schumer makes move to deny veterans right to bear arms

[Sallow]

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

*gasp*

How dare he! The crazies deserve guns too!

Gotta love it.

Conservatives want to put guns into the hands of terrorists and nuts.

 

[Sallow]

The REAL reason behind ALL of this anti fire arms shit by the odumbocrat libroid piss bags is, if they can ever disarm the citizenry of America, then they will have true power over us to do as they damn well please, and they will NEVER have to worry about anyone EVER having the means to oppose them, period, and that's what the writers of the second amendment knew. So you want my guns odumbocrat, you'll have to pry it out of my cold, stiff, dead hands.

And veterans are the first line of defense. Since veterans tend to be patriots, they will have to be disarmed.

Who was Tim McViegh or John Mohommed defending?

 

[whitehall]

The burden is on veterans who expect PTSS compensation to prove that they are mentally competent enough to possess a deadly weapon. The down side of course is that the PTSS compensation would no longer be authorized to veterans who do not suffer from the mental disorder. Do the symptoms including violent episodes come and go? Then the public is always in danger so the PTSS veterans should never be authorized to possess a deadly weapon.

 

[Sallow]

The burden is on veterans who expect PTSS compensation to prove that they are mentally competent enough to possess a deadly weapon. The down side of course is that the PTSS compensation would no longer be authorized to veterans who do not suffer from the mental disorder. Do the symptoms including violent episodes come and go? Then the public is always in danger so the PTSS veterans should never be authorized to possess a deadly weapon.

There is also a danger these folks will use the firearm on themselves instead of seeking help.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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

*gasp*

How dare he! The crazies deserve guns too!

Gotta love it.

Conservatives want to put guns into the hands of terrorists and nuts.

One mans terrorist equals another mans freedom fighter.

 

[mjollnir]

The REAL reason behind ALL of this anti fire arms shit by the odumbocrat libroid piss bags is, if they can ever disarm the citizenry of America, then they will have true power over us to do as they damn well please, and they will NEVER have to worry about anyone EVER having the means to oppose them, period, and that's what the writers of the second amendment knew. So you want my guns odumbocrat, you'll have to pry it out of my cold, stiff, dead hands.

No, that's not a rational reason.

Please be less stupid.

 

[007]

The REAL reason behind ALL of this anti fire arms shit by the odumbocrat libroid piss bags is, if they can ever disarm the citizenry of America, then they will have true power over us to do as they damn well please, and they will NEVER have to worry about anyone EVER having the means to oppose them, period, and that's what the writers of the second amendment knew. So you want my guns odumbocrat, you'll have to pry it out of my cold, stiff, dead hands.

And veterans are the first line of defense. Since veterans tend to be patriots, they will have to be disarmed.

Who was Tim McViegh or John Mohommed defending?

You really are getting to be one weird dude man.

 

[AmyNation]

The government has already fulfilled their burden.

The doctor says the vet is incompetent, the VA sends notice to the vet, the vet can challenge the doctors findings, or they can agree. If they lose their challenge, they can appeal at any time, if a different doctor disagrees, OR they can agree they are incompetent but petition to have their name removed because they don't pose a danger to others.

A VA doctor, most of whom aren't totally fulent in English, are you kidding me. Why do libs hate the Constitution, your always looking for way to short cut it. One doctors opinion should not be enough to take your rights and make you have to fight to get them back. They should have to prove their case before you lose your rights. Period. If they can prove their case in a court of law, I have no problem, just give every citizen their day in court, before taking anything form them. Tell me that is unreasonable.

I'm not sure what part of the "they have the right to challenge the doctor" you are missing.

 

[Sallow]

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

*gasp*

How dare he! The crazies deserve guns too!

Gotta love it.

Conservatives want to put guns into the hands of terrorists and nuts.

One mans terrorist equals another mans freedom fighter.

Dude.

Really?

 

[mjollnir]

The government has already fulfilled their burden.

The doctor says the vet is incompetent, the VA sends notice to the vet, the vet can challenge the doctors findings, or they can agree. If they lose their challenge, they can appeal at any time, if a different doctor disagrees, OR they can agree they are incompetent but petition to have their name removed because they don't pose a danger to others.

A VA doctor, most of whom aren't totally fulent in English, are you kidding me. Why do libs hate the Constitution, your always looking for way to short cut it. One doctors opinion should not be enough to take your rights and make you have to fight to get them back. They should have to prove their case before you lose your rights. Period. If they can prove their case in a court of law, I have no problem, just give every citizen their day in court, before taking anything form them. Tell me that is unreasonable.

I'm not sure what part of the "they have the right to challenge the doctor" you are missing.

Shhhh!!!!!! You'll ruin the paranoid fantasy!

 

[AmyNation]

This is the process

1) doctor sends notice to VA that vet is incompetent.
2) VA sends notice to vet that they are moving to declare him incompetent.
3) Vet has 60 days to challenge doctors claim.

Then the Vet gets a hearing, where the VA must prove he is incompetent, and he can submit proof he is not.

And, after all that, if he is declared incompetent, he can appeal the decision. And even if he loses his appeal, he can STILL own a gun as long as he can prove he's not a danger to himself or others.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Doctors make that determination.

Wrong, under our laws a Judge makes that decision. One can not be declared mentally unfit for the purpose of removing second amendment rights without a Judge being involved. A Court must make that determination.

 

[OKTexas]

The government has already fulfilled their burden.

The doctor says the vet is incompetent, the VA sends notice to the vet, the vet can challenge the doctors findings, or they can agree. If they lose their challenge, they can appeal at any time, if a different doctor disagrees, OR they can agree they are incompetent but petition to have their name removed because they don't pose a danger to others.

A VA doctor, most of whom aren't totally fulent in English, are you kidding me. Why do libs hate the Constitution, your always looking for way to short cut it. One doctors opinion should not be enough to take your rights and make you have to fight to get them back. They should have to prove their case before you lose your rights. Period. If they can prove their case in a court of law, I have no problem, just give every citizen their day in court, before taking anything form them. Tell me that is unreasonable.

I'm not sure what part of the "they have the right to challenge the doctor" you are missing.

Not only do you want to deny them their 2nd admendment right but their rights in the 6th amendment to provide witnesses in their favor and to confront witnesses against him, then add in the provisions of the 14th amendment to due process and equal protection. What is it that you fail to understand that one doctors opinion is not due process and you don't give up your rights by being treated by the VA. A PTSD diagnosis does not automatically mean someone is dangerous. Being a danger to oneself or others is a fact for a court to determine, before your rights are taken away. An administrative challenge after the fact doen't cut it.

But you didn't answer my question, why do you want to deny a vet their constitutional rights?

 

[AmyNation]

Doctors make that determination.

Wrong, under our laws a Judge makes that decision. One can not be declared mentally unfit for the purpose of removing second amendment rights without a Judge being involved. A Court must make that determination.

A VA doctor, most of whom aren't totally fulent in English, are you kidding me. Why do libs hate the Constitution, your always looking for way to short cut it. One doctors opinion should not be enough to take your rights and make you have to fight to get them back. They should have to prove their case before you lose your rights. Period. If they can prove their case in a court of law, I have no problem, just give every citizen their day in court, before taking anything form them. Tell me that is unreasonable.

I'm not sure what part of the "they have the right to challenge the doctor" you are missing.

Not only do you want to deny them their 2nd admendment right but their rights in the 6th amendment to provide witnesses in their favor and to confront witnesses against him, then add in the provisions of the 14th amendment to due process and equal protection. What is it that you fail to understand that one doctors opinion is not due process and you don't give up your rights by being treated by the VA. A PTSD diagnosis does not automatically mean someone is dangerous. Being a danger to oneself or others is a fact for a court to determine, before your rights are taken away. An administrative challenge after the fact doen't cut it.

But you didn't answer my question, why do you want to deny a vet their constitutional rights?

See post 51

 

[Zoom]

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

*gasp*

How dare he! The crazies deserve guns too!

so you subscribe to the notion that our vets are mentally infirm? They are, for putting their asses on the line for you dumbf.

"and you have been judged to be mentally infirm"....are you stupid?

 

[Zoom]

Doctors make that determination.

Wrong, under our laws a Judge makes that decision. One can not be declared mentally unfit for the purpose of removing second amendment rights without a Judge being involved. A Court must make that determination.

So a doctor cant determine if a person is crazy or not crazy? You really want a guy coming back from war with all kinds of mental issues carrying a gun?

You probably would like him to have one until he affect you personally. You are sickening sir.

 

[Zoom]

This is the process

1) doctor sends notice to VA that vet is incompetent.
2) VA sends notice to vet that they are moving to declare him incompetent.
3) Vet has 60 days to challenge doctors claim.

Then the Vet gets a hearing, where the VA must prove he is incompetent, and he can submit proof he is not.

And, after all that, if he is declared incompetent, he can appeal the decision. And even if he loses his appeal, he can STILL own a gun as long as he can prove he's not a danger to himself or others.

and if he goes and shoots up a school bus, everyone will scream...why was he allowed to own a gun.

 

[OKTexas]

This is the process

1) doctor sends notice to VA that vet is incompetent.
2) VA sends notice to vet that they are moving to declare him incompetent.
3) Vet has 60 days to challenge doctors claim.

Then the Vet gets a hearing, where the VA must prove he is incompetent, and he can submit proof he is not.

And, after all that, if he is declared incompetent, he can appeal the decision. And even if he loses his appeal, he can STILL own a gun as long as he can prove he's not a danger to himself or others.

Evidently you lack the ability to understand that the VA is not a court, they have no constitutional authority to take your rights. They have to prove your are a danger, you don't have the obligation to prove your not. How about you prove your not a danger to yourself or others, btw the fact that you haven't hurt anyone to this point is irrelevent. Now defend yourself. This is exactly what you expect a vet to do.