTSD is. It isn't a one size fits all diagnosis.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

At what point will you stop promoting the delusion that "we" are controlling any of this? Diane Feinstein supports this bill. If that doesn't tell you who's really in control nothing will.

Not saying the bill is all bad, it's not. Just pointing out some cognitive dissonance.

The CD flag could also be thrown your way. Just because DiFi, who is being blocked by the lefter wing of her party, is supporting something doesn't mean its bad. To throw something out just because she supports it isn't really rational. The 'we' is actually pushing this. If the owner of DD ins't a gun guy, I don't know who is. This isn't the lefts agenda. They are after the guns and gear, they never talk seriously about better BGCs, just more BGCs.

This is us controlling it. Any message that doesn't include the words AWB or mag limit while turning the focus on crazies getting guns is a win for us.

No one GAF about gang-bangers and suicides, it is all about mass shooters, and outside of LV, they were all preventable to one degree to near certainty. If we lose the Senate in the fall and Kennedy's replacement isn't in place, we will lose everything, legally speaking.

It's all about SCOTUS. All these law machinations will stay or fall based on SCOTUS decisions. We keep the Senate and we Trump(or GOP) wins in 2020 and we will look back at bump-stock as the fat chick we picked up because now we have Miss America and an opened NFA MG registry.

I understand your viewpoint. I just think you are wrong. In response you personally attack. I play long games. Always have. We need just a few more elections to get the judges in place to get the decisions we need.

[Averageman]

There you go again with this omg we have to do something before it’s done to us nonsense. Just sit in the corner and color.

I’ll make this as succinct as possible. With respect to mental health issues and legitimate issues of violence risk NICS is not necessarily the problem. The dismissal of due process is.

A practitioner identifies someone as a viable risk, cool, follow due process and get a judge to sign off on it, whilst putting actionable mechanisms in place to permit restoration of rights after the fact.

I think that carrying these things forward with all good and noble intentions is going to require a lot more work than what our Legislators seem to be willing to put in to it.
In order to do this correctly we should start at square one with the Second Amendment and then clear the books of all current laws and look at each and every one and either throw it away, or update it.
We've got a lot of ash and trash even at the Federal Level that needs to be fixed before we rewrite the same legislation again and again. It is pretty clear to me what a "Prohibited Person" is and the necessary steps to insure that they be included in the NCIS system. That the States seem to take issue with this and not report this at the Federal level seems criminal to me.
If we cannot make a failing system work, it is simply time to require that it be fixed in such a manner that it does not interfere with individual rights. This was the intent of National Concealed Carry reciprocity and we allowed that to be pushed to the back burner because of the school shooting in Florida.
So essentially we are going to have to remove the emotional drama and use logic.

[MountainRaven]

For those who are curious about what the big deal is about:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q7SKCEqA0k

[Digital_Damage]

The amount of ignorance in this statement as far as PTSD goes is unbelievable.

For starters, having PTSD doesn't automatically make a person damaged goods or any more dangerous than anyone else.

Do you consider a woman that was raped and now has nightmares b/c of the traumatic event she went through to be damaged or dangerous? You apparently think that she needs to be "heavily scrutinized".

Do these kids that were shot up in Florida need to be heavily scrutinized? B/C if they happened to survive, there is no doubt they will have PTSD.

Do some research. You obviously don't understand what PTSD is. It isn't a one size fits all diagnosis.

Ignorance? No... you are proving my point, if someone witnesses a mass murder and is diagnosed with PTSD they sure as hell should be heavily Scrutinized... Violent acts and potential self harm are VERY real possibilities. The fact they are diagnosed with it proves they are damaged in some fashion.


Like I said it is a bullshit blanket diagnosis that people are exploiting in droves today.

[Dist. Expert 26]

The CD flag could also be thrown your way. Just because DiFi, who is being blocked by the lefter wing of her party, is supporting something doesn't mean its bad. To throw something out just because she supports it isn't really rational. The 'we' is actually pushing this. If the owner of DD ins't a gun guy, I don't know who is. This isn't the lefts agenda. They are after the guns and gear, they never talk seriously about better BGCs, just more BGCs.

This is us controlling it. Any message that doesn't include the words AWB or mag limit while turning the focus on crazies getting guns is a win for us.

No one GAF about gang-bangers and suicides, it is all about mass shooters, and outside of LV, they were all preventable to one degree to near certainty. If we lose the Senate in the fall and Kennedy's replacement isn't in place, we will lose everything, legally speaking.

It's all about SCOTUS. All these law machinations will stay or fall based on SCOTUS decisions. We keep the Senate and we Trump(or GOP) wins in 2020 and we will look back at bump-stock as the fat chick we picked up because now we have Miss America and an opened NFA MG registry.

I understand your viewpoint. I just think you are wrong. In response you personally attack. I play long games. Always have. We need just a few more elections to get the judges in place to get the decisions we need.

Care to place bets about the MG registry being opened?

This isn't a win by any definition of the term. It's a consolation prize for left. And when nothing changes they can say that background checks don't work and a ban is the only solution. Again, the bill isn't inherently bad, but it's not good either.

My point about Feinstein isn't that anything she supports has to be bad, but that anything she supports in regards to the 2A isn't likely to be a good thing.

As to the long game theory, Trump alienated his base with the bump stock move. They feel betrayed and abandoned. If you don't believe me go look at some NRA posts on Facebook. Combine that with Florida Republicans selling out and the next few elections are going straight blue.

[Jewell]

Ignorance? No... you are proving my point, if someone witnesses a mass murder and is diagnosed with PTSD they sure as hell should be heavily Scrutinized... Violent acts and potential self harm are VERY real possibilities. The fact they are diagnosed with it proves they are damaged in some fashion.


Like I said it is a bullshit blanket diagnosis that people are exploiting in droves today.

...and you're proving mine. You clearly don't understand anything about ptsd, and it doesn't appear that younwill even trry to. There probably isn't a whole lot that anyone is going to tell you to change your mind, but I'm going to go on anyway.

No doubt that there are people that exploit the diagnosis and leach of the system. That woukd be just like everything else known to mankind. With that said, there are many cases where it's not, and you are sadly mistaken about your assumptions about PTSD is.

I have PTSD myself, and can assure you that it is in fact very real. Having PTSD in no way, shape, or form makes me some kind of violent, mindless monster that doesn't know right from wrong. As a matter of fact, I believe it makes me more compassionate to the value of human life. Myself, and a lot of people like me have seen the horrors of what man is capable of doing. It makes me appreciate how fragile life can be and how quickly it can be taken away.

[MegademiC]

Yep... it is always the courts fault... it is never personal responsibility. Don't knock up someone it you are not willing to see the whole thing through.

I deal with a lot of people with legitimate PTSD, I would not allow most of them around my firearms. I have also met a ton of people sucking on the .gov disability teat claiming it when they clearly were never in a traumatic situation. It is a blanket bullshit diagnosis that people have been exploiting just like the comfort animal bullshit.

So you want to take peoples rights away, not because they are a danger, but because they dont fit your personal definition of a “good” person. I know a guy who lost his job and got behind in child support due to circumstances not in his control. A certain cop arrests him everytime he sees him, which means he misses work, which put him behind on child support. This guy is not a violent person, he is just getting railroaded by a few people - and you want to take his rights away.

[MegademiC]

For those who are curious about what the big deal is about:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q7SKCEqA0k

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

[Renegade]

In 1984, if you were in favor of the Brady Bill, you were an anti-gunner.
In 1986, if you were in favor of the Brady Bill, you were an anti-gunner.
In 1988, if you were in favor of the Brady Bill, you were an anti-gunner.
In 1990, if you were in favor of the Brady Bill, you were an anti-gunner.
In 1992, if you were in favor of the Brady Bill, you were an anti-gunner.
In 1994, if you were in favor of the Brady Bill, you were an anti-gunner.

While many gun owners have gone soft and now embrace the Brady Bill, I am not one of them. Gun owners, their own worst enemy.

[Averageman]

Yep... it is always the courts fault... it is never personal responsibility. Don't knock up someone it you are not willing to see the whole thing through.

I deal with a lot of people with legitimate PTSD, I would not allow most of them around my firearms. I have also met a ton of people sucking on the .gov disability teat claiming it when they clearly were never in a traumatic situation. It is a blanket bullshit diagnosis that people have been exploiting just like the comfort animal bullshit.


So you want to take peoples rights away, not because they are a danger, but because they dont fit your personal definition of a “good” person. I know a guy who lost his job and got behind in child support due to circumstances not in his control. A certain cop arrests him everytime he sees him, which means he misses work, which put him behind on child support. This guy is not a violent person, he is just getting railroaded by a few people - and you want to take his rights away.

I think it comes down to His Guns, His Rules..

There is a lot of freedom out there, so much so that a lot of people can't handle the personal responsibility of it. It's kind of like this, don't tell me about your rights, when you can't handle you personal business and responsibilities.
If you're getting hemmed up by a local Cop because you are behind on your child support, there are ways to deal with that, but playing the Child Support game isn't one of them. For every one guy out there who has a legit complaint about the child support system, there are at least fifty who have cut and run.
I'm about up to here with excuses for people to game a system, that is a big part of what got us where we are at.
And yeah, having been on the other side of the child support system, if they don't have the cash to pay for their kids food, I could give a damn about them buying a gun until they get it right.

A clear set of rules and we all get the reward or punishment is what is needed.

[Digital_Damage]

So you want to take peoples rights away, not because they are a danger, but because they dont fit your personal definition of a “good” person. I know a guy who lost his job and got behind in child support due to circumstances not in his control. A certain cop arrests him everytime he sees him, which means he misses work, which put him behind on child support. This guy is not a violent person, he is just getting railroaded by a few people - and you want to take his rights away.

So he did not follow the law and go to the court to get a modification due to lost employment? So he did not follow through with his responsibilities he ****ed up, not the courts fault. His fault, his responsibility, should not be blaming that on anyone but himself.

[R6436]

The dismissal of due process is.

A practitioner identifies someone as a viable risk, cool, follow due process and get a judge to sign off on it, whilst putting actionable mechanisms in place to permit restoration of rights after the fact.

In regards to the VA reporting those with fiduciaries to the NICS system, IIRC the Senate passed a bill prohibiting the practice. Those who were already in the system for that reason were given two avenues to appeal and have their 2A right restored: 1) through the VA, and 2) IIRC through the DOJ. The bill also places the burden of proof on the government to justify why the vets should remain on the list. I will dig around later tonight to see where I put the links that cover it. One of the two authors expressed concern that Due Process was not being followed.

[Digital_Damage]

...and you're proving mine. You clearly don't understand anything about ptsd, and it doesn't appear that younwill even trry to. There probably isn't a whole lot that anyone is going to tell you to change your mind, but I'm going to go on anyway.

No doubt that there are people that exploit the diagnosis and leach of the system. That woukd be just like everything else known to mankind. With that said, there are many cases where it's not, and you are sadly mistaken about your assumptions about PTSD is.

I have PTSD myself, and can assure you that it is in fact very real. Having PTSD in no way, shape, or form makes me some kind of violent, mindless monster that doesn't know right from wrong. As a matter of fact, I believe it makes me more compassionate to the value of human life. Myself, and a lot of people like me have seen the horrors of what man is capable of doing. It makes me appreciate how fragile life can be and how quickly it can be taken away.


From the textbook diagnosis...

excessive emotions; problems relating to others, including feeling or showing affection; difficulty falling or staying asleep; irritability; outbursts of anger; difficulty concentrating; and being "jumpy" or easily startled.

That behavior is certainly concerning and sure as hell needs to be scrutinized... You are right, you are not going to change my mind, you do not give a person with anti-social irritability a free pass. I certainly understand what it is, It is a mental health issue...

[Jewell]

From the textbook diagnosis...


That behavior is certainly concerning and sure as hell needs to be scrutinized... You are right, you are not going to change my mind, you do not give a person with anti-social irritability a free pass. I certainly understand what it is, It is a mental health issue...

Once again, PTSD is not a one size fits all diagnosis. Traumatic events affect different people in different ways. You and I can see a 3 year old get run over by a train. You may have nightmares about it for the rest of your life. I may forget about it tomorrow and never think about it again. Having PTSD doesn't automatically give a person all the symptoms you listed.

[zebra20zebra20]

I WAS going to buy a DD upper but after reading this thread I have decided to go elsewhere. DD is not the holy grail of uppers or any other piece of equipment! The slippery slope is what I am more concerned with!

[Digital_Damage]

Once again, PTSD is not a one size fits all diagnosis. Traumatic events affect different people in different ways. You and I can see a 3 year old get run over by a train. You may have nightmares about it for the rest of your life. I may forget about it tomorrow and never think about it again. Having PTSD doesn't automatically give a person all the symptoms you listed.

Any of those symptoms are cause for concern... Is it or is it not a mental health issue.

[Dist. Expert 26]

From the textbook diagnosis...


That behavior is certainly concerning and sure as hell needs to be scrutinized... You are right, you are not going to change my mind, you do not give a person with anti-social irritability a free pass. I certainly understand what it is, It is a mental health issue...

Irritability = lunatic who should have their constitutional rights stripped. Check.

Might I ask where you got your degree from?

[Jewell]

Any of those symptoms are cause for concern... Is it or is it not a mental health issue.

I'm not sure what part of case to case basis you don't understand? Not everyone that has PTSD has the same level of it. PTSD can certainly lead to mental illness, but not always.

Anyhow, what is it really that you are trying to get at? Gun confiscation for military members with PTSD? Veterans? Police? EMT's? Firefighters? Pretty much anyone that's lived anything other than a perfect life?

[Digital_Damage]

Irritability = lunatic who should have their constitutional rights stripped. Check.

Might I ask where you got your degree from?

Tell that to Chris Kyle's widow or the three VA facility workers that were recently executed...

[Averageman]

So he did not follow the law and go to the court to get a modification due to lost employment? So he did not follow through with his responsibilities he ****ed up, not the courts fault. His fault, his responsibility, should not be blaming that on anyone but himself.

What a unique and early 20th Century way of looking at things, you reap what you sew.
I agree.

[Digital_Damage]

I'm not sure what part of case to case basis you don't understand? Not everyone that has PTSD has the same level of it. PTSD can certainly lead to mental illness, but not always.

Anyhow, what is it really that you are trying to get at? Gun confiscation for military members with PTSD? Veterans? Police? EMT's? Firefighters? Pretty much anyone that's lived anything other than a perfect life?

Not lead to.. it is a mental disorder.

You cant be diagnosed with it and not have a mental disorder, that is the actual clinical definition...

No, I personally do not think that if someone that is actively suffering from PTSD they should be executing duties that involve firearms.

[Dist. Expert 26]

Tell that to Chris Kyle's widow or the three VA facility workers that were recently executed...

Ahh ok. So 2 cases spread over 5 years is sufficient grounds for taking away Constitutional rights from completely innocent citizens, many of whom would be combat veterans.

Are you serious? I mean honestly.

By that standard we should pass another AWB too.

[MountainRaven]

Tell that to Chris Kyle's widow or the three VA facility workers that were recently executed...

So you're saying these people would still be alive?

One of them was given the weapon by his victim.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

All this reminds me of the guy who complains every week that he hasn’t won the lottery, until God from above shouts “Buy a lottery ticket.” This NA-NA-NA-NA with your ears covered isn’t going to cut it.

Do you people understand what divine intervention in the form of Trump is? Literally almost as low a probability than a lottery ticket when he began. With out him, we’d be facing Garland on the court (or worse) and there would be no way to stop the end of guns.

So when someone actually tries to keep guns out of crazy people’s hands, many here want to burn them at the stake.

We are one election away from an inside straight of wins to win the whole enchilada and be done with this in any substantive form for the rest of our lives. And people complain about the ‘slippery slope’. Slippery slope? We f this up and we will be thrown off the cliff.

It’s like some of you have never had to convince anyone of anything. If we had a court that wasn’t political, we could tell the populace to F off. That ain’t reality.

Some here want to give the middle finger until the have to use their trigger finger. That’s stupid. We have enough people here that have lived through that, and I’m smart enough to know that is not good for anyone. We have a political system and a judicial system that we are this close to getting what we want, and for some reason some people can’t see that.

Like I said there is a difference between being a libertarian and fighting to keep the govt from saying we don’t have rights, and then there is just being an anti-social twit with the personality skills of a 4 year old.

[Digital_Damage]

Ahh ok. So 2 cases spread over 5 years is sufficient grounds for taking away Constitutional rights from completely innocent citizens, many of whom would be combat veterans.

Are you serious? I mean honestly.

By that standard we should pass another AWB too.

That cool, so free passes all around then? Free guns for all mentally disturbed individuals?

[Dist. Expert 26]

We are one election away from an inside straight of wins to win the whole enchilada and be done with this in any substantive form for the rest of our lives. And people complain about the ‘slippery slope’. Slippery slope? We f this up and we will be thrown off the cliff.


You are completely, certifiably delusional if you think we'll ever be done with this fight.

[MountainRaven]

Some here want to give the middle finger until the have to use their trigger finger.

The alternative to giving the middle finger is sitting on your thumb. And you won't have to worry about using your trigger finger, because your guns will be gone.

[Coal Dragger]

You’re not a veteran are you by any chance Digital Damage?

Your position seems to be that anyone, and this would include a lot of veterans, who seeks mental healthcare for PTSD should be disenfranchised of their 2nd Amendment rights.

Ironic that you bitch about PTSD being some blanket one size fits all diagnosis that people abuse, yet you are advocating a blanket one size fits all legal penalty (firearms confiscation...) for these individuals who are affected.

[Dist. Expert 26]

That cool, so free passes all around then? Free guns for all mentally disturbed individuals?

And now we're changing the conversation.

If someone is found to be mentally unfit by a doctor, and that finding is confirmed by a judge, then they should have their rights suspended until their mental status changes.

If someone goes to counseling, has nightmares about getting blown up in Iraq, takes antidepressants, etc. they keep their Constitutional rights until they fit into the first category.

How's that sound? Probably not at statist as you'd like, but hey, I'm a freedom kind of guy.

[Averageman]

I can't help it, every time I hear someone tell me about "My Rights." I think of this guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=31&v=-GvNc24yQZA
Everybody else has "Rights" too.
Most of us just want to be left alone to do the right things and live a good life and these aren't usually the folks crying about "My Rights !".
Usually the ones screaming about "Their Rights !" are the ones who jacked it up for everyone else.
Everything has a price and if someone legitimately needs a VA check for PTSD, don't be surprised if after admitting to having issues with coping normally with life someone doesn't come around and adjust those rights of yours. You kind of asked for it.

[Dist. Expert 26]

I can't help it, every time I hear someone tell me about "My Rights." I think of this guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=31&v=-GvNc24yQZA
Everybody else has "Rights" too.
Most of us just want to be left alone to do the right things and live a good life and these aren't usually the folks crying about "My Rights !".
Usually the ones screaming about "Their Rights !" are the ones who jacked it up for everyone else.
Everything has a price and if someone legitimately needs a VA check for PTSD, don't be surprised if after admitting to having issues with coping normally with life someone doesn't come around and adjust those rights of yours. You kind of asked for it.

So, to be clear, if an individual is subjected to the horrors of war and needs help of any sort coping upon their return to civilian life, they're no longer entitled to their Constitutional freedoms? Even if they pose no risk to themselves or others?

Let me give you a real world example. My first team leader had to help evacuate wounded when a suicide bomber detonated in an Afghan market. Mass casualty event. A good number of the casualties were small children. He goes to the VA for counseling so he can work through that experience in a healthy way. Should he be stripped of his freedoms?

[Digital_Damage]

You’re not a veteran are you by any chance Digital Damage?

Your position seems to be that anyone, and this would include a lot of veterans, who seeks mental healthcare for PTSD should be disenfranchised of their 2nd Amendment rights.

Ironic that you bitch about PTSD being some blanket one size fits all diagnosis that people abuse, yet you are advocating a blanket one size fits all legal penalty (firearms confiscation...) for these individuals who are affected.

Been in my fair share of OCONUS shit shows in the assholes of the world.

It you seek mental health care related to traumatic events and are legitimately diagnosed with a mental disorder, yes no guns for you.

It is simply cause and effect, if you can't get or keep your shit straight that is the safe call.

[Digital_Damage]

So, to be clear, if an individual is subjected to the horrors of war and needs help of any sort coping upon their return to civilian life, they're no longer entitled to their Constitutional freedoms? Even if they pose no risk to themselves or others?

Let me give you a real world example. My first team leader had to help evacuate wounded when a suicide bomber detonated in an Afghan market. Mass casualty event. A good number of the casualties were small children. He goes to the VA for counseling so he can work through that experience in a healthy way. Should he be stripped of his freedoms?

Counseling is not the same as being diagnosed with a mental disorder.

[GTF425]

Been in my fair share of OCONUS shit shows in the assholes of the world

Very dodgy answer for a pretty straight question.

[Dist. Expert 26]

Counseling is not the same as being diagnosed with a mental disorder.

Anxiety is a mental disorder. Depression is a mental disorder. Anorexia is a mental disorder. OCD is a mental disorder. ADD is a mental disorder. Autism is a mental disorder.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Digital_Damage]

Very dodgy answer for a pretty straight question.

Work in IC.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

You are completely, certifiably delusional if you think we'll ever be done with this fight.


The model is abortion. You think abortions are going to be illegal anytime soon, if ever? The snipe around the edges of the issue, but there will never be a ban on abortions.

I guess that is why you don’t get my point. We are literally this close to getting the gun Roe v Wade that takes AWB and confiscation off the table. And get this- we win more elections and get more judges, we get more stuff and even take back ground. If Trump wins and we can replace RBH and maybe one more liberal and clone a young version of Thomas that could take us till after my life time. You understand what I’m saying?

We lose the Senate and we have to eeck by with what Kennedy might throw us. If the ATF does it’s part and we get a good case I put the odds at 90% that we kill the idea of AWBs.

This is what we are facing, and frankly. Bump Stock were a losing issue on so many levels I think they were a plant by BHOs guys to F things up. That we can’t even agree to fix the system meant to keep guns our of crazies hands makes us look like crazy people ourselves.

We say that we don’t have machine guns and we don’t want crazy people to have guns, but when it comes to those issues, we cognitively dissociate from our statments and flop around wailing.

What ever, I was told to go color a book.

[Digital_Damage]

Anxiety is a mental disorder. Depression is a mental disorder. Anorexia is a mental disorder. OCD is a mental disorder. ADD is a mental disorder. Autism is a mental disorder.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Seems to me you do not know that the word counseling implies. You can be counseled and not be diagnosed with a mental disorder... One is an event the other a clinical term.

[Dist. Expert 26]

The model is abortion. You think abortions are going to be illegal anytime soon, if ever? The snipe around the edges of the issue, but there will never be a ban on abortions.

I guess that is why you don’t get my point. We are literally this close to getting the gun Roe v Wade that takes AWB and confiscation off the table. And get this- we win more elections and get more judges, we get more stuff and even take back ground. If Trump wins and we can replace RBH and maybe one more liberal and clone a young version of Thomas that could take us till after my life time. You understand what I’m saying?

We lose the Senate and we have to eeck by with what Kennedy might throw us. If the ATF does it’s part and we get a good case I put the odds at 90% that we kill the idea of AWBs.

This is what we are facing, and frankly. Bump Stock were a losing issue on so many levels I think they were a plant by BHOs guys to F things up. That we can’t even agree to fix the system meant to keep guns our of crazies hands makes us look like crazy people ourselves.

We say that we don’t have machine guns and we don’t want crazy people to have guns, but when it comes to those issues, we cognitively dissociate from our statments and flop around wailing.

What ever, I was told to go color a book.

So we get a favorable ruling on assault weapons. Then they go for the magazines. Then they go for ammunition. Then they try to push out manufacturers.

The fight will never end.

[R6436]

Anxiety is a mental disorder. Depression is a mental disorder. Anorexia is a mental disorder. OCD is a mental disorder. ADD is a mental disorder. Autism is a mental disorder.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

IIRC didn't they also add recently if you play video games more than an hour a day you have a mental disorder? Addictions also? If we go along the line of any disorder means no guns, then "they" have already won without a single actual "ban".

[Dist. Expert 26]

Seems to me you do not know that the word counseling implies. You can be counseled and not be diagnosed with a mental disorder... One is an event the other a clinical term.

You completely dodged my above point, but that's ok.

In order for insurance to cover counseling you have to be diagnosed with a disorder of some sort. I've been through it. Most people that go to counseling are diagnosed with general anxiety disorder, unless they seek counseling for a specific mental issue such as depression or OCD.

[Dist. Expert 26]

Work in IC.

Of course you do.

[Coal Dragger]

Very dodgy answer for a pretty straight question.

Yeah, I’d say that is a dodge.

So I’m going to go with “no” never been subjected to the UCMJ or prolonged day to day .mil operations in a shit hole.

[Averageman]

So, to be clear, if an individual is subjected to the horrors of war and needs help of any sort coping upon their return to civilian life, they're no longer entitled to their Constitutional freedoms? Even if they pose no risk to themselves or others?

Let me give you a real world example. My first team leader had to help evacuate wounded when a suicide bomber detonated in an Afghan market. Mass casualty event. A good number of the casualties were small children. He goes to the VA for counseling so he can work through that experience in a healthy way. Should he be stripped of his freedoms?

Can he no longer cope without regular counseling and a check from the VA every month to pay for the disability?
Cause I remember the system being gamed a bit at one point, I'm not saying your Team Leader did, but there were a lot of people who never left the FOB collecting a nice hefty check every month. More or less they self admitted to no longer having the coping skills to emotionally deal with the realities of the world and also asked for a monetary compensation to assist them.
I told guys then and I would tell them now, you better think these things through before you start gaming a system, eventually these guys are going to take your guns away.
It's irrelevant what I think, this is a .gov system and karma will bit you in the ass eventually.

[R6436]

So we get a favorable ruling on assault weapons. Then they go for the magazines. Then they go for ammunition. Then they try to push out manufacturers.

The fight will never end.

Exactly. All they have to do is backdoor us and they get what they want while we continue to argue. Not arguing with you BTW.

I can't recall off the top of my head, but wasn't it last year some states out West tried limits on ammo purchases, one of them even in combination to how many firearms you could purchase a month? Wasn't there a state that tried introducing a large tax on ammo also? IMO they could very easily drop the AWB proposals and just go after ammo to achieve their goal. Unless we got lucky with a court that considered ammo to be "arms" we'd be screwed.

Looking at you SteyrAUG for your usual clear, rational, and educational answer that I read these posts for.

[Dist. Expert 26]

Can he no longer cope without regular counseling and a check from the VA every month to pay for the disability?
Cause I remember the system being gamed a bit at one point, I'm not saying your Team Leader did, but there were a lot of people who never left the FOB collecting a nice hefty check every month. More or less they self admitted to no longer having the coping skills to emotionally deal with the realities of the world and also asked for a monetary compensation to assist them.
I told guys then and I would tell them now, you better think these things through before you start gaming a system, eventually these guys are going to take your guns away.
It's irrelevant what I think, this is a .gov system and karma will bit you in the ass eventually.

He can, but he still has a diagnosis of PTSD. According to your post that I quoted, he should lose his right to own a firearm.

[Kain]

IIRC didn't they also add recently if you play video games more than an hour a day you have a mental disorder? Addictions also? If we go along the line of any disorder means no guns, then "they" have already won without a single actual "ban".

Mental disorder. Addiction. You smoke? Can't quit, no guns for you. Like your coffee? No guns for you. You like being tied up and spanked? Disorder, mental perversion, no guns for you.

Didn't Nazi Germany sterilize those with "mental disorders?" Have a mental break down, sterilized. I mean, if we want to label someone who is emotional, as having a mental disorder because they get upset and have been having a hard time, then do we pull their rights? If having a "disorder" is enough to pull your 2A rights from people, are you also allowed to pull their 1A rights? What about 4th? 5th? 8th? I mean if you having a disorder is enough for one set of rights to be yanked why not others? Serious question here. You have PTSD, no guns for you, you aren't allowed to speak out, go out in public, you will practice the religion we choose for you, you can't vote, and we can come in and search your property at will and jail you on a whim. All because you might have nightmares and feel guilty about surviving a fire fight where you brothers died and now that your war other there is over and you are trying to rebuild your life and you no longer have brothers around you to keep you in line you are having a little bit of a tough time adjusting. Well, because of that you are less than a person under the eyes of the law and you are a danger to society so you must have no rights. You have all tools to protect yourself taken away, even though you might not be suicidal, just having a tough time rebuilding, or adjusting. Meanwhile some asshat who has made multiple threats to others, threatened to kill people, and is a blaring obvious threat, well he gets to vote, walk free, and not be harassed because it might offend him and he goes off on a killing spree because those who are supposed to be watching don't do their ****ing jobs and even then he still isn't to blame it is the gun. Not saying everyone with PTSD is fine. Christ knows many aren't. But, blanket assumptions on anything are a bad idea and make us no better than those who label all gun owners murders and radicals.

[Averageman]

He can, but he still has a diagnosis of PTSD. According to your post that I quoted, he should lose his right to own a firearm.

I'm not the arbitrator of his rights, he self admitted, didn't he? So then he set this in motion because he was unable to cope and found this to be the only possible way to deal with his problem.
Well if you didn't see this coming then bad on you, but if you really cannot cope, well I was always pretty sure that when you took this rather broad definition of a diagnosis, you were putting your gun rights in extreme jeopardy.
The world turns and although I may not agree that everyone who has PTSD shouldn't own firearms, by the definition of PTSD, they were always going to be suspect. They allowed the .gov in to their lives and that's never, ever a good thing.

[Dist. Expert 26]

I'm not the arbitrator of his rights, he self admitted, didn't he? So then he set this in motion because he was unable to cope and found this to be the only possible way to deal with his problem.
Well if you didn't see this coming then bad on you, but if you really cannot cope, well I was always pretty sure that when you took this rather broad definition of a diagnosis, you were putting your gun rights in extreme jeopardy.
The world turns and although I may not agree that everyone who has PTSD shouldn't own firearms, by the definition of PTSD, they were always going to be suspect. They allowed the .gov in to their lives and that's never, ever a good thing.

On your last point we agree.

However, stigmatizing people for PTSD is a major contributing factor to veteran suicide. I see it all the time in my vet groups on Facebook. Guys won't get help because they don't want the label and the issues that come along with it. Sometimes they wind up putting a gun in their mouth as a result.

[R6436]

Mental disorder. Addiction. You smoke? Can't quit, no guns for you. Like your coffee? No guns for you. You like being tied up and spanked? Disorder, mental perversion, no guns for you.

Didn't Nazi Germany sterilize those with "mental disorders?" Have a mental break down, sterilized. I mean, if we want to label someone who is emotional, as having a mental disorder because they get upset and have been having a hard time, then do we pull their rights? If having a "disorder" is enough to pull your 2A rights from people, are you also allowed to pull their 1A rights? What about 4th? 5th? 8th? I mean if you having a disorder is enough for one set of rights to be yanked why not others? Serious question here. You have PTSD, no guns for you, you aren't allowed to speak out, go out in public, you will practice the religion we choose for you, you can't vote, and we can come in and search your property at will and jail you on a whim. All because you might have nightmares and feel guilty about surviving a fire fight where you brothers died and now that your war other there is over and you are trying to rebuild your life and you no longer have brothers around you to keep you in line you are having a little bit of a tough time adjusting. Well, because of that you are less than a person under the eyes of the law and you are a danger to society so you must have no rights. You have all tools to protect yourself taken away, even though you might not be suicidal, just having a tough time rebuilding, or adjusting. Meanwhile some asshat who has made multiple threats to others, threatened to kill people, and is a blaring obvious threat, well he gets to vote, walk free, and not be harassed because it might offend him and he goes off on a killing spree because those who are supposed to be watching don't do their ****ing jobs and even then he still isn't to blame it is the gun. Not saying everyone with PTSD is fine. Christ knows many aren't. But, blanket assumptions on anything are a bad idea and make us no better than those who label all gun owners murders and radicals.

You bring up a point I've tried to make with my coworkers. If everyone is "meh" and does nothing to defend the Second, they open the door for the government to use the same argument with any of our other rights Gov might disagree with. They object to the idea of permits and background checks to be in the media, waiting periods before posting reports, a tax on every report they post, but since they feel gun legislation doesn't affect them they're ok with it.

As you said, blanket assumptions are bad as well as labels.

[kwelz]

I really never thought I would see the day when a number of people on this page were promoting gun control for people they don't think should have guns. Removing rights without due process goes against everything we stand for in this country.

[jpmuscle]

Been in my fair share of OCONUS shit shows in the assholes of the world.

It you seek mental health care related to traumatic events and are legitimately diagnosed with a mental disorder, yes no guns for you.

It is simply cause and effect, if you can't get or keep your shit straight that is the safe call.

Disgusting.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Averageman]

Mental disorder. Addiction. You smoke? Can't quit, no guns for you. Like your coffee? No guns for you. You like being tied up and spanked? Disorder, mental perversion, no guns for you.

Didn't Nazi Germany sterilize those with "mental disorders?" Have a mental break down, sterilized. I mean, if we want to label someone who is emotional, as having a mental disorder because they get upset and have been having a hard time, then do we pull their rights? If having a "disorder" is enough to pull your 2A rights from people, are you also allowed to pull their 1A rights? What about 4th? 5th? 8th? I mean if you having a disorder is enough for one set of rights to be yanked why not others? Serious question here. You have PTSD, no guns for you, you aren't allowed to speak out, go out in public, you will practice the religion we choose for you, you can't vote, and we can come in and search your property at will and jail you on a whim. All because you might have nightmares and feel guilty about surviving a fire fight where you brothers died and now that your war other there is over and you are trying to rebuild your life and you no longer have brothers around you to keep you in line you are having a little bit of a tough time adjusting. Well, because of that you are less than a person under the eyes of the law and you are a danger to society so you must have no rights. You have all tools to protect yourself taken away, even though you might not be suicidal, just having a tough time rebuilding, or adjusting. Meanwhile some asshat who has made multiple threats to others, threatened to kill people, and is a blaring obvious threat, well he gets to vote, walk free, and not be harassed because it might offend him and he goes off on a killing spree because those who are supposed to be watching don't do their ****ing jobs and even then he still isn't to blame it is the gun. Not saying everyone with PTSD is fine. Christ knows many aren't. But, blanket assumptions on anything are a bad idea and make us no better than those who label all gun owners murders and radicals.


On your last point we agree.

However, stigmatizing people for PTSD is a major contributing factor to veteran suicide. I see it all the time in my vet groups on Facebook. Guys won't get help because they don't want the label and the issues that come along with it. Sometimes they wind up putting a gun in their mouth as a result.

I don't know when I came to the conclusion that everyone is at least a little crazy and a bit of an asshole, but I'm sure it was before seventh grade.
I'm pretty sure if group therapy and counseling were good for you, we would have cured all the worlds ills by now. If you mentally have at least one of your two oars still in the water the smart thing to do is not tell anyone about the other one and make your life a bit bigger and nicer than it was..
I'm in my late 50's now and I come from a family of Military guys. So, it wasn't unusual as a kid to be having dinner with WWII, Korea and Viet Nam vets all around the same table. Nobody went to counseling, nobody took pills to cope and more pills to sleep and collected PTSD money from the VA.
So what changed?
We changed, we bought the story that you cant go to combat and come back and be "normal" again.
Hell, you were nuts when you volunteered.

[wildcard600]

I really never thought I would see the day when a number of people on this page were promoting gun control for people they don't think should have guns. Removing rights without due process goes against everything we stand for in this country.

Big scary freedom is too big and scary for some it would seem.

[Averageman]

I really never thought I would see the day when a number of people on this page were promoting gun control for people they don't think should have guns. Removing rights without due process goes against everything we stand for in this country.

A number of people stood up and self admitted to a mental disorder and took the money because they couldn't "Cope" without "Help".
So the .mil and the .gov got together and created a diagnosis called PTSD and nobodythought that this wasn't going to go to hell in a hand basket?
Like I said, it is irrelevant what I think, these guys self admitted.
Really? Nobody else here saw this coming?

[Dist. Expert 26]

I don't know when I came to the conclusion that everyone is at least a little crazy and a bit of an asshole, but I'm sure it was before seventh grade.
I'm pretty sure if group therapy and counseling were good for you, we would have cured all the worlds ills by now. If you mentally have at least one of your two oars still in the water the smart thing to do is not tell anyone about the other one and make your life a bit bigger and nicer than it was..
I'm in my late 50's now and I come from a family of Military guys. So, it wasn't unusual as a kid to be having dinner with WWII, Korea and Viet Nam vets all around the same table. Nobody went to counseling, nobody took pills to cope and more pills to sleep and collected PTSD money from the VA.
So what changed?
We changed, we bought the story that you cant go to combat and come back and be "normal" again.
Hell, you were nuts when you volunteered.

A lot, and I mean a LOT, of those guys had serious PTSD issues when they got home that went completely undiagnosed. Sure, not everyone gets PTSD from combat. I'd say most don't. The idea that it's somehow a recent construction, however, is completely false. Ever heard of shell shock? Battle fatigue? That was PTSD. It's demonstrated really well in Band Of Brothers, The Pacific, etc.

[SteyrAUG]

I really never thought I would see the day when a number of people on this page were promoting gun control for people they don't think should have guns. Removing rights without due process goes against everything we stand for in this country.

Maybe I don't fully understand the legislation being proposed. But isn't this just putting in place a requirement for reporting those who are "prohibited persons" who have received due process? I know that supposedly got corrected after VA Tech, but doesn't seem like it actually happened.

And I understand the bigger picture is who gets grouped with who. The guy who killed Chris Kyle should definitely have been flagged for serious PTSD and/or other issues but a guy who is just trying to get a full nights sleep after his tour shouldn't lose his rights. Of course the other problem is those who should be denied gun rights due to mental health risks probably shouldn't be walking around loose anyway.

[wildcard600]

I don't know when I came to the conclusion that everyone is at least a little crazy and a bit of an asshole, but I'm sure it was before seventh grade.
I'm pretty sure if group therapy and counseling were good for you, we would have cured all the worlds ills by now. If you mentally have at least one of your two oars still in the water the smart thing to do is not tell anyone about the other one and make your life a bit bigger and nicer than it was..
I'm in my late 50's now and I come from a family of Military guys. So, it wasn't unusual as a kid to be having dinner with WWII, Korea and Viet Nam vets all around the same table. Nobody went to counseling, nobody took pills to cope and more pills to sleep and collected PTSD money from the VA.
So what changed?
We changed, we bought the story that you cant go to combat and come back and be "normal" again.
Hell, you were nuts when you volunteered.

Back then many of them just drank themselves to death, was that the better solution ? It's not to say there aren't alot of vets these days looking for an easy paycheck via claims of PTSD, but to act like PTSD is some kind of modern phenomenon is disingenuous at best.

[R6436]

We changed, we bought the story that you cant go to combat and come back and be "normal" again.
Hell, you were nuts when you volunteered.

But who decides what is "normal"?

Everyone reacts and copes to things differently. IMO "normal" is another blanket statement based on the issuer's personal experiences/views/beliefs/morals/etc.

Yes people take advantage of the system, that happens with any system. As people have pointed out the current name may be PTSD but the condition/phenomenon has been around for as long as war itself.

[Averageman]

But who decides what is "normal"?

Everyone reacts and copes to things differently. IMO "normal" is another blanket statement based on the issuer's personal experiences/views/beliefs/morals/etc.

Yes people take advantage of the system, that happens with any system. As people have pointed out the current name may be PTSD but the condition/phenomenon has been around for as long as war itself.
Like I said and as the many posted examples have noted, nobody is "normal" and everyone has their weight to bear through life.
Psychology is a rather new phenomenon and it certainly isn't an exact science. War may change things in people's lives and even have some influence over things far in to the future for the veteran, but it doesn't have to be crippling.
I think that the offered "help" alongside medication may sometimes be more traumatic than the events.
Out of all of those guys around that table, nobody drank themselves to death, nobody didn't have a good job with a nice income and they all had relatively nice families.
What I have noticed though is that around 1975, people started giving a lot of attention to the small numbers of Vets who couldn't cope.
Now it would seem that nobody copes, Veteran or not.

[Coal Dragger]

On your last point we agree.

However, stigmatizing people for PTSD is a major contributing factor to veteran suicide. I see it all the time in my vet groups on Facebook. Guys won't get help because they don't want the label and the issues that come along with it. Sometimes they wind up putting a gun in their mouth as a result.

Not to worry, the benevolent government will take those scary guns away because as a few of our members pointed out they’re not fit to have guns.

Then those vets can kill themselves by other means, like hanging, or OD’ing on something. That’s OK because they’re damaged goods, and are mentally defective. Those pieces of shit deserve what they get!

I think that sums up their position.

I don’t agree with it, but that’s essentially what I’m reading.

[ABNAK]

I don't know when I came to the conclusion that everyone is at least a little crazy and a bit of an asshole, but I'm sure it was before seventh grade.
I'm pretty sure if group therapy and counseling were good for you, we would have cured all the worlds ills by now. If you mentally have at least one of your two oars still in the water the smart thing to do is not tell anyone about the other one and make your life a bit bigger and nicer than it was..
I'm in my late 50's now and I come from a family of Military guys. So, it wasn't unusual as a kid to be having dinner with WWII, Korea and Viet Nam vets all around the same table. Nobody went to counseling, nobody took pills to cope and more pills to sleep and collected PTSD money from the VA.
So what changed?
We changed, we bought the story that you cant go to combat and come back and be "normal" again.
Hell, you were nuts when you volunteered.

My grandfather was a WWII Marine vet. Guadalcanal, Munda, Bougainville (the Solomon Islands campaign). He got malaria and "combat fatigue". Had the party-sized bottle of Valium and Thorazine from the VA. As I was growing up I recall hearing about Grandpa's "nerves". I heard he could be a real sumbitch back in the day and he did have very little patience (which I guess I am afflicted with). But he was always good to me, albeit cranky at times but my favorite grandfather. I looked up to him. I found him dead the day after Christmas in '93 of natural causes. In some strange way I felt it fitting that it was me, out of anyone else in the family, that found him.

Should he have been denied the RKBA? He had a couple of guns in the house, most of which I got after he died. Never recall a "situation" arising as a result of his firearm ownership. In fact, he bought me my first M1 Garand not long after I got out of the Army.

I have said it before: not being a combat vet I still realize PTSD/combat fatigue/shell shock are real. VERY real. It was real for my grandfather for decades. Nonetheless in this modern era the automatic 30% (at a minimum) VA disability rating is no doubt enticing to a young guy getting out or an older guy retiring. But as I have feared it will be used to f**k these guys over, as we are likely seeing now.

Sad conundrum......forgo help and you perhaps end up eating a Glock. Seek help and that Glock is taken from you.

[Coal Dragger]

We don’t need any adjudication! Sure as hell no set in stone method for guys or gals in a rough spot to get their rights and property back!

Screw those veterans! Only dummies join the military, they cannot be trusted!

~ Some of our members.

[Dist. Expert 26]

Like I said and as the many posted examples have noted, nobody is "normal" and everyone has their weight to bear through life.
Psychology is a rather new phenomenon and it certainly isn't an exact science. War may change things in people's lives and even have some influence over things far in to the future for the veteran, but it doesn't have to be crippling.
I think that the offered "help" alongside medication may sometimes be more traumatic than the events.
Out of all of those guys around that table, nobody drank themselves to death, nobody didn't have a good job with a nice income and they all had relatively nice families.
What I have noticed though is that around 1975, people started giving a lot of attention to the small numbers of Vets who couldn't cope.
Now it would seem that nobody copes, Veteran or not.

Dude you really need to do some research before spouting off like this.

No, everyone doesn't get PTSD. Some people go to war and come back just as they were. It really depends on their experiences. Not everyone watches their best friend bleed to death or has to call a CASEVAC for a 5 year old who's missing a leg. Tell me you could go through that and cope perfectly and I'll call you a bold faced liar.

Not all PTSD is crippling, in fact most isn't. Don't be so quick to make assumptions.

[R6436]

Like I said and as the many posted examples have noted, nobody is "normal" and everyone has their weight to bear through life.
Psychology is a rather new phenomenon and it certainly isn't an exact science. War may change things in people's lives and even have some influence over things far in to the future for the veteran, but it doesn't have to be crippling.
I think that the offered "help" alongside medication may sometimes be more traumatic than the events.
Out of all of those guys around that table, nobody drank themselves to death, nobody didn't have a good job with a nice income and they all had relatively nice families.
What I have noticed though is that around 1975, people started giving a lot of attention to the small numbers of Vets who couldn't cope.
Now it would seem that nobody copes, Veteran or not.

Your last two sentences I think hit the nail on the head. A change in presentation & perception. As you stated "the small numbers of Vets who couldn't cope." To me this opened the door to various entities to subtly start making a mountain out of a mole hill. By no means am I denying there are people out there who honestly need help coping with events. I want to be clear on that. Without verified hard date on hand, I do wonder how many people really need help versus how many the media and others may claim need it. Its like the numbers they throw out after every shooting, only a small portion of the over all picture, but one that can be used to further an agenda.

I don't think PTSD diagnosis should be grounds for automatic loss of firearms. First off there needs to be due process, and each case looked at on an individual level. If a person presents a legitimate risk to themselves or others then, and only then, do I feel it would be OK to TEMPORARILY remove their access to firearms until the situation has been resolved.

That's just my 2-cents, and I'm sure I've probably contradicted some of my other knee-jerk posts here and other topics.

[Todd.K]

Guys won't get help because they don't want the label and the issues that come along with it.

If you fit the description above, please find a Vet Center and give it a try. No diagnosis, pills, or disability rating was pushed. Just a bit of filling in the blanks on why we feel and react the way we do to some things and some ways to try to get ahead of that loop.

Some of the attitudes on display here are downright shameful.

[Averageman]

Dude you really need to do some research before spouting off like this.

No, everyone doesn't get PTSD. Some people go to war and come back just as they were. It really depends on their experiences. Not everyone watches their best friend bleed to death or has to call a CASEVAC for a 5 year old who's missing a leg. Tell me you could go through that and cope perfectly and I'll call you a bold faced liar.

Not all PTSD is crippling, in fact most isn't. Don't be so quick to make assumptions.

I'm not making an assumption.
I saw this coming fourteen years ago and when the diagnosis became an easy 50%.
I warned people against it unless it was a very vital necessity. If you need help get it, but if you can work it out without involving government agencies, that's the very smart way to handle your affairs in life.
In all honesty, if you cannot cope and cannot hold a job or lead a normal life, then take the diagnosis and the money, but their were always going to be strings attached.

[R6436]

If you fit the description above, please find a Vet Center and give it a try. No diagnosis, pills, or disability rating was pushed. Just a bit of filling in the blanks on why we feel and react the way we do to some things and some ways to try to get ahead of that loop.

Some of the attitudes on display here are downright shameful.

And in all seriousness, depending on your daily social circle a Vet Center can be a nice place to hang out and get to know fellow vets from multiple generations. Last time I was at the one in Cedar Rapids I was able to talk with a 'Nam vet I shared an MOS with while also answering questions from a younger Iraq vet that was looking to switch to a different MOS. When I left I felt good knowing there were others with similar experiences to my own, that I was able to share in camaraderie I wouldn't have otherwise been able to, and to a lesser degree help further the knowledge of a younger troop.

[Averageman]

My grandfather was a WWII Marine vet. Guadalcanal, Munda, Bougainville (the Solomon Islands campaign). He got malaria and "combat fatigue". Had the party-sized bottle of Valium and Thorazine from the VA. As I was growing up I recall hearing about Grandpa's "nerves". I heard he could be a real sumbitch back in the day and he did have very little patience (which I guess I am afflicted with). But he was always good to me, albeit cranky at times but my favorite grandfather. I looked up to him. I found him dead the day after Christmas in '93 of natural causes. In some strange way I felt it fitting that it was me, out of anyone else in the family, that found him.

Should he have been denied the RKBA? He had a couple of guns in the house, most of which I got after he died. Never recall a "situation" arising as a result of his firearm ownership. In fact, he bought me my first M1 Garand not long after I got out of the Army.

I have said it before: not being a combat vet I still realize PTSD/combat fatigue/shell shock are real. VERY real. It was real for my grandfather for decades. Nonetheless in this modern era the automatic 30% (at a minimum) VA disability rating is no doubt enticing to a young guy getting out or an older guy retiring. But as I have feared it will be used to f**k these guys over, as we are likely seeing now.

Sad conundrum......forgo help and you perhaps end up eating a Glock. Seek help and that Glock is taken from you.

If you told your Grandfather he was mentally defective because of his service related experiences and he needed to give up his guns, you would have likely had a hell of a fight on your hands.
As a grumpy old SOB myself, I'm sure I would have enjoyed his company.
Cultures change and here we are now, it's a sad state of affairs, but we brought it on ourselves.

[RazorBurn]

I’ll make this as succinct as possible. With respect to mental health issues and legitimate issues of violence risk NICS is not necessarily the problem. The dismissal of due process is.

A practitioner identifies someone as a viable risk, cool, follow due process and get a judge to sign off on it, whilst putting actionable mechanisms in place to permit restoration of rights after the fact.

This, this, AAANNNNNDDDDD THIS!!!

As long as it has full DUE PROCESS in it I can support it. If there's no full due process, then all I can say is that we're are all gonna be well and truly ****ed at some point in the near future.

Think about it! Are you really going to support the government to take away your guns WITHOUT DUE PROCESS? If we abandon the 14th Amendment, we might as well abandon them all.

No, I am in no way advocating giving away any of our rights, but if you give away due process you are handing them all the keys to the kingdom. Which by the way, is exactly what Feinstein and Schumer want you to do!

I forgot who posted the Thomas Massie video. Thanks to whoever did!

[RazorBurn]

For those who are curious about what the big deal is about:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Q7SKCEqA0k

Thanks for posting that!

[sidewaysil80]

I have zero issue with someone being flagged for mental health issues being EVALUATED by a professional and THEN getting their day in court prior to having guns confiscated or not being allowed to purchase. PTSD or w/e mental health issue needs to be examined and then a decision made by the courts on a case by case basis. With that, if law enforcement/treatment center/family has legitimate evidence that someone is a threat to others or themselves and a judge concurs than I'm okay with firearms restrictions prior to full fledged hearing/rebuttal.

[Averageman]

I have zero issue with someone being flagged for mental health issues being EVALUATED by a professional and THEN getting their day in court prior to having guns confiscated or not being allowed to purchase. PTSD or w/e mental health issue needs to be examined and then a decision made by the courts on a case by case basis. With that, if law enforcement/treatment center/family has legitimate evidence that someone is a threat to others or themselves and a judge concurs than I'm okay with firearms restrictions prior to full fledged hearing/rebuttal.

That sounds like a very fair way to handle the issue and yes I believe it can and should be done.
I would be surprised though if it would work. The VA isn't the smoothest running machine by any stretch and I can see years passing before the issue is resolved.
I understand the VA has gotten much better, but it had nowhere to go but up when I got out.

[MegademiC]

So he did not follow the law and go to the court to get a modification due to lost employment? So he did not follow through with his responsibilities he ****ed up, not the courts fault. His fault, his responsibility, should not be blaming that on anyone but himself.

Where is the justification for denying his constitutional rights?

[jpmuscle]

Where is the justification for denying his constitutional rights?

Some animals are just less equal than others in his eyes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WillBrink]

So the NRA is backing this bill?

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

The alternative to giving the middle finger is sitting on your thumb. And you won't have to worry about using your trigger finger, because your guns will be gone.

I'm not sitting on my thumbs. I worked the press, the city council, the NRA, local lawyers and social media when the latest guns stuff came up in Denver. Sisyphus had it easy compared to that task.


Mental disorder. Addiction. You smoke? Can't quit, no guns for you. Like your coffee? No guns for you. You like being tied up and spanked? Disorder, mental perversion, no guns for you.

Didn't Nazi Germany sterilize those with "mental disorders?" Have a mental break down, sterilized. I mean, if we want to label someone who is emotional, as having a mental disorder because they get upset and have been having a hard time, then do we pull their rights?

This is literally crazy. When we are talking about the Florida shooter that had tens of interactions and indicators that should have raised a flag and......... nothing. You seriously have some self-worth issues or something going on if you think that the Fix NICS program is going to geared to come after people with no real issues. We have to have something that can stop people like the MSD shooter, Aurora, Laughner and the Sandyhook mutant.

The idea that this is what makes the gun confiscation happen is delusions of overly high self-importance and too low self-esteem. That people think that they will be lumped in with those monsters- that you won't be able to distinguish yourself against those kind of accusations shows seem real head trash.

The standard is keeping guns out of the hands of people that will hurt others or themselves- and we don't need to dig deep on this. What are we talking about? 10-20 a year? You really think that the local PD and hospital want to babysit all these people to reach down to Joe Gun Owner? Where exactly do they get the money for all this? Even the ACLU stood up against the Obama Social Security rule.

So on one side we have this irrational fear of people coming with butterfly nets and bags for our guns and on the other we try to keep the guns away from the 100 most insane people in the US. Never mind that people that are even close to this should be in the funny farm on general principle, guns or not. To think that they are going to reach that far down into the population to come after your guns? How many millions of people are actually crazier than you (hopefully).

But sure. It's all about you. They are coming for you. They are going to ask about your mother, not listen to the answer and take your guns. Sure, that makes sense.

Some people here think that they are Ann Frank or something.

[jpmuscle]

It’s pretty evident you have no understanding as to how history as born out the terminal efforts you so comfortably support.

Irrespective of how innocuous, well intently, or hell even virtuous a given call for change may be inevitably corrupted and used against those it sought serve.

Consider the whole gun violence epidemic is a crock of shit and more people have died via other chronic means why should we be expected to want to do any damn thing for “the greater good”? Evil exists and the world can be a violent place, deal with it.

Why are you so eager to castrate your individual freedom and liberty?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TomMcC]

With all this talk about mental illness, and due process...is there an actual standard definition of mental illness that isn't subject to the whims, political views, and subjective notions of people with dubious intentions and suspect morals? Law is about precision, or it used to be. Since psychiatry and psychology are pretty suspect "sciences", can law even co-exist with it? Which expert witch doctor is one supposed to believe when it comes to some poor soul caught up in the horror of being in a court room full of people he doesn't know deciding whether he's cccrrrrraaaaazzzzyyyyyy and what his destiny is. It seems that moral evil is a bit easier to get a handle on, at least from my point of view.

[jpmuscle]

With all this talk about mental illness, and due process...is there an actual standard definition of mental illness that isn't subject to the whims, political views, and subjective notions of people with dubious intentions and suspect morals? Law is about precision, or it used to be. Since psychiatry and psychology are pretty suspect "sciences", can law even co-exist with it? Which expert witch doctor is one supposed to believe when it comes to some poor soul caught up in the horror of being in a court room full of people he doesn't know deciding whether he's cccrrrrraaaaazzzzyyyyyy and what his destiny is. It seems that moral evil is a bit easier to get a handle on, at least from my point of view.

The issue at hand is not the issue of mental illness, no the more pertinent issue is the construct of dangerousness. Simply slapping a label on someone doesn’t make the dangerous by default.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dist. Expert 26]

It’s pretty evident you have no understanding as to how history as born out the terminal efforts you so comfortably support.

Irrespective of how innocuous, well intently, or hell even virtuous a given call for change may be inevitably corrupted and used against those it sought serve.

Consider the whole gun violence epidemic is a crock of shit and more people have died via other chronic means why should we be expected to want to do any damn thing for “the greater good”? Evil exists and the world can be a violent place, deal with it.

Why are you so eager to castrate your individual freedom and liberty?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, no, no. You don't understand. Nothing bad can happen here. Our government would never abuse their power.

[WickedWillis]

So, getting caught up here, Marty Daniel is advocating (like the NRA ad well) for expanding background checks and limiting certain preexisting conditions and so on?

[jpmuscle]

No, no, no. You don't understand. Nothing bad can happen here. Our government would never abuse their power.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180311/fb127ce2cbc647464724f26ca036fbdc.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dist. Expert 26]

So, getting caught up here, Marty Daniel is advocating (like the NRA ad well) for expanding background checks and limiting certain preexisting conditions and so on?

Correct. At face value, that's all well and good. The only point of concern is .gov expanding the definition of what constitutes a prohibited condition.

[TomMcC]

The issue at hand is not the issue of mental illness, no the more pertinent issue is the construct of dangerousness. Simply slapping a label on someone doesn’t make the dangerous by default.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe so, but there seems to be no precise distinction between mental illness and dangerousness... the two get intermingled and morphed together and interchanged a lot.

[WickedWillis]

Correct. At face value, that's all well and good. The only point of concern is .gov expanding the definition of what constitutes a prohibited condition.

Okay I agree with you on that completely.

[Dist. Expert 26]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180311/fb127ce2cbc647464724f26ca036fbdc.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sure you know, but the Jews never really fought back either. They maintained their delusions right up until they were being marched into the camps.

[TomMcC]

Correct. At face value, that's all well and good. The only point of concern is .gov expanding the definition of what constitutes a prohibited condition.

"what constitutes a prohibited condition" sounds like one heck of a bottomless pit.....the possibilities seem endless.

[jpmuscle]

Maybe so, but there seems to be no precise distinction between mental illness and dangerousness... the two get intermingled and morphed together and interchanged a lot.

Tom, you work in the mental health field don’t you or is that someone else

As to your question. Dangerousness in this context is almost a purely psycholegal construct as opposed to one of primarily clinical underpinnings. To be certain violence risk assessment is a complex undertaking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Diamondback]

"what constitutes a prohibited condition" sounds like one heck of a bottomless pit.....the possibilities seem endless.

That's why some of us are digging in our heels so hard, particularly anyone who *understands* Leftist ideology, history and tactics--the slightest crack in the door, and they'll have it jackbooted open and an entire SS-Einsatzgruppe through it stomping you into a bloodstain on the carpet before you have a chance to realize what's coming.

[jpmuscle]

"what constitutes a prohibited condition" sounds like one heck of a bottomless pit.....the possibilities seem endless.

Because the asshats writing this stuff know fully we’ll legalize like this let’s then push the law to the fullest extent possible.

It’s not like being convicted of X and suffering curtailment Y as a result


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kain]

That's why some of us are digging in our heels so hard, particularly anyone who *understands* Leftist ideology, history and tactics--the slightest crack in the door, and they'll have it jackbooted open and an entire SS-Einsatzgruppe through it stomping you into a bloodstain on the carpet before you have a chance to realize what's coming.

And what is sad, is that in some ways we are trying to protect them from themselves. They get this shit through, get someone in who might think they are on our side because the elections swings to the next extreme, and is as far right as they are left and decides that they are the ones who should be prohibited and rounded up. As much as some of us would like to see some of the liberals dead, I don't think there are many here who want to be party to mass murder or genocide, or ideal-icide. ****, we're trying to stop the ****ing atom bomb from being built in some ways. Because once that bitch is out of the bag, once the law is made, the power is given, I don't see anyway the government is going to ever let that one get taken away from them without all kinds of bloodshed.

[TomMcC]

Tom, you work in the mental health field don’t you or is that someone else

As to your question. Dangerousness in this context is almost a purely psycholegal construct as opposed to one of primarily clinical underpinnings. To be certain violence risk assessment is a complex undertaking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Somebody else. Complex seems an understatement and it seems the spirit of the day wants to get something done in that respect without much wisdom or caution. I'm extremely mistrustful of psych "doctors" telling all the rest of us what's mental illness, what's dangerous, who should and shouldn't be armed. Am I wrong on this?

[R6436]

Somebody else. Complex seems an understatement and it seems the spirit of the day wants to get something done in that respect without much wisdom or caution. I'm extremely mistrustful of psych "doctors" telling all the rest of us what's mental illness, what's dangerous, who should and shouldn't be armed. Am I wrong on this?

No, you're not wrong in that.

[Artos]

Likely the creepiest thread I've seen on M4...I humbly suggest we wait & with a clear head discuss the final language of the bill that will be voted on before we continue with any more of this eating our own!!

The creepy part is there isn't really anything wrong with NICS other than the lack of data our own govt has failed to feed it with many of these recent shootings (I'm talking nourishment that should have been rightly served after due process but wasn't)...and now with some of these of these replies?? I see an advocation of dishing out arsenic like Dr. K to be prescribed at will by the very same institutions that failed to give the treatment that could have prevented the actions!! Please do not forget to whom you are giving this very power to disallow one's 2nd at such a whim, nor have some backed up this support with language from the bill that makes certain due process is not circumvented!!

What I am seeing is the very definition of forsaking liberty at the cost of perceived safety!! We have been warned this could be our demise from very early on by those who gave us the freedom we have now. Please gents, take a step back & stop painting this as a final solution with broad strokes...we need to understand what verbiage our elected officials are actually going to support.

Sorry, but I do not trust most of these folks who have their tentacles in this 'fix NICS', when the actual fail has come from forms of govt that did not 'feed NICS' when they should have!! Now the baby tossing with the bath water mob within our own is in full gear?? wtf??

[TomMcC]

That's why some of us are digging in our heels so hard, particularly anyone who *understands* Leftist ideology, history and tactics--the slightest crack in the door, and they'll have it jackbooted open and an entire SS-Einsatzgruppe through it stomping you into a bloodstain on the carpet before you have a chance to realize what's coming.

I can see this being driven by people totally unaccountable to anyone...a bureaucracy much worst than what we have now...a very dark branch of the CDC or something.

[Diamondback]

And what is sad, is that in some ways we are trying to protect them from themselves. They get this shit through, get someone in who might think they are on our side because the elections swings to the next extreme, and is as far right as they are left and decides that they are the ones who should be prohibited and rounded up. As much as some of us would like to see some of the liberals dead, I don't think there are many here who want to be party to mass murder or genocide, or ideal-icide. ****, we're trying to stop the ****ing atom bomb from being built in some ways. Because once that bitch is out of the bag, once the law is made, the power is given, I don't see anyway the government is going to ever let that one get taken away from them without all kinds of bloodshed.

Well said. I think another problem is that their "live in the moment" instant-gratification do-what-feels-good-right-now worldview blinds them to Cause and Effect, by being only concerned with this immediate moment they can't see the path that led to it from the past, and the potential next dominoes-teed-up-to-fall of future events. At least the Well Meaning Do-Gooder wing... there are other, darker and more sinister forces hiding behind them, of which Nazi F***stick Uberkapo Soros is but one example.

[jpmuscle]

Somebody else. Complex seems an understatement and it seems the spirit of the day wants to get something done in that respect without much wisdom or caution. I'm extremely mistrustful of psych "doctors" telling all the rest of us what's mental illness, what's dangerous, who should and shouldn't be armed. Am I wrong on this?

Well, ethically they’re not supposed to as it’s strictly the prerogative of the judge to make that determination in court but unfortunately the reality falls far short of this ideal.

Also fwiw I give psychologists a far greater edge on this subject matter as they’re better equipped to delve deeper into a persons psychopathology


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TomMcC]

Because the asshats writing this stuff know fully we’ll legalize like this let’s then push the law to the fullest extent possible.

It’s not like being convicted of X and suffering curtailment Y as a result


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly, that's why I mentioned the precision of the law. Do a robbery (moral wrong) to Y time. Now we're heading head long into the law being driven by slippery (in meaning) imprecise terms like mental illness and "dangerous". A language controlled by people I'm mistrustful of.

[jpmuscle]

Exactly, that's why I mentioned the precision of the law. Do a robbery (moral wrong) to Y time. Now we're heading head long into the law being driven by slippery (in meaning) imprecise terms like mental illness and "dangerous". A language controlled by people I'm mistrustful of.

Human behavior isn’t black and white. Right and wrong are not yes and no propositions.

It’s always been this way. Hence the critical importance of true due process


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TomMcC]

Human behavior isn’t black and white. Right and wrong are not yes and no propositions.

It’s always been this way. Hence the critical importance of true due process


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I agree that human behavior, from our point view is not always black and white. But my limited view of the law and it's history says that IT must be precise lest it be used broadly and vaguely to tyrannize the people.

[MountainRaven]

And what is sad, is that in some ways we are trying to protect them from themselves. They get this shit through, get someone in who might think they are on our side because the elections swings to the next extreme, and is as far right as they are left and decides that they are the ones who should be prohibited and rounded up. As much as some of us would like to see some of the liberals dead, I don't think there are many here who want to be party to mass murder or genocide, or ideal-icide. ****, we're trying to stop the ****ing atom bomb from being built in some ways. Because once that bitch is out of the bag, once the law is made, the power is given, I don't see anyway the government is going to ever let that one get taken away from them without all kinds of bloodshed.

It's probably worth remembering that the gun laws that disarmed the Jews and other "undesireables" in Nazi Germany were originally passed by the Weimar Republic to disarm the Nazi Party in general and the SA - the "Brown shirts", the party's paramilitary wing and predecessor of the SS - in particular.

[Diamondback]

It's probably worth remembering that the gun laws that disarmed the Jews and other "undesireables" in Nazi Germany were originally passed by the Weimar Republic to disarm the Nazi Party in general and the SA - the "Brown shirts", the party's paramilitary wing and predecessor of the SS - in particular.

"Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions."--Dr. Alan Grant, single best line in the trainwreck that was Jurassic Park III

[Averageman]

Dude you really need to do some research before spouting off like this.

No, everyone doesn't get PTSD. Some people go to war and come back just as they were. It really depends on their experiences. Not everyone watches their best friend bleed to death or has to call a CASEVAC for a 5 year old who's missing a leg. Tell me you could go through that and cope perfectly and I'll call you a bold faced liar.

Not all PTSD is crippling, in fact most isn't. Don't be so quick to make assumptions.

You know I came back to this today because it made me rather angry when I first read it and I didn't want to reply emotionally.
You have your own experiences and you have related those of a friend, I can appreciate that.
The difference is, you don't know me, you wouldn't know me if we passed on the street and you certainly haven't seen my DD214. I haven't said all PTSD is crippling, I said and I will paraphrase;
There was a time when it was rather easy to claim PTSD and get a rather high rating for it and it seemed to me to be done with little effort.
I cautioned people I knew and had served with that doing so may well put their 2nd Amendment rights in jeopardy because they were admitting to a psychological disorder.
If it was at all possible to deal with problems without involving the .mil, .gov and the VA system it might likely be better for them in their future.
I will stand by that even today.
So I may appreciate the severity of the experiences of the individual you were speaking of and if he needs the help I hope he gets it. I can however assure you that everyone has a personal breaking level for PTSD and some people may well have a predisposition for such a problem, others well, not so much.
The reality of the here and now is, it may be very difficult for those guys to keep their guns, in some cases that is really too bad, in other cases, well, it might actually be a good thing. In either case however, they brought it on themselves by self admitting.

[Dist. Expert 26]

You know I came back to this today because it made me rather angry when I first read it and I didn't want to reply emotionally.
You have your own experiences and you have related those of a friend, I can appreciate that.
The difference is, you don't know me, you wouldn't know me if we passed on the street and you certainly haven't seen my DD214. I haven't said all PTSD is crippling, I said and I will paraphrase;
There was a time when it was rather easy to claim PTSD and get a rather high rating for it and it seemed to me to be done with little effort.
I cautioned people I knew and had served with that doing so may well put their 2nd Amendment rights in jeopardy because they were admitting to a psychological disorder.
If it was at all possible to deal with problems without involving the .mil, .gov and the VA system it might likely be better for them in their future.
I will stand by that even today.
So I may appreciate the severity of the experiences of the individual you were speaking of and if he needs the help I hope he gets it. I can however assure you that everyone has a personal breaking level for PTSD and some people may well have a predisposition for such a problem, others well, not so much.
The reality of the here and now is, it may be very difficult for those guys to keep their guns, in some cases that is really too bad, in other cases, well, it might actually be a good thing. In either case however, they brought it on themselves by self admitting.

You're missing my point.

Your assertion that "nowadays nobody copes" was completely absurd and I felt the need to point that out. War can be a traumatic experience regardless of the conflict. I'm glad your family didn't have issues from their time in service, but that's a function of their personal dispositions and experiences. Plenty of veterans from every war had issues related to the things they saw and did.

I know a lot of guys who saw some truly awful things and cope just fine. Everyone is wired differently.

As to involving the VA, that's a complex issue. Access to PTSD counseling may or may not be easy to come by depending on where you live. Some guys need medication to sleep, antidepressants, etc that can be very expensive. Occasionally you'll find people who really, truly can't function normally anymore. One of my SOI instructors was a Phantom Fury vet and that dude was seriously messed up. In these cases the VA is the only real option.

I did caution my friend about the danger of involving the VA in regards to his 2A rights. I understand consequences are unavoidable when dealing with the government. I just feel that in itself is an injustice.

[Arik]

SO, we sit here and say don't take our guns, fix the mental health system, blah blah blah. Then somebody actually supports a bill that actually could help in keeping new guns out of the hands of mentally ill and you freak out. LOL! We are our own worst enemy sometimes.

I support a system that prevents crazy people and criminals from buying guns at the gun store. We can'r prevent private or illegal sales, but we can stop nutso from getting guns at the store.I didn't read through every reply. Apologize if this was already said

Then they define "mental illness". Have a very good clear definition of what it is who is effected. Because as of right now it's way too broad. Phobias are mental illnesses. Fear of hights, fear of enclosed spaces or fear of germs. Someone could probably make a case for mental illness if a person has a constant fear of being attacked and needs to carry a gun for self defense.

I don't think people with fear of flying are going to shoot up a school or a mall. Insomnia is a mental illness. There's so many harmless "mental illness" and we're lumping them all into with the truly dangerous ones.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Averageman]

Having known a dozen or so people in the mental health services, I have great reservations about having them pass judgement.
To be brutally honest, I haven't known many that didn't have some real issues in thier own lives.
I always thought many might have entered the field seeking answers about themselves.
That may be a small sample to base an opinion on, but I will throw it out there and let you weigh it against your own experience.

[LoboTBL]

From the textbook diagnosis...

excessive emotions; problems relating to others, including feeling or showing affection; difficulty falling or staying asleep; irritability; outbursts of anger; difficulty concentrating; and being "jumpy" or easily startled.

That behavior is certainly concerning and sure as hell needs to be scrutinized... You are right, you are not going to change my mind, you do not give a person with anti-social irritability a free pass. I certainly understand what it is, It is a mental health issue...

Not to nitpick, but I don't see anti-social irritablity anywhere in that "textbook diagnosis". I see irritablity.

Irritabilitly can also be caused by excessive caffeine intake, hemorrhoids or people that make poor arguments about subjects they don't fully understand.

...Once again, PTSD is not a one size fits all diagnosis. Traumatic events affect different people in different ways. You and I can see a 3 year old get run over by a train. You may have nightmares about it for the rest of your life. I may forget about it tomorrow and never think about it again. Having PTSD doesn't automatically give a person all the symptoms you listed. Thanks for that snippet Jewell

People who have PTSD don't necessarily suffer from any or all of the symtoms listed in your "textbook" diagnosis. They may just experience extreme anxiety at a crowded public venue.

None of the issues that we as gun owners are faced with have simple solutions. People who suggest they do and offer simplistic arguments tend to irritate me.

[rocsteady]

My apologies as I did not read through the entire thread, but the initial statement reminded me of an exchange between Trey Gowdy and then Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder was asking for appropriations for what I believe was the nics system and Gowdy was very hesitant as he said something to the effect of all the money that has been spent over the last decade and the poor return on the investment as so many people that should have instantly been entered into the system and it just wasn't getting done. If that's all this bill is about, penalizing those that are responsible to make sure that domestic abusers, violent felons, etc get on the list, then I'm good

[Digital_Damage]

Not to nitpick, but I don't see anti-social irritablity anywhere in that "textbook diagnosis". I see irritablity.

Irritabilitly can also be caused by excessive caffeine intake, hemorrhoids or people that make poor arguments about subjects they don't fully understand.

...Once again, PTSD is not a one size fits all diagnosis. Traumatic events affect different people in different ways. You and I can see a 3 year old get run over by a train. You may have nightmares about it for the rest of your life. I may forget about it tomorrow and never think about it again. Having PTSD doesn't automatically give a person all the symptoms you listed. Thanks for that snippet Jewell

People who have PTSD don't necessarily suffer from any or all of the symtoms listed in your "textbook" diagnosis. They may just experience extreme anxiety at a crowded public venue.

None of the issues that we as gun owners are faced with have simple solutions. People who suggest they do and offer simplistic arguments tend to irritate me.

Considering it was literally plagiarized from a clinical textbook and is in the actual diagnosis guidance I don't know what to tell you.

I would also not go around taking Jewells inane comments as evidence. He/She also stated you can have PTSD but not have a mental disorder(Illness) but it could become a mental Illness, which is clearly false... you cant be diagnosed with a mental disorder without having the mental disorder... it is in the actual acronym for crying out loud.

This shit is the new autism... a few legitimate cases surface, but when someone finds out you can profit from it either financially or with attention (Munchausen) there is suddenly 5 people in your neighborhood that claim to have it and the clearly do not understand what it even is.

[Dist. Expert 26]

Considering it was literally plagiarized from a clinical textbook and is in the actual diagnosis guidance I don't know what to tell you.

I would also not go around taking Jewells inane comments as evidence. He/She also stated you can have PTSD but not have a mental disorder(Illness) but it could become a mental Illness, which is clearly false... you cant be diagnosed with a mental disorder without having the mental disorder... it is in the actual acronym for crying out loud.

This shit is the new autism... a few legitimate cases surface, but when someone finds out you can profit from it either financially or with attention (Munchausen) there is suddenly 5 people in your neighborhood that claim to have it and the clearly do not understand what it even is.

I ask again, where did you get your degree in psychology?

[Digital_Damage]

I ask again, where did you get your degree in psychology?

Degree? No
Part of my previous curriculum and still have my textbooks, yes.

Where did you get yours, and where do you practice?

[Dist. Expert 26]

Degree? No
Part of my previous curriculum and still have my textbooks, yes.

Where did you get yours, and where do you practice?

I've got textbooks too dude. I'm not in here claiming to be an expert on mental illness though.

Was that part of your "intelligence community" training?

[R6436]

Degree? No
Part of my previous curriculum and still have my textbooks, yes.

Where did you get yours, and where do you practice?

So which textbooks? Titles, ISBN's, publication years/editions?

[Digital_Damage]

I've got textbooks too dude. I'm not in here claiming to be an expert on mental illness though.

Was that part of your "intelligence community" training?

Never claimed to be an expert, I claimed That I can read and comprehend above an 8th grade level.

Got a PhD Political Science? No? Then I guess you can just keep quiet about politics.
Got a PhD in Mechanical Engineering? No? Then I guess you can just keep quiet about trigger mechanisms.
Got a PhD in mathematics? NO? then better keep that trap shut about ballistics.

this is fun....

I guess no one should try to have a debate or conversation on here or DE 26 here will demand you first get a postgraduate degree in said topic.

Better make sure it is IVY league while you are at it.

[Dist. Expert 26]

Never claimed to be an expert, I claimed That I can read and comprehend above an 8th grade level.

Got a PhD Political Science? No? Then I guess you can just keep quiet about politics.
Got a PhD in Mechanical Engineering? No? Then I guess you can just keep quiet about trigger mechanisms.
Got a PhD in mathematics? NO? then better keep that trap shut about ballistics.

this is fun....

I guess no one should try to have a debate or conversation on here or DE 26 here will demand you first get a postgraduate degree in said topic.

Better make sure it is IVY league while you are at it.

Except you can't.

Your assertion is that any disagnosis, no matter how benign, that contains the word "disorder" is a mental illness, and constitutes grounds for suspension/removal of constitutionally protected rights.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

You can't defend your arguments.

Just stop.

[ramairthree]

I would not get too wrapped up in arguing over PTSD.

A shit ton of those with that diagnosis are full of shit.

A heavy preponderance of the nut jobs with MDs are psychiatrists.

And they a veritable flock of stable, rock solid citizens in comparison to the non physician psychologists out there.

I am not saying they are all whack jobs. No more than all strippers are borderline personality chicks with esteem problems and daddy issues. But there sure are a shitload of strippers that fit that description.

Let’s say you have a boss that is an arrogant asshole that is unforgiving and treats people like shit.
He has no combat exposure so it is not PTSD.
If he does does that mean it is PTSD?
How about if he is only an asshole after losing patience with idiots that keep screwing shit up?
How much is understandable frustration with idiots and how much is unfair?
What if he is awesome with good employees and a dick to idiots?

Is he arrogant if he is a world champion at what he does?

Anyways,
Arguing over what is, is not, etc. PTSD is like arguing over a fixed number of guns that is sane to have, and a number that is crazy.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I don't understand the bickering on the 'crazy' level. The standard has always been a danger to yourself of others? I don't see a need to change that. The Florida shooter gave all that they needed multiple times. I don't understand the need to re-invent the wheel. We aren't talking a lot of people here. How many mass shooters a year are there? We know these guys, outside of LV shooter, made people's hair stand on end. I know it is not a technical term, but 'the willies' are a pretty good flag. These guys peg that meter.

These ideas of mass amounts of resources to lock up people is crazy. We can't do it, it isn't a law enforcement problem, it is a money problem. Are the Progressives really going to gut their pet project social BS for this? Be serious.

[Digital_Damage]

Except you can't.

Your assertion is that any disagnosis, no matter how benign, that contains the word "disorder" is a mental illness, and constitutes grounds for suspension/removal of constitutionally protected rights.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

You can't defend your arguments.

Just stop.

While that is cute and desperate, let’s get crystal clear here.
It is your position that PTSD is not a mental disorder, and mental disorder is not a mental illness, and does not rise to the level of needing firearms removed from their possession?

Look… you tried to get cute and you ended up throwing rocks in a glass house. I could easily ask for your Political Science Degree, Psychology Degree and Law Degree with the positions you have taken in this thread if I wanted to use the silly tact you have.

So once again…
Is PTSD a Mental Disorder?
Is a Mental Disorder a synonym for Mental Illness?
Should people with a Mental Illness have their firearms removed from their possession?

[jpmuscle]

While that is cute and desperate, let’s get crystal clear here.
It is your position that PTSD is not a mental disorder, and mental disorder is not a mental illness, and does not rise to the level of needing firearms removed from their possession?

Look… you tried to get cute and you ended up throwing rocks in a glass house. I could easily ask for you Political Science Degree, Psychology Degree and Law Degree with the positions you have taken in this thread if I wanted to use the silly tact you have.

So once again…
Is PTSD a Mental Disorder?
Is a Mental Disorder a synonym for Mental Illness?
Should people with a Mental Illness have their firearms removed from their possession?

You’re being obtuse. I mentioned the real issue early.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Digital_Damage]

You’re being obtuse. I mentioned the real issue early.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The real issue?
You stated a philosophical position based on opinion.

[Dist. Expert 26]

While that is cute and desperate, let’s get crystal clear here.
It is your position that PTSD is not a mental disorder, and mental disorder is not a mental illness, and does not rise to the level of needing firearms removed from their possession?

Look… you tried to get cute and you ended up throwing rocks in a glass house. I could easily ask for your Political Science Degree, Psychology Degree and Law Degree with the positions you have taken in this thread if I wanted to use the silly tact you have.

So once again…
Is PTSD a Mental Disorder?
Is a Mental Disorder a synonym for Mental Illness?
Should people with a Mental Illness have their firearms removed from their possession?

No, it's not. Its a disorder, just like ADD, OCD, autism, addiction, etc. If none of those warrant violating Constitutional rights, why does PTSD? Until an individual is declared mentally unfit by a doctor, and that finding is confirmed by a judge, there is no question they should retain their freedoms as an American citizen.

I'm not portraying myself as an expert who knows better than everyone else.

On the topic of accreditation, you have yet to provide a shred of evidence to support your claim of having experienced any sort of conflict first-hand.

[Diamondback]

Here in Washington, the standard is "Adjudicated Mentally Incompetent"--found to be so in a court of law, which I would suggest as a nationwide standard.

Think somebody's a danger? Bring them and the experts before a jury of their peers and make the case, so long as there is also a process to periodically review and challenge the finding.

[Digital_Damage]

No, it's not. Its a disorder, just like ADD, OCD, autism, addiction, etc. If none of those warrant violating Constitutional rights, why does PTSD? Until an individual is declared mentally unfit by a doctor, and that finding is confirmed by a judge, there is no question they should retain their freedoms as an American citizen.

I'm not portraying myself as an expert who knows better than everyone else.

On the topic of accreditation, you have yet to provide a shred of evidence to support your claim of having experienced any sort of conflict first-hand.



So you are stating that PTSD is NOT a Mental Disorder? It is a simple question.

Also

Accreditation? Not sure what you are asking of me, but I'm not going to beak my oath. This is just another childish tactic trying to discredit an individual instead of debate the topic you have dug yourself a hole in.

... I will say this, you do know that there are probably 300-400k .mil, .gov and .civ that work within the IC community right? That is not even covering the plethora of contractors... there are positions ranging from Cyber Security Analyst to Baristas....

[jpmuscle]

The real issue?
You stated a philosophical position based on opinion.

You’re right. I made it all up. Violence risk is a false psycholegal construct.

This book is fake news

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TUVBDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=forensic+mental+health+violence+risk+major+court+cases&ots=PKtigrACLy&sig=P_gohsbobJMRjgqFpbATtolpgyE#v=onepage&q&f=false


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dist. Expert 26]

So you are stating that PTSD is NOT a Mental Disorder? It is a simple question.

Also

Accreditation? Not sure what you are asking of me, but I'm not going to beak my oath. This is just another childish tactic trying to discredit an individual instead of debate the topic you have dug yourself a hole in.

... I will say this, you do know that there are probably 300-400k .mil, .gov and .civ that work within the IC community right? That is not even covering the plethora of contractors... there are positions ranging from Cyber Security Analyst to Baristas....

Read my last post. It is a disorder. That does not equate to mental incompetence. You seem to have no grasp of what the term "disorder" means and the implications of that.

Whatever you say dude. You brought that line of questioning on yourself. I don't believe you have any experience in "OCONUS shit shows", because if you did you would have a better understanding of what PTSD actually looks like.

[jpmuscle]

For reference

https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Psychiatrists/Practice/DSM/APA_DSM-5-PTSD.pdf


I’d also add that compared to past criterion it’s easier to diagnose now than previously. So yea, slippery slope and all that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Diamondback]

For reference

https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Psychiatrists/Practice/DSM/APA_DSM-5-PTSD.pdf


I’d also add that compared to past criterion it’s easier to diagnose now than previously. So yea, slippery slope and all that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like I've said before, a pshrink with an agenda can DX a ham sandwich, given that almost all diagnostic criteria are "clinician judgment" as opposed to hard, objective quantifiable benchmarks.

[ABNAK]

Why is PTSD the "ailment of choice" for the anti-gunners? Pretty simple: autism, ADD, ADHD, etc. are special snowflake "diseases". PTSD by and large is represented by a group they loathe---VETERANS. You know, the ones who rose above and stepped up to the plate when the vast majority of their fellow countrymen did not, who killed bad guys, who used icky guns and tend to mostly have an independent streak in them as opposed to marching lockstep with the socialist agenda.

[TomMcC]

Like I've said before, a pshrink with an agenda can DX a ham sandwich, given that almost all diagnostic criteria are "clinician judgment" as opposed to hard, objective quantifiable benchmarks.

Is it really a good thing that we are beholden to a "profession" (and I say that very loosely) that has "discovered" 450 or so mental disorders and really haven't come to the end of discovering. A profession that some how has an almost god like ability to define what is normal or abnormal and has shown a propensity to things political. Do we really want this profession to be at the vanguard of who get's a gun and who doesn't. I'll pass. I'll stick to the ancient wisdom that some thinking and some behavior is just evil.

[TomMcC]

Why is PTSD the "ailment of choice" for the anti-gunners? Pretty simple: autism, ADD, ADHD, etc. are special snowflake "diseases". PTSD by and large is represented by a group they loathe---VETERANS. You know, the ones who rose above and stepped up to the plate when the vast majority of their fellow countrymen did not, who killed bad guys, who used icky guns and tend to mostly have an independent streak in them as opposed to marching lockstep with the socialist agenda.

Probably because combat vets had to do a bit of killing and "you know" they just might do a bit more when their not supposed to. At least that's my theory on why they think that way.

[R6436]

Why is PTSD the "ailment of choice" for the anti-gunners? Pretty simple: autism, ADD, ADHD, etc. are special snowflake "diseases". PTSD by and large is represented by a group they loathe---VETERANS. You know, the ones who rose above and stepped up to the plate when the vast majority of their fellow countrymen did not, who killed bad guys, who used icky guns and tend to mostly have an independent streak in them as opposed to marching lockstep with the socialist agenda.

You forgot sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution, trained to over throw nations, and a basic knowledge of how to make things go "boom".

[Diamondback]

Is it really a good thing that we are beholden to a "profession" (and I say that very loosely) that has "discovered" 450 or so mental disorders and really haven't come to the end of discovering. A profession that some how has an almost god like ability to define what is normal or abnormal and has shown a propensity to things political. Do we really want this profession to be at the vanguard of who get's a gun and who doesn't. I'll pass. I'll stick to the ancient wisdom that some thinking and some behavior is just evil.

No, it is not, which is my point... all it takes is one clinician with a gun-hating agenda and BOOM, No Guns For You. At least with a jury of your peers you have a chance. However, I'll note that there's plenty of room for both in this world... and both are things we need to be guarded toward.


Why is PTSD the "ailment of choice" for the anti-gunners? Pretty simple: autism, ... are special snowflake "diseases".
Gee, thanks. So nice to know I'm a "snowflake" now... I'm outta here, good luck.

[ABNAK]

Gee, thanks. So nice to know I'm a "snowflake" now... I'm outta here, good luck.

No man, I wasn't referring to you specifically. No offense intended at all. I was referring to "special snowflake" disorders as being untouchable for scrutiny, kid-glove treatment, a "How dare you question it" attitude. But in most liberals' minds PTSD is E-V-I-L for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post. It's not the affliction itself, it's about WHO is afflicted with it.

Let's use an example: PTSD itself is not strictly combat-related, although those vets probably make up the vast majority of those diagnosed with it. Let's say a woman was raped in her younger years. Yes, it can trigger PTSD since it was indeed traumatic (the "T" in PTSD). Then you have a guy who was an Army or Marine grunt and did a couple of tours downrange in the last 16 years. Saw his buddies maimed , watched a few of them die right in front of him, took lives himself, etc. All the horrors of war.

Now ask a lib which one of those two shouldn't be allowed to have a gun when the ghosts of the past come calling.

[The_War_Wagon]

Don't guess he spoke to anybody at Troy Industries first - to see how that worked out for them last time? :rolleyes:

[ABNAK]

Probably because combat vets had to do a bit of killing and "you know" they just might do a bit more when their not supposed to. At least that's my theory on why they think that way.

And they worry (probably not incorrectly) that it might just be THEIR ass that "crazy" vet pops a cap on!

[jethroUSMC]

With all this talk about mental illness, and due process...is there an actual standard definition of mental illness that isn't subject to the whims, political views, and subjective notions of people with dubious intentions and suspect morals? Law is about precision, or it used to be. Since psychiatry and psychology are pretty suspect "sciences", can law even co-exist with it? Which expert witch doctor is one supposed to believe when it comes to some poor soul caught up in the horror of being in a court room full of people he doesn't know deciding whether he's cccrrrrraaaaazzzzyyyyyy and what his destiny is. It seems that moral evil is a bit easier to get a handle on, at least from my point of view.

Definitions change with time just like the core language, and rarely for "the good" of the country or culture of that country. By changing definitions, the yardstick measuring "dangerous" or "crazy" could impact many peoples rights in a very negative way.

An example would be how the left throws around racism for just about anything.

What about a situation where "Doxing" someone to have their guns removed? There would need to be serious criminal and civil repercussions for people proven to do something like this, but the legal system has shown in some cases that it's not willing to prosecute - Duke LaCrosse players come to mind.

Whatever deprived moral character political-hack group in charge of making law will absolutely change it without regard to history, or the Constitution.

[Averageman]

Is anyone surprised?
I remember when the in vouge thing for Liberals was to see a Vet in uniform and "Thank You for Your Service."
I didn't serve any of those Muppets, it was a small group of people with mutual respect who served each other.
I've never felt a minute of guilt for anything I did, but those little "Thank You for Your Service" words never quite rang quite true to me.
To remind them that they were a partner in any and all of the sins they thought I might have committed I made it a point to Thank Them for Buying my Ammo.
I saw this coming, I swear I saw it a mile away.

[ABNAK]

You forgot sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution, trained to over throw nations, and a basic knowledge of how to make things go "boom".

Well, yeah, there is that! (Hell yeah!)

[NWPilgrim]

Is it really a good thing that we are beholden to a "profession" (and I say that very loosely) that has "discovered" 450 or so mental disorders and really haven't come to the end of discovering. A profession that some how has an almost god like ability to define what is normal or abnormal and has shown a propensity to things political. Do we really want this profession to be at the vanguard of who get's a gun and who doesn't. I'll pass. I'll stick to the ancient wisdom that some thinking and some behavior is just evil.

I agree with that, plus NOTHING is a 100% guarantee prevention. Even if well run the mental health approach is maybe a 50/50 proposition to intervene before a murder takes place. But given human nature and its failings, the actual success rate would likely be more like 5% or less. For examples, the laws already in place not being enforced. Psychs will screw up just as bad or worse than LE/schools/govt.

The only thing we can really rely on are the people already on the scene. Allow them to be armed and while not required to act, there is a darn good chance one or more will choose to react and have much better chance of disrupting or stopping a shooting event. And if that were tried and people saw it working in schools then it might get momentum and instead of 1-2 adults armed in a school you might eventually see 20 or more. That would then be a very hard target. Without a dime of taxpayer money, no loss of rights by anyone, and in fact strengthening the appreciation of individual rights.

[Diamondback]

I agree with that, plus NOTHING is a 100% guarantee prevention. Even if well run the mental health approach is maybe a 50/50 proposition to intervene before a murder takes place. But given human nature and its failings, the actual success rate would likely be more like 5% or less. For examples, the laws already in place not being enforced. Psychs will screw up just as bad or worse than LE/schools/govt.

The only thing we can really rely on are the people already on the scene. Allow them to be armed and while not required to act, there is a darn good chance one or more will choose to react and have much better chance of disrupting or stopping a shooting event. And if that were tried and people saw it working in schools then it might get momentum and instead of 1-2 adults armed in a school you might eventually see 20 or more. That would then be a very hard target. Without a dime of taxpayer money, no loss of rights by anyone, and in fact strengthening the appreciation of individual rights.

And as a bonus, providing more positive views of the armed community to young people--which is what REALLY scares the Left, the possibility of us subverting their Indoctrination Camps.

[Jewell]

Read my last post. It is a disorder. That does not equate to mental incompetence. You seem to have no grasp of what the term "disorder" means and the implications of that.

Whatever you say dude. You brought that line of questioning on yourself. I don't believe you have any experience in "OCONUS shit shows", because if you did you would have a better understanding of what PTSD actually looks like.

Trying to reason with this guy/gal is about as useful as nailing jello to a tree. Even if PTSD is a mental disorder, it doesn't make all who have any form of it mentally defective.

[LoboTBL]

I know literally dozens of people who have some degree of PTSD. I know them quite well and consider them close personal friends. I trust each and every one of them with maintaining possession of a firearm.

Hell, after nine years in the military and 22 years as a cop working patrol, I've seen and experienced a shit ton of traumatic shit. I probably have it to some degree.

There are several medical professionals that have suggested the D in PTSD should be dropped because it is not actually a disorder at all. It is what the human brain does as a method of dealing with traumatic experiences. Numerous stimuli can set off a reaction in the brain. It could be a sound, an odor or various other external stimuli. Part of the brain recalls a traumatic memory that is associated with certain stimuli and sends a message to other parts of the brain and it causes stress because there is a disconnect about what is actually taking place versus the sense of anxiety that is being felt.

That is not by any means a clinical explanation but the point is that PTSD is not an abnormal reaction to experienced traumatic events. The reality is, that if a person has experienced severely traumatic events and is not at all affected by them to some degree; there is probably something very wrong with his psyche.

[1168]

Probably because combat vets had to do a bit of killing and "you know" they just might do a bit more when their not supposed to. At least that's my theory on why they think that way.

And most of us will go out of our way to avoid killing again.


I know literally dozens of people who have some degree of PTSD. I know them quite well and consider them close personal friends. I trust each and every one of them with maintaining possession of a firearm.

Hell, after nine years in the military and 22 years as a cop working patrol, I've seen and experienced a shit ton of traumatic shit. I probably have it to some degree.

There are several medical professionals that have suggested the D in PTSD should be dropped because it is not actually a disorder at all. It is what the human brain does as a method of dealing with traumatic experiences. Numerous stimuli can set off a reaction in the brain. It could be a sound, an odor or various other external stimuli. Part of the brain recalls a traumatic memory that is associated with certain stimuli and sends a message to other parts of the brain and it causes stress because there is a disconnect about what is actually taking place versus the sense of anxiety that is being felt.

That is not by any means a clinical explanation but the point is that PTSD is not an abnormal reaction to experienced traumatic events. The reality is, that if a person has experienced severely traumatic events and is not at all affected by them to some degree; there is probably something very wrong with his psyche.

This. PTSD is mis-named and will likely change to something like PTSS.

[sidewaysil80]

Trying to reason with this guy/gal is about as useful as nailing jello to a tree. Even if PTSD is a mental disorder, it doesn't make all who have any form of it mentally defective.

Agree with this wholeheartedly. But I also feel it deserves a once over to review symptoms. Should there be any red flags I think it is reasonable for that evidence be brought to courts.

[Korgs130]

I know literally dozens of people who have some degree of PTSD. I know them quite well and consider them close personal friends. I trust each and every one of them with maintaining possession of a firearm.

Hell, after nine years in the military and 22 years as a cop working patrol, I've seen and experienced a shit ton of traumatic shit. I probably have it to some degree.

There are several medical professionals that have suggested the D in PTSD should be dropped because it is not actually a disorder at all. It is what the human brain does as a method of dealing with traumatic experiences. Numerous stimuli can set off a reaction in the brain. It could be a sound, an odor or various other external stimuli. Part of the brain recalls a traumatic memory that is associated with certain stimuli and sends a message to other parts of the brain and it causes stress because there is a disconnect about what is actually taking place versus the sense of anxiety that is being felt.

That is not by any means a clinical explanation but the point is that PTSD is not an abnormal reaction to experienced traumatic events. The reality is, that if a person has experienced severely traumatic events and is not at all affected by them to some degree; there is probably something very wrong with his psyche.

This 100%. Very well said.

[Airhasz]

Without reading nine pages does this mean most are done with DD?

[kwelz]

Without reading nine pages does this mean most are done with DD?

Seems that we are split. Many are done with DD and a few feel veterans shouldn't be allowed guns.

[Bulletdog]

Going back to post number one of this thread… Here is a direct copy paste of part of Marty's FB post:

The Fix NICS Act would:
• Mandate federal agencies to report criminal convictions to the
Attorney General
• Require reporting of select mental health records that prohibit the
purchase of firearms (Fix NICS only seeks to require mental health
records that fit current federal categories)
• Hold states and federal agencies accountable for failing to upload
records

I am totally against any kind of new gun control. Not one inch, not one more law. Leave my mags, my barrel length, my CCW, my suppressors and my scary black guns alone. Liberal emotion should not be to origin of new laws. I say this so anyone wondering knows where I am coming from. I want no new gun control of any kind, and I want old unjust gun control laws repealed and eradicated ASAP.

This being the case, will one of you articulate fellows that have now condemned DD forever over this FB post please explain what is bad about this? I've read each of the bullet points above, and I fail to see a problem. I've read 18 pages of what PTSD is or isn't, but why would we not want convicted criminals, or people adjudicated mentally insane or unfit, to be put in the system as unable to buy firearms? These are both groups that have had due process and come up short. Neither group will have been railroaded or deemed unfit by a single "clinician" with an agenda, and both groups have a system for reconsideration and restoration of their rights if a mistake was made. And the last point of holding state and federal agencies accountable for failure? How is that a bad thing? Seems to me we are simply making the .gov uphold sensible policies and laws that we already have in an effort to make it a little more difficult for madmen to arm themselves and cause another catastrophe for the individuals who get attacked and for our cause. Will it solve all problems? No. Of course not. But it might have prevented the recent Florida massacre.

I'm all ready to boycott anyone who is not on the side of freedom and the Constitution, but I don't see the sin here. Someone please enlighten me.

[kwelz]

Going back to post number one of this thread… Here is a direct copy paste of part of Marty's FB post:

The Fix NICS Act would:
• Mandate federal agencies to report criminal convictions to the
Attorney General
• Require reporting of select mental health records that prohibit the
purchase of firearms (Fix NICS only seeks to require mental health
records that fit current federal categories)
• Hold states and federal agencies accountable for failing to upload
records

I am totally against any kind of new gun control. Not one inch, not one more law. Leave my mags, my barrel length, my CCW, my suppressors and my scary black guns alone. Liberal emotion should not be to origin of new laws. I say this so anyone wondering knows where I am coming from. I want no new gun control of any kind, and I want old unjust gun control laws repealed and eradicated ASAP.

This being the case, will one of you articulate fellows that have now condemned DD forever over this FB post please explain what is bad about this? I've read each of the bullet points above, and I fail to see a problem. I've read 18 pages of what PTSD is or isn't, but why would we not want convicted criminals, or people adjudicated mentally insane or unfit, to be put in the system as unable to buy firearms? These are both groups that have had due process and come up short. Neither group will have been railroaded or deemed unfit by a single "clinician" with an agenda, and both groups have a system for reconsideration and restoration of their rights if a mistake was made. And the last point of holding state and federal agencies accountable for failure? How is that a bad thing? Seems to me we are simply making the .gov uphold sensible policies and laws that we already have in an effort to make it a little more difficult for madmen to arm themselves and cause another catastrophe for the individuals who get attacked and for our cause. Will it solve all problems? No. Of course not. But it might have prevented the recent Florida massacre.

I'm all ready to boycott anyone who is not on the side of freedom and the Constitution, but I don't see the sin here. Someone please enlighten me.



You are basing this off of his over simplification of the law that he is using to justify his position.

The problem is that it leaves open to interpretation what those Mental health prohibitions may be. As written it strips away due process based on that alone and hence the objections of myself and others.

[Bulletdog]

Double post.

[Bulletdog]

You are basing this off of his over simplification of the law that he is using to justify his position.

The problem is that it leaves open to interpretation what those Mental health prohibitions may be. As written it strips away due process based on that alone and hence the objections of myself and others.

Bullet point number two from his post specifically says we are only talking about federal categories that already exist. Are you saying they want to expand/enlarge their current powers and create new categories and/or lessen the criterion for who gets placed on the "no buy" list? I am not seeing that.

[kwelz]

Bullet point number two from his post specifically says we are only talking about federal categories that already exist. Are you saying they want to expand/enlarge their current powers and create new categories and/or lessen the criterion for who gets placed on the "no buy" list? I am not seeing that.

Have you read the actual law and not just his bullet points?

[R6436]

Going back to post number one of this thread… Here is a direct copy paste of part of Marty's FB post:

The Fix NICS Act would:
• Mandate federal agencies to report criminal convictions to the
Attorney General
• Require reporting of select mental health records that prohibit the
purchase of firearms (Fix NICS only seeks to require mental health
records that fit current federal categories)
• Hold states and federal agencies accountable for failing to upload
records

I am totally against any kind of new gun control. Not one inch, not one more law. Leave my mags, my barrel length, my CCW, my suppressors and my scary black guns alone. Liberal emotion should not be to origin of new laws. I say this so anyone wondering knows where I am coming from. I want no new gun control of any kind, and I want old unjust gun control laws repealed and eradicated ASAP.

This being the case, will one of you articulate fellows that have now condemned DD forever over this FB post please explain what is bad about this? I've read each of the bullet points above, and I fail to see a problem. I've read 18 pages of what PTSD is or isn't, but why would we not want convicted criminals, or people adjudicated mentally insane or unfit, to be put in the system as unable to buy firearms? These are both groups that have had due process and come up short. Neither group will have been railroaded or deemed unfit by a single "clinician" with an agenda, and both groups have a system for reconsideration and restoration of their rights if a mistake was made. And the last point of holding state and federal agencies accountable for failure? How is that a bad thing? Seems to me we are simply making the .gov uphold sensible policies and laws that we already have in an effort to make it a little more difficult for madmen to arm themselves and cause another catastrophe for the individuals who get attacked and for our cause. Will it solve all problems? No. Of course not. But it might have prevented the recent Florida massacre.

I'm all ready to boycott anyone who is not on the side of freedom and the Constitution, but I don't see the sin here. Someone please enlighten me.

I'm not one of the articulate crowd, nor am I condemning DD (what Marty did was his right to do whether I agree with him or not) but I will try to explain where I am coming from.

The issue I have with anti-gun legislation is simply this: human beings are fallible. No matter how good the legislation, the intent behind it, or how clear & concise the wording is the potential for and eventual implementation of abuse will be there. At some point someone will take the legislation and use it for nefarious ends. There is too much wording in most legislation that is too vague and too open to interpretation. Let's also not forget that most bills get totally unrelated things added to them in the form of "pork" or "riders". Look at reciprocity that was up for vote earlier, they attached a fix NICS to that because supposedly neither could pass on their own merits. How many times do we see politicians stand in front of their peers and say "we need to pass this so we can find out what is in it"?

That is why I have issue with anti-gun laws. What we get told about them may sound reasonable at first, but by the time proposals get to the voting stage how much of the language is still what we supported? How much extra has been added on? I can't remember who originally said it but keep in mind "you can't legislate morality". No matter how many laws get added to "the books" there will still be bad people doing bad things, and they aren't going to care what the laws say.

[Airhasz]

Seems that we are split. Many are done with DD and a few feel veterans shouldn't be allowed guns.

Seems some are biting the hand that feeds them, including commander in chief.:stop:

[ramairthree]

I don't understand the bickering on the 'crazy' level. The standard has always been a danger to yourself of others? I don't see a need to change that. The Florida shooter gave all that they needed multiple times. I don't understand the need to re-invent the wheel. We aren't talking a lot of people here. How many mass shooters a year are there? We know these guys, outside of LV shooter, made people's hair stand on end. I know it is not a technical term, but 'the willies' are a pretty good flag. These guys peg that meter.

These ideas of mass amounts of resources to lock up people is crazy. We can't do it, it isn't a law enforcement problem, it is a money problem. Are the Progressives really going to gut their pet project social BS for this? Be serious.

Psyc stuff is remarkably retrospective.
You see a gay guy arguing with his mother and it is often very stereotypical. But most guys with that type of mom are not gay.
Some guy living in a cabin in the woods writes a manifesto and makes a bomb. Obvious. Except that tens of thousands of guys just like him never make a bomb.
I could go on for pages with examples, but it’s pointless. What the point is, is that psyc is remarkably retrospective, but particularly horrible at being predictive. If a weird 30 year old living in mom’s basement that never had a date and spends all his time watching anime porn dresses like a Furrie and goes out and rapes a kid, then can tell you all about it after the fact. But dozens of other guys like that won’t.

Look at how the current standards work.
Most states will have a standard and a system to commit someone that seems straightforward. The LE brings the patient to the ED, psyc facility, etc. after someone has done the process. Or they get brought straight to the ED.
Some of these are total BS with lies to commit someone.
Some are real.
Some are actually crazy.
Some will be in dozens of times in a year.
A physician can literally fill in a few lines on a piece of paper, and buy you 30 days.

Society has changed so that a kid getting spanked, a teenage boy getting punched for threatening mom, or a totally egging on sadistic bitch getting grabbed and thrown out of the house or backhanded can turn a guy’s normal life into a DV violence conviction and loss of his 2A privliges.

Have you ever seen a gun law that is actually meant to stop crime?

Mental health will turn into the same thing.
Gun laws are not really there to stop violence or keep people safe from criminals. They want to keep regular people from owning guns.

New mental health stuff, it’s not really going to be a tool to keep crazy people in check. That is already a maze of repeat crazy people that have never done anything all that violent, and some dangerous people that should be in jail being treated like patients, and just a huge, deep rabbit hole with a mix of everything in between.

DD should have just stayed silent instead of jumping on the bandwagon.
Screw them. He is not proposing anything out of line, it’s the principle.

The end game is to not to actually keep dangerous people from having guns.
It is to label tons of people as being dangerous, and not let them have guns.

[ramairthree]

Seems some are biting the hand that feeds them, including commander in chief.:stop:

Yeah. I voted for Trump because he was not Hillary.

I had been gaining respect and appreciation for him.

Then it seems like he just turned on us regard 2A.

The reality is,
I think he just cost the Rs midterms and himself a second term.

I doubt a single republican has ever gained a single vote by siding with the left on gun control.

[Dist. Expert 26]

Yeah. I voted for Trump because he was not Hillary.

I had been gaining respect and appreciation for him.

Then it seems like he just turned on us regard 2A.

The reality is,
I think he just cost the Rs midterms and himself a second term.

I doubt a single republican has ever gained a single vote by siding with the left on gun control.

That's the sentiment I've seen all over social media. Trump, and a lot of other Republicans, completely betrayed their base and probably won't be staying in office.

So either we manage to get more right-leaning candidates on the ballot or the Dems take over again.

[ramairthree]

That's the sentiment I've seen all over social media. Trump, and a lot of other Republicans, completely betrayed their base and probably won't be staying in office.

So either we manage to get more right-leaning candidates on the ballot or the Dems take over again.

Yeah, it’s way more crucial than him costing himself a second term.

He was a quick dive for the wheel that managed a quick spin on the rudder at the last second to keep the Titanic from hitting the iceberg.

While we were wiping our brows and getting a drink of water after getting him to the wheel,
He changed azimuth and headed back for the iceberg.

Those that got him to the wheel are not going to bust a hump to keep him there.

But we are headed for the iceberg again.

[Dist. Expert 26]

Yeah, it’s way more crucial than him costing himself a second term.

He was a quick dive for the wheel that managed a quick spin on the rudder at the last second to keep the Titanic from hitting the iceberg.

While we were wiping our brows and getting a drink of water after getting him to the wheel,
He changed azimuth and headed back for the iceberg.

Those that got him to the wheel are not going to bust a hump to keep him there.

But we are headed for the iceberg again.

Pretty much.

The only way I see out is for Trump to make some really good decisions over the next couple years so people forget about this betrayal. I don't mean telling the Dems "no", that won't be enough. He'll have to push for serious pro 2A legislation.

Unfortunately I don't see that happening.

[Airhasz]

Trump gave the left a bone so not to look like a heartless president since school children were mercilessly attacked.
That’s what he does, give and take and make deals. He realizes NOT that the Second Amendment is not a bargaining chip to be brought out to the table especially with that CREATURE Feinstein. It looked like some 60’s sci-fi insect waiting to dine on some decayed nasty prey.:bad:

[Dist. Expert 26]

Trump gave the left a bone so not to look like a heartless president since school children were mercilessly attacked.
That’s what he does, give and take and make deals. He realizes NOT that the Second Amendment is not a bargaining chip to be brought out to the table especially with that CREATURE Feinstein. It looked like some 60’s sci-fi insect waiting to dine on some decayed nasty prey.:bad:

Regardless of his motivation, it was a huge mistake and likely torpedoed the Republican party for the foreseeable future.

[jethroUSMC]

Possibly. We'll have to see. Prog-Tards in the Republican party seem to be torpedoing themselves quite well regardless of anything Trump does/says.

Trump is the the ultimate troller, so far the pattern appears to be to draw out the clowns for all to see and then say, "Sorry, I tried".

This last round was concerning, especially the comment that, if implemented, would ignore due process.

We definitely need to continue to pay attention.

[Pilot1]

If Trump gets a chance to appoint another Supreme Court Justice it better be someone like Gorsuch. My bet, it will be, I just hope he doesn't go Progressive to try to broaden his voting base for reelection

[Dist. Expert 26]

Possibly. We'll have to see. Prog-Tards in the Republican party seem to be torpedoing themselves quite well regardless of anything Trump does/says.

Trump is the the ultimate troller, so far the pattern appears to be to draw out the clowns for all to see and then say, "Sorry, I tried".

This last round was concerning, especially the comment that, if implemented, would ignore due process.

We definitely need to continue to pay attention.

Did you miss the bump stock ban that completely ignores our legislative process?

Trump is not our friend.

[jpmuscle]

Trump gave the left a bone so not to look like a heartless president since school children were mercilessly attacked.
That’s what he does, give and take and make deals. He realizes NOT that the Second Amendment is not a bargaining chip to be brought out to the table especially with that CREATURE Feinstein. It looked like some 60’s sci-fi insect waiting to dine on some decayed nasty prey.:bad:

Yea, bc we made out so well on our end of this compromise. Funny how that’s always the case


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[skywalkrNCSU]

Glad to see there are some that still believe in the 512D Chutes and Ladders game Trump is playing

[jethroUSMC]

Delete this one please

[jethroUSMC]

Did you miss the bump stock ban that completely ignores our legislative process?

Trump is not our friend.

Negative. I didn't want to type out the entire list of concerning items from just this last go around.

Trying to practice a little brevity.

[kwelz]

That's the sentiment I've seen all over social media. Trump, and a lot of other Republicans, completely betrayed their base and probably won't be staying in office.



Don't bet on it. The cult of Trump has become just that. A religious like cult. They will support him even if he changes parties and goes back to his old school democrat ways. Lets not forget he was an avid gun grabber back in the day and they ignore that.

[Dist. Expert 26]

Don't bet on it. The cult of Trump has become just that. A religious like cult. They will support him even if he changes parties and goes back to his old school democrat ways. Lets not forget he was an avid gun grabber back in the day and they ignore that.

I'm not making this stuff up.

A lot, and I mean a LOT, of people who voted him into office won't be showing up in 2020. The bump stock bubba crowd was his base, and he's alienated all but the most devoted over the last few weeks.

[kwelz]

Glad to see there are some that still believe in the 512D Chutes and Ladders game Trump is playing

Just heard we are up to 1024 Candyland.

[kwelz]

I'm not making this stuff up.

A lot, and I mean a LOT, of people who voted him into office won't be showing up in 2020. The bump stock bubba crowd was his base, and he's alienated all but the most devoted over the last few weeks.

You are probably right. I just see a lot of people on FB and even here that defend him even now.

[Waylander]

Marty just backpedaled.


"Message from Marty Daniel:

Friends,

First and foremost, let me say that I have heard your voices. I put out a statement on Friday, supporting Senate Bill S.2135 also known as the Fix NICS Act. I have received overwhelming feedback since putting out this statement, which has brought to my attention that there are significant and justified concerns regarding this bill. I can no longer in good conscience put my support behind S.2135.

I released the original statement because I believed it was the best option available at this time to hold back the continued attacks on the Second Amendment and the erosion of our rights. I was wrong.

Let me be very clear:

• My life’s work is to protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms by holding our lawmakers accountable to the Second Amendment.

• I believe that all firearms laws that limit the rights of law abiding citizens are unconstitutional.

• I will never support any legislation which infringes on any individuals rights, and could potentially subvert due process.

• Myself, my Family, and Daniel Defense love and serve our Veterans every day. I would never support a legislative measure which would strip them of their rights based on their history of service and sacrifice.

Thank you to everyone who reached out and voiced your concerns. You are a motivated and passionate group of people which I am proud to call my peers, my friends, and my family. We are all united in one fight – the fight to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. I will never turn my back on you. I stand with you and I am ready to continue to fight for our rights.

-Marty"

[R6436]

Marty just backpedaled.


"Message from Marty Daniel:

Friends,

First and foremost, let me say that I have heard your voices. I put out a statement on Friday, supporting Senate Bill S.2135 also known as the Fix NICS Act. I have received overwhelming feedback since putting out this statement, which has brought to my attention that there are significant and justified concerns regarding this bill. I can no longer in good conscience put my support behind S.2135.

I released the original statement because I believed it was the best option available at this time to hold back the continued attacks on the Second Amendment and the erosion of our rights. I was wrong.

Let me be very clear:

• My life’s work is to protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms by holding our lawmakers accountable to the Second Amendment.

• I believe that all firearms laws that limit the rights of law abiding citizens are unconstitutional.

• I will never support any legislation which infringes on any individuals rights, and could potentially subvert due process.

• Myself, my Family, and Daniel Defense love and serve our Veterans every day. I would never support a legislative measure which would strip them of their rights based on their history of service and sacrifice.

Thank you to everyone who reached out and voiced your concerns. You are a motivated and passionate group of people which I am proud to call my peers, my friends, and my family. We are all united in one fight – the fight to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. I will never turn my back on you. I stand with you and I am ready to continue to fight for our rights.

-Marty"

Regardless of what people will speculate his true motivations were for issuing his statement, I will give him props for actually stating he was wrong. From what I've seen in this day and age, that happens way too seldom.

[officerX]

Backpedalling now...............

http://i1195.photobucket.com/albums/aa393/officerfrasher/unnamed_zpsujzavcxq.jpg

[SteyrAUG]

Don't bet on it. The cult of Trump has become just that. A religious like cult. They will support him even if he changes parties and goes back to his old school democrat ways. Lets not forget he was an avid gun grabber back in the day and they ignore that.

I think it has far more to do with who he ran against and it will have a lot more to do with who he is running against in 2020. Trump was hardly my first pick, but against Hillary it was an easy choice. I'd have voted for my mailman if he was running against Hillary.

Trump also made a LOT of the right people really uneasy and when I saw the MSM attempt to sabotage everything he said or did, I felt that I was voting for the best candidate available. Even with all of my misgivings regarding Cruz and the others, I'd have still voted for them over Hillary if they actually won the nomination.

[kwelz]

Regardless of what people will speculate his true motivations were for issuing his statement, I will give him props for actually stating he was wrong. From what I've seen in this day and age, that happens way too seldom.


I agree. Props to him for sure on admitting he screwed up regardless of the reason. I still think this translates to "Oh Shit I stepped in it" But at least he manned up.



I think it has far more to do with who he ran against and it will have a lot more to do with who he is running against in 2020. Trump was hardly my first pick, but against Hillary it was an easy choice. I'd have voted for my mailman if he was running against Hillary.

Trump also made a LOT of the right people really uneasy and when I saw the MSM attempt to sabotage everything he said or did, I felt that I was voting for the best candidate available. Even with all of my misgivings regarding Cruz and the others, I'd have still voted for them over Hillary if they actually won the nomination.

I couldn't vote for either. When given the choice between two New York Authoritarian Democrats I wrote in Mitch Daniels.

People kept saying it is about the SCOTUS picks. And while I agree his first was good, I have no trust in his next one when it comes along. At least with the shebeast we would be putting up more of a fight instead of saying yes daddy hurt me more.

[kerplode]

People kept saying it is about the SCOTUS picks. And while I agree his first was good, I have no trust in his next one when it comes along. At least with the shebeast we would be putting up more of a fight instead of saying yes daddy hurt me more.
Cheeto aint gonna get a second pick...When the Dems retake house and senate in '18, they'll block all his noms until Bernie gets elected in '20.

Won't matter anyway, because by then many of the states that the dems flip in '18 will enact their own strict, CA-style, bans.

[kwelz]

Cheeto aint gonna get a second pick...When the Dems retake house and senate in '18, they'll block all his noms until Bernie gets elected in '20.

Won't matter anyway, because by then many of the states that the dems flip in '18 will enact their own strict, CA-style, bans.

Looking more like Biden at this point.

[R6436]

Has anyone watched "Bill Geissele Talks Freedom" on YouTube? Posted not quite an hour ago, makes a possible dig at DD.

[MAP]

Has anyone watched "Bill Geissele Talks Freedom" on YouTube? Posted not quite an hour ago, makes a possible dig at DD.

That was part of a live program on 3/9/18.

[R6436]

That was part of a live program on 3/9/18.

Ah, I did not know that. Just saw it pop up on my feed a bit ago and gave it a watch.

Thanks for letting me know :-)

[Averageman]

Marty Daniels has backtracked a bit.http://https://www.facebook.com/DanielDefense/


Daniel Defense
2 hrs ·
Message from Marty Daniel:
Friends,
First and foremost, let me say that I have heard your voices. I put out a statement on Friday, supporting Senate Bill S.2135 also known as the Fix NICS Act. I have received overwhelming feedback since putting out this statement, which has brought to my attention that there are significant and justified concerns regarding this bill. I can no longer in good conscience put my support behind S.2135.
I released the original statement because I believed it was the best option available at this time to hold back the continued attacks on the Second Amendment and the erosion of our rights. I was wrong.
Let me be very clear:
• My life’s work is to protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms by holding our lawmakers accountable to the Second Amendment.
• I believe that all firearms laws that limit the rights of law abiding citizens are unconstitutional.
• I will never support any legislation which infringes on any individuals rights, and could potentially subvert due process.
• Myself, my Family, and Daniel Defense love and serve our Veterans every day. I would never support a legislative measure which would strip them of their rights based on their history of service and sacrifice.
Thank you to everyone who reached out and voiced your concerns. You are a motivated and passionate group of people which I am proud to call my peers, my friends, and my family. We are all united in one fight – the fight to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. I will never turn my back on you. I stand with you and I am ready to continue to fight for our rights.
-Marty

[NWPilgrim]

Excellent follow-up by Mr. Daniels! He probably trusted the NRA was doing their job of representing gun owner interests and got t-boned. I respect he manned up, admitted it was an ill-informed mistake and emphasizes his support for 2A.

All gun owners need to double-check our knee-jerk reactions to these things. Just because the leftists fire off screeds against guns and "demand action now" does not mean we gun owners have to scurry around trying to find some way we too can support more gun laws. Even here on M4C we have guys saying we need to give a little or we will look like the bad guys. NEWS ALERT!! We already are and forever will be the "bad guys" in the view of the leftists and popular media. No amount of accommodation will satisfy them until we are as unarmed as they.

Las Vegas as an anomaly, most of these mass shootings could be disrupted or terminated by multiple armed individuals already on the site. IF these were not gun free zones and folks could easily carry anywhere and anytime. We need to focus efforts on that type of education and not go looking for what law we can support to further restrict gun ownership. Owning any item (alcohol, guns, drugs) is NOT the problem. It is the violent or destructive behavior a fraction fo those owners choose to act out on that is the problem. Free citizens need to be able to protect themselves in the 6-10 minutes they are waiting for the police to arrive, secure the perimeter, ID the shooter, decide what to do, etc.

Parkland is the perfect example that we ALREADY HAVE ENOUGH LAWS if authorities would only act on them. ANY discussion of more laws like this Fix NICs (during the heat of passion) just buys into the "let the guilty slide again" mentality. We should demand that every one of those authorities that could have prevented this tragedy should be fired and prosecuted immediately, before there is ANY discussion of fixing existing laws or writing new ones.

[officerX]

Marty Daniels has backtracked a bit.http://https://www.facebook.com/DanielDefense/


Daniel Defense
2 hrs ·
Message from Marty Daniel:
Friends,
First and foremost, let me say that I have heard your voices. I put out a statement on Friday, supporting Senate Bill S.2135 also known as the Fix NICS Act. I have received overwhelming feedback since putting out this statement, which has brought to my attention that there are significant and justified concerns regarding this bill. I can no longer in good conscience put my support behind S.2135.
I released the original statement because I believed it was the best option available at this time to hold back the continued attacks on the Second Amendment and the erosion of our rights. I was wrong.
Let me be very clear:
• My life’s work is to protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms by holding our lawmakers accountable to the Second Amendment.
• I believe that all firearms laws that limit the rights of law abiding citizens are unconstitutional.
• I will never support any legislation which infringes on any individuals rights, and could potentially subvert due process.
• Myself, my Family, and Daniel Defense love and serve our Veterans every day. I would never support a legislative measure which would strip them of their rights based on their history of service and sacrifice.
Thank you to everyone who reached out and voiced your concerns. You are a motivated and passionate group of people which I am proud to call my peers, my friends, and my family. We are all united in one fight – the fight to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. I will never turn my back on you. I stand with you and I am ready to continue to fight for our rights.
-Marty

See post #207

[The_War_Wagon]

Marty Daniels has backtracked a bit.http://https://www.facebook.com/DanielDefense/


Oh - he "backtracked" alright!

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc305/The_War_Wagon/fazebook1_zps5ptfviqp.jpg


After going full semi-auto, he went HGTD while he was it. :rolleyes:

[Diamondback]

Oh - he "backtracked" alright!

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc305/The_War_Wagon/fazebook1_zps5ptfviqp.jpg


After going full semi-auto, he went HGTD while he was it. :rolleyes:

Broken link, not withdrawn content.
https://www.facebook.com/DanielDefense/ (ONE "https://", not two)

[elephantrider]

Cheeto aint gonna get a second pick...When the Dems retake house and senate in '18, they'll block all his noms until Bernie gets elected in '20.

Won't matter anyway, because by then many of the states that the dems flip in '18 will enact their own strict, CA-style, bans.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You sound like you watch a lot of CNN.

[elephantrider]

Looking more like Biden at this point.

Uncle Joe "handsy" Biden is getting elected to President in the age of 'me too?' News to me. The guy liked to skinny dip in front of female Secret Service agents, and had to have male Secret Service protective detail assigned to him at social events in case he got too grabby with a guest'e wife, or a female service member. Sorry, no, that isn't happening.

[yellowfin]

Trump gave the left a bone so not to look like a heartless president since school children were mercilessly attacked.He could instead make public those who gave the order to let that attack happen. Want this stuff to stop? Me too. He should go after the shady people doing this. These events are not happening on their own.

[Averageman]

He could instead make public those who gave the order to let that attack happen. Want this stuff to stop? Me too. He should go after the shady people doing this. These events are not happening on their own.
This would make a world of difference and it would help in a lot of ways.
What's happening is the media spin controls narrative and in this case that narrative timeline allowed a lot of shady characters to cover their six's.
Clear investigative and unbiased reporting on these things seems to move a hell of a lot slower than elections, the formation of public opinion and sometimes Legislation.
Being that the Left owns the media, I have no doubt that some large portion of this is intentional.
It's a lack of information combined with the knee jerk overreaction of politicians.

[Joelski]

I made a very tongue in cheek comment to a specialist to the effect of getting panic attacks in the soup aisle at the grocery store. I was equipping about being a little indecisive. I later had that comment read back to me verbatim, sans the joking around of verbal conversation, and there were no smilies to convey it as such. This is my permanent medical record and I now feel as if I can't say anything to my doctor for fear of this exact thing, to the detriment of my health. It's hard not to don the foil hat when so many are painting this exact scenario.

[Nightvisionary]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpztPyZ5TH0

[AKDoug]

Uncle Joe "handsy" Biden is getting elected to President in the age of 'me too?' News to me. The guy liked to skinny dip in front of female Secret Service agents, and had to have male Secret Service protective detail assigned to him at social events in case he got too grabby with a guest'e wife, or a female service member. Sorry, no, that isn't happening.

Anything is possible.. Jimmy Kimmel hosted the Oscars despite his past with the Man Show

[26 Inf]

Uncle Joe "handsy" Biden is getting elected to President in the age of 'me too?' News to me. The guy liked to skinny dip in front of female Secret Service agents, and had to have male Secret Service protective detail assigned to him at social events in case he got too grabby with a guest'e wife, or a female service member. Sorry, no, that isn't happening.

I hope not, aside from his personal and political foibles, we've already had one older President whose wife was pulling the strings in his second term, according to some sources.

[officerX]

I think this thread has run its course.