Why aren't military/veterans the first to advocate for mental health screenings for gun ownership?

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Apr 2018 17:38:38 -0400

And here's why I say that: what's the first thing we do when we identify a soldier as a mental health hazard? *TAKE THEIR WEAPON AWAY.*

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2018 5:43 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Apr 2018 17:43:24 -0400

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union

Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

There was systematic political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union,[1] based on the interpretation of political opposition or dissent as a psychiatric problem.[2] It was called "psychopathological mechanisms" of dissent.[3]

Response by 1SG Dennis Hicks made Apr 4 at 2018 5:44 PM

1SG Dennis Hicks — Wed, 04 Apr 2018 17:44:36 -0400

Well then, mental health has a wide variety of definitions and issues, we already have laws preventing folks with mental issues from buying and possessing firearms, we don't need addition PRE-CRIME laws added to the books when we have so many laws that are not enforced as it is. This last school shooting was easily prevented if folks would have done their jobs, so it isn't an easy fix.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2018 5:49 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Apr 2018 17:49:40 -0400

We have laws on the books dealing with mental health now that are not being enforced in part because agencies do not talk with each other, incompetence, or privacy concerns, so no we do not need new laws. Time after time, these shooters have been on the radar of multiple agencies and nothing was done.

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Apr 4 at 2018 6:26 PM

Cpl Justin Goolsby — Wed, 04 Apr 2018 18:26:00 -0400

I'm honestly unsure of what you mean. Every veteran I know is a very big supporter of mental health screenings because we understand a lot of these gun issues won't be solved by more gun laws, but by enforcing already established laws.

The focus should be on getting people the help they need and reducing the stigma surrounding mental health. That being said though, we can't go in and start confiscating guns based on a mental health questionnaire. That would be too broad and not address actual mental health issues. Do we punish someone because they said they felt depressed once when they were 16? No of course not, because everyone has probably felt depressed at one point in time... especially as a teenager.

If people feel like they will be punished based on the answers they provide, then people will start lying about the answers they provide and then we're not helping anyone.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2018 7:02 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Apr 2018 19:02:46 -0400

I oppose all gun restrictions.
If you are not in government custody you should have all of your rights. Even if people don't have all of their rights, my rights should not be infringed upon to ensure someone else has their rights denied.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Apr 4 at 2018 7:39 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 04 Apr 2018 19:39:31 -0400

Honestly? Because the US Government has a horrible track record of treating Mental Health issues. Whether it is Identifying, Tracking, Treating, or you name it.

That's not including False Positives or False Negatives....

Response by Maj John Bell made Apr 4 at 2018 8:09 PM

Maj John Bell — Wed, 04 Apr 2018 20:09:17 -0400

1. It's not their weapon. It's the government's. They have no right to a weapon that is not theirs.
2. The military, in comparison to the civilian world is pretty quick to investigate, make a determination and act.
3. To fight the decision of the government, is most likely going to take $1,000's

Response by MSG John Wirts made Apr 4 at 2018 8:13 PM

MSG John Wirts — Wed, 04 Apr 2018 20:13:30 -0400

Amen Brother, having knowledge about safe gun handling is a prerequisite for owning a gun, having bought the gun when they were mentally healthy, does not mean when you are having mental health issues that you have the right to keep guns previously purchased. You may have the right to sell and keep the profit, but not to keep the guns!

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2018 8:50 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Apr 2018 20:50:02 -0400

Because there are already laws that cover that.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2018 10:38 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Apr 2018 22:38:39 -0400

I advocated for mental health screenings before I became military.

Until society agrees upon a way to identify and assist/help/address people with mental health issues, gun violence will continue to happen. That is not to say that ALL gun violence is to be blamed on mental health.

Before all of that, we need to enforce existing laws because some of them concern mental health.

Response by SSG Robert Webster made Apr 4 at 2018 10:51 PM

SSG Robert Webster — Wed, 04 Apr 2018 22:51:36 -0400

SGT Mark Stewart - I will be up front - FU and your asinine and ignorant response.

WOW! Being down voted and then blocked for this response:
SGT Mark Stewart - Some of them do, most soldiers and even a greater number of civilians do not know that, unless they actually attend the courses.
Up (2) Down (1)
To the following comment:
SGT Mark Stewart
SGT William Higginbotham - Most people today are not familiar with the USSR and its human rights abuses. But institutionalizing people who disagreed not only with communism but even just being suspected of disagreeing with the specific clique of communists in power at any given time was a habit of the Soviet government. Government in the United States, being staffed by bureaucrats, who are human, and some of whom lack personal attachment to "the American way" would likely make use similar tactics if they had a way to do it. I don't doubt that for a second.

On a different point, but kind of related, I do think that some MOSes in the military and some schools should have a psych-screening of some sort because of the subject matter presented in those MOSes and schools.

Up (2) Down (0)

And SGT Stewart's comment was the following:
SGT Mark Stewart
SSG Robert Webster - Well, I actually attended the Sapper Leader Course, in which I learned to make things like ammonium nitrate and fougasse. There was no screening of any sort.

Interesting response and comment to show how much you do not know.
Tell me something - Which is easiest and most combat effective way of obtaining ammonium nitrate: a. make it or b. steal it? Why would you endanger yourself or your men by making it?
Tell me something else - If you went to the Sapper Leader Course, why are you using the term fougasse, when you are probably wanting to talk about napalm (or jellied gasoline (which by the way diesel can be used in place of gasoline)), because fougasse is actually a normal field expedient of a mortar specifically for dispensing a flammable substance normally napalm.
Interesting that you think that Engineers are the only ones trained in "Flame Field Expedients," CBRN or NBC (or whatever the current acronym and terminology is) are trained on it also, they do not go through psychological screening either. Heck all you have to do is to order FM 3-7. If you need one, I can send you one if you need it, the one I send you may be a little out of date (my newest one is probably dated in the early 1990s). So what is your point in selecting those two specifics?

It is also ignorant and asinine on your part to be so full of yourself that the use of ammonium nitrate in explosive mixtures and the making and use of jellied fuels would not be general knowledge to a significant number of people, especially farm hands.

As far as your contention about psychological screening and testing, the military for the most part does that for the really important ones such as Sniper School and SF.

So SGT take your egotistical asinine BS and shove it.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2018 12:11 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Apr 2018 00:11:03 -0400

Mental screenings do nothing really, any smart person can make a judgement call and answer the questions the way they think they should be answered according to presumed prevailing social norms at the time the test was administered no matter what your actual thought process about certain things may actually be. Yes, having too perfect of an outcome on these things is a red flag as normal people have at least some flaws but they are easy to cheat. Also being on the extreme outside of the "normal" range is not an indicator of intention to do harm or participate in illicit activities.

Response by TSgt David L. made Apr 5 at 2018 12:11 AM

TSgt David L. — Thu, 05 Apr 2018 00:11:19 -0400

What is a "mental health hazard"?

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Apr 5 at 2018 12:55 AM

SGM Bill Frazer — Thu, 05 Apr 2018 00:55:20 -0400

And who says they are a hazard- not all PTSD folks, are not totally mad. Yet there are NO safeguards in place to have due process on a mental hearing. Shrinks are the 1st to contradict themselves.

Response by SMSgt Lawrence McCarter made Apr 5 at 2018 2:35 AM

SMSgt Lawrence McCarter — Thu, 05 Apr 2018 02:35:53 -0400

Key to the question is a person that has already showed mental health problems otherwise screening to see if they do seems quite and intrusion. It does seem though in many case there has already been problems that indicate that a person is a risk and its ignored. If the warning signs by already documented mental health problems by behavior that has already been displayed it seems then negligence by official inaction has cost lives. The laws that are already in place need to be enforced !

Response by SFC Joseph Motes made Apr 5 at 2018 7:47 AM

SFC Joseph Motes — Thu, 05 Apr 2018 07:47:53 -0400

This is actually a great point. Those suffering from mental health issues should not be allowed to get their hands on firearms. Simple as that.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2018 8:09 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Apr 2018 08:09:04 -0400

For the very simple reason that "mental health" is a very subjective determination. If I truly believed (which I don't) that the impetus was 100% about safety, I'd be less skeptical. Unfortunately, I, and presumably many others, believe there is serious momentum towards more broad reductions of our rights regarding firearms...and loosely defined "mental health screenings" may provide a chink in the armor of the 2nd Amendment.

For example, the "third rail" of most veterans' interest discussions is disability benefit. None of us want to see deserving vets shorted the aid and support due them, but I think most of us perceive it's grown into something more than that. If at some point, local, state or federal legislation determines that "mental illness" includes many of the behaviors, issues and challenges associated, there may come a time when many of "us" couldn't own a weapon-even if our service was ten, twenty or fifty years ago. To my mind, that poses some interesting questions relating to the application of such controls and any possible ulterior motives.

That being said, we shouldn't hamper law enforcement in prosecuting reasonable acts in the interest of public safety. If there are not already existing laws permitting it (I'm guessing there are), then I wouldn't personally want to see an individual who's made threats, posted them online, or taken actions strongly indicating their intent allowed to retain weapons just because of their "rights". Rather than enacting "blanket" policy changes, it might be more effective to focus on the methodology and limits LE entities currently operate under in such cases.

Ultimately, we have to remember that statistically speaking, the tragedies that spark such discussions and debates are rare. That doesn't make any one such incident any less terrible, or the suggested resolutions any less valuable...it just means we can't allow ourselves to be convinced towards decisions that may have far reaching, negative consequence. While these highly publicized events are "rare"...violent crimes such as armed-robbery, assault, rape and murder are not. Far from stemming the flood, wide-ranging reductions in our 2nd Amendment rights may only serve to make the average American more vulnerable.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2018 12:46 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Apr 2018 12:46:51 -0400

If someone is so dangerous they cant own a gun, why leave them at home a 4000lb automobile and numerous sharp objects? If they are a danger to themselves or other they need to be an inpatient at an appropriate care facility.

Beyond that there are procedures to deem someone mentally defective or a danger to themselves or others. An acknowledgment is even on the background check form ATF Form 4473. It all involves DUE PROCESS.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2018 1:43 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 Apr 2018 13:43:31 -0400

Mental health screening as a condition of ownership is a well-intended idea, however, the yield is questionable. Rights are always at stake in a discussion like this, so the best suggestions are ones where an unequivocal benefit can be projected (i.e. predictive values of a screening approaching 100%, which does not currently exist). Further, while I think that the topic is right, this suggestion would place a lot of power into a psychiatrist's hands. It's not abuse I'm worried about as much as the gravity of this charge: I bet you won't find many psychiatrists in favor of it and more likely engage in defensive medicine for reasons obvious. They can identify individuals at risk of committing suicide, but they cannot predict it - imagine then adding the expectation that they reliably predict a mass shooter.

Response by 1SG Cj Grisham made Apr 5 at 2018 9:05 PM

1SG Cj Grisham — Thu, 05 Apr 2018 21:05:26 -0400

And screen for what? Define "mental health?" Who gets to decide what constitutes a reason to strip someone of their rights?

Response by SFC Ralph E Kelley made Apr 6 at 2018 7:09 PM

SFC Ralph E Kelley — Fri, 06 Apr 2018 19:09:18 -0400

I would ask you - Mental Health Screenings for only military/veterans OR "Everyone"?
If we are singling out only military/veterans my immediate response is, "Up Yours!".
Understanding that you have been there along with all the others in this discussion, I'll give you a more courteous answer.
Using myself as an example. When this discussion came up at the American Legion, I told that if I ever went crazy then they should divvy up my guns and ammo – but only if my wife, my kids, my siblings, in-laws and close friends didn’t want them.
Inheritance laws take precedent over all other laws on property and they do cover cases of insanity.
Enough said.

Response by 1LT Dan Darrell made Apr 7 at 2018 12:09 AM

1LT Dan Darrell — Sat, 07 Apr 2018 00:09:06 -0400

Disarming the returning combat Veterans was the first step in attempting to disarm all, instituted by the VA, via Hussein Obama, because all "combat Veterans" had PTSD and were, therefore, mentally unstable. News flash . . . you don't have to experience combat to have PTSD. Duh! As I remember, that initiative didn't last very long, skulking quietly into the night. Even now, I will not discuss weapons ownership with any medical professional.

Response by SPC Erich Guenther made Apr 8 at 2018 11:48 PM

SPC Erich Guenther — Sun, 08 Apr 2018 23:48:46 -0400

I would not say screenings but I would say if you are diagnosed.

Response by SPC Chris Beebe made Apr 10 at 2018 4:22 AM

SPC Chris Beebe — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 04:22:31 -0400

Serving in the military is a privilege, not a right. Owning a firearm is a right, not a privilege. That's why.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2018 10:13 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 22:13:05 -0400

define mental health screenings? going to therapy? marriage counseling? feeling sad?

Response by CAPT Hiram Patterson made Apr 14 at 2018 10:24 PM

CAPT Hiram Patterson — Sat, 14 Apr 2018 22:24:19 -0400

Because we shouldn't violate someone's right to privacy for no particular reason despite for the concern after the last shooting.

Response by PO2 Gerry Tandberg made Apr 15 at 2018 9:52 AM

PO2 Gerry Tandberg — Sun, 15 Apr 2018 09:52:41 -0400

Gun Control is all about controlling people. There is a global agenda to disarm citizens of the USA, which is priority one among the global elite, and they use and stir-up a frenzy among the left to keep gun control as the top issue every time there is a shooting; and the terrorists love it. Those who were in the military get some of the best instruction on gun safety. But, they use PTSD as justification to disarm vets. When we kicked God out of our schools and replaced Him with social justice and introduced them to other religions; including pagan studies, we left our young people increasingly more vulnerable to a violent world with a secular view void of many truths.

Response by PO3 Scot Fahey made Apr 15 at 2018 11:33 PM

PO3 Scot Fahey — Sun, 15 Apr 2018 23:33:44 -0400

perhaps you might remember, Sen. Dianne Feinstein say all military veterans are mentally ill and should not be allowed to own guns. Snopes and fact check claim other, but first hand I know many elected , scorn military / naval veterans. flower children .. that never grew up

Response by SSG Wayne Wood made Apr 17 at 2018 3:55 PM

SSG Wayne Wood — Tue, 17 Apr 2018 15:55:01 -0400

I don't have a problem with keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people. The problem is - who decides who's mentally ill? I've heard it said by psychology professors (and other assorted "intellects") that belief in God is a sign of mental illness (some religious folks might claim the opposite). I have two buddies, veterans, who were diagnosed with PTSD from their service by their VA providers and found themselves visited by the local sheriff to pick up their guns due to their State's stringent rules on such things.

Look at how folks on opposing sides in the last election have labeled each other - it's kind of a slippery slope. People laugh about "slippery slopes" until we hit the bottom of one and wonder how we got there.

There was more than enough ammo (pardon the term) to do something about Cruz - it appears not enough "i"s were dotted or "t"s crossed and it appears no one talked to each other and were afraid to act due to political correctness.

There are some steps we can take to deter such tragedies, but to borrow from Franklin (Ben), we have a choice, to live in a free society or a totally safe one. We really can't have both. I personally choose freedom.

Response by SPC Gary Hunt made Apr 22 at 2018 8:16 PM

SPC Gary Hunt — Sun, 22 Apr 2018 20:16:16 -0400

Because the government has already decided that military veterans have mental problems.
PTSD is a mental problem.

Response by CPL Jay Freeman made Apr 22 at 2018 10:47 PM

CPL Jay Freeman — Sun, 22 Apr 2018 22:47:37 -0400

I fought for my right to keep and bare arms I'm an ok citizen few speeding tickets here or there no alcohol problems but I have PTSD why should I give up my right to own a gun? Or any other vet? If we did that enlistement would go down.

Response by SGT Robert Martin made Apr 24 at 2018 7:35 AM

SGT Robert Martin — Tue, 24 Apr 2018 07:35:13 -0400

As far as I'm concerned the current laws would be very effective if properly inforced. Personally I'd like to see a training requirment, but sadly it would have to be completely separated from any government control. If the govn was involved in any way the law would be misused at some point, used to regulate gun ownership. Back to the original question. I have ptsd, and am receiving treatment from the VA. Under the current system if I were to own a weapon it would be a non-issue. However the way vets are viewed these days ie... We are all one printer paper jam away from climbing a clocktower with a jdam, and leveling a city block. If you don't think I'm justified in being concerned that at some point some random idiot is going to change the law to prevent anyone with ptsd or depression from having a firearm. Then your not paying attention. Bump stocks aren't going to be around much longer because one idiot who by the way would have done far more damage with out it ( you lose too much accuratecy. In my opinion ) if he had a spent a few grand on a thermal, and trained up a bit it would have been twice as bad.

Response by SSG Buddy Kemper made Apr 24 at 2018 9:33 AM

SSG Buddy Kemper — Tue, 24 Apr 2018 09:33:57 -0400

Military/Vets may be too busy fighting our Nation's wars or working and taking care of their families and communities? But that's maybe just a guess. I'll tell ya in my travels since retirement I've found a VERY HIGH percentage of Law Enforcement and first responders to be Veterans or military retirees. I'd be interested to see those statistics nationally. On a personal note, I've had those diagnosis by Army, VA and other 'health professionals' noting PTSD/Combat-related stress, etc. BUT I've never thought of going on a shooting spree or even slightly harming anyone unless they personally attacked me or a loved one. I actually do buy that ol' adage “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.” It would be a mistake to disarm or ban vets from owning weapons because they have sought counseling for wartime experiences. Although that isn't the question here per say, it does occur to me now that a small segment of our society may seek to disarm Vets. Also, it seems to me we have tons of gun laws and restrictions already on the books that aren't enforced now. OFTEN numerous red flags for violent nutjobs w/guns are being ignored by those in authority. Florida being possibly the worst case with the school/Sheriff's Office/FBI all flubbing up. Hooah. I'll pull my soap box back under my desk now. Drive on and God bless all of you Patriots. I look forward to your responses. Cheers to you, SSG Private RallyPoint Member. Great topic for discussion.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2018 11:32 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Apr 2018 11:32:17 -0400

FOOL

Response by CPO Stephen Stoddard made Apr 24 at 2018 12:15 PM

CPO Stephen Stoddard — Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:15:50 -0400

Driving is not a right, it's a privilege, so is consuming Alcohol as long as it's done responsibly. The internet is not covered under the bill of rights. If homosexuality is not a problem, I guess that true pedophiles off the board too right. Or are you just going to cherry pick things. Dr Ben Carson is obviously far more qualified to make the call than you or I am. But just so I'm getting this right, if in born with the DNA of a male, and I have a penis yet I continually insist that I am a female, you are suggesting that there's nothing wrong with me mentally????
I say we don't let you have any guns. That's what I call common sense.

Response by SSG Dave Johnston made Apr 24 at 2018 9:50 PM

SSG Dave Johnston — Tue, 24 Apr 2018 21:50:58 -0400

... and then there is HIPPA. Ok, now that you've created this "Database of Crazies"??? What "Documentation" is required to be removed, how many signatures, how many different "Gov't" bureaus need to be notified: Fed, State, County, City? How do you get removed due to: Identity Theft, "Revenge"[ex: Spouse/Partner, Family Member(s), Drinking Buddy(s), Practical Joke]? How do you tie it into a states Criminal Bureau of Investigation, NCIC? Will this database crossover into a employment background checks, Security Clearance background investigations? How do you prevent a GS-5/WG-5 or higher from pulling a "Lois Learner" because they're anti #2A?

Response by PO2 Skip Kirkwood made Apr 27 at 2018 10:30 AM

PO2 Skip Kirkwood — Fri, 27 Apr 2018 10:30:57 -0400

The short answer is that many of us don't trust "the system" to accurately and fairly determine "mental illness" and not use made-up "diagnoses" as a basis for depriving rights. The psychiatric community makes up a disease every time it gets confronted with some new human wierdness, and many of these trip off the BS detectors of people of ordinary intelligence and experience. And "the system" doesn't have the time to do its job right - press innocent people to accept a "guilty plea to a lesser charge" because we're too busy to have a proper trial. Or a person to outright lie and get a "restraining order" to have someone's weapons confiscated by the government.

Things are messed up, my friend.

Response by SSG Raymond A. made Apr 29 at 2018 2:31 PM

SSG Raymond A. — Sun, 29 Apr 2018 14:31:14 -0400

I'm not against anyone with a disposition towards violent behavior being prohibited from possessing firearms. What I am against are left wing snowflakes at the VA being given the power to invoke their wishes by proclaiming someone a danger - particularly when some freshman care giver with a bachelors degree proclaims the expertise to make the calls on these issues.

I am also against a pack of Washington politicians attempting to define what is prohibited behavior or mental state given this same pack of rats classified hundreds of firearms as assault weapons in the 90s with glowing ignorance. I doubt anyone wants a dangerous wacko having access to firearms. I don't want ruthless wackos making the rules and that this what you get when a bunch of drama queen bureaucrats are given the power to invoke their will on citizens.

Response by SGT Jeremiah White made May 6 at 2018 5:24 AM

SGT Jeremiah White — Sun, 06 May 2018 05:24:47 -0400

If you impose additional mental health screening, who do you task to enforce it? Does it become another government function? If it is a government function, does the government define the parameters that disqualify ownership? If the government determines the parameters, does the possibility exist that an administration will come to pawed that alters the parameters to include their opposition? The government does not need any more say in firearms ownership. If anything, it needs less.

Response by CPL Glynnda White made May 7 at 2018 8:34 AM

CPL Glynnda White — Mon, 07 May 2018 08:34:24 -0400

Veterans have been trained to use weapons properly, I was actually naïve enough for a while to believe that the government honors the service of veterans. I was wrong......ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, veterans, go to a private counselor if you are having mental health issues......why? Because the VA will begin looking for ways to remove your weapons the minute you seek out mental health services through the VA. OVER 250,000 VETERANS HAVE ALREADY HAD WEAPONS REMOVED BECAUSE OF THE VA.......Not because they deem you a danger to the public at large, but a danger to an overreaching, left leaning government. The government has been using the military as a social experiment for years in an attempt to weaken it......they have done a pretty good job.... as for veterans, most of us are still not brainwashed by the left and who is most likely do you think to say HELL NO to an overreaching government? Who is best trained to defend themselves, their homes, their communities from ANTIFA, BLM, or any other anarchists? Who is best trained to volunteer to protect communities from radical muslims on the attack, violent leftists, looters, keep shooters away from schools and recruiting stations that have disarmed critical places where innocent kids and people gather.....All you have to do is watch one hour of Fox News to understand that our government would love to disarm veterans......in answer to the question....VETERANS AREN'T THE FIRST TO "ADVOCATE" FOR MENTAL HEALTH SCREENINGS FOR GUN OWNERS BECAUSE THEY FOUGHT AND OFFERED UP THEIR BLOOD TO DEFEND THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS IN THIS NATION, THEY UNDERSTAND THAT SUCH A RIDICULOUS REQUIREMENT AS A PRECURSOR TO GUN OWNERSHIP WOULD ADD TO THE ALREADY COMPLEX (& UNCONSTITUTIONAL) PROCESS OF BUYING A GUN. CREATING SUCH A STUPID REQUIREMENT WOULD BE A GOOD JUMP DOWN THAT SLIPPERY SLOPE TO GUN CONFISCATION ACROSS THIS NATION. I SWEAR THIS QUESTION HAD TO HAVE BEEN PUT OUT BY A LIB.....

Response by SFC Don Vance made May 10 at 2018 8:51 AM

SFC Don Vance — Thu, 10 May 2018 08:51:50 -0400

Is there a part of “shall not be infringed” that you don’t understand? I believe anyone that is a legal resident of this country should be able to purchase any weapon they want.

Response by SGT Dustin Gray made May 12 at 2018 3:14 PM

SGT Dustin Gray — Sat, 12 May 2018 15:14:32 -0400

I'm not against taking away a person's right to own a firearm IF it is determined so in a court of law, as is REQUIRED by the 5th amendment. As a refresher, one of the clauses of the 5th states that "(No person shall) be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Sure, keep background checks. Only one branch of the government should be inputting data in it: the judicial branch.
This is how it really should go: person sees mental health professional, MH determines subject is a threat to others and calls the DA. The DA gets a hearing scheduled and requests an emergency injunction through the court. Officers serve the subject with the order and takes any weapons into custody. Once the court holds the hearing and determines that person should have their 2nd rights suspended/revoked, the clerk enters it into the NICS and he can no longer legally purchase a weapon. But, because of fear mongering it doesn't happen this way at all.
I would also like to say one last thing on this subject: gun control is an act of war against the United States. If anyone thinks that abolishing the 2nd amendment won't trigger a civil war in this country you are absolutely lying to yourselves and others. And levying war against the United States, as well as providing aid and comfort to their enemies, is the very definition of treason under article 3, section 3, clause 1 of the Constitution. Thank you and have a nice weekend.

Response by LCpl Steve Smith made May 13 at 2018 12:33 AM

LCpl Steve Smith — Sun, 13 May 2018 00:33:16 -0400

SSG Private RallyPoint Member Most Military and Law Enforcement personnel wouldn't qualify if that happen...and there are some trying to prevent vets from being able to own one now ( PTSD, Anger Issues, Depression) They think more Combat Vets are "Broken" as it is now lol. The V.A. BHOST has some sign paperwork that will prevent them from owning a fire are in the future when they go inpatient. and besides look at the cities and states with the strongest Gun Laws, they have most of the Gun related incidents now how is that when they are so strict? lol I did think it would be a great Idea at one time for a mental health screening but the only thing that will tell you is at that time the person passed his or her evaluation.Two weeks later that same person loses their job goes out and buys a gun then goes back to where they worked and kills a few people... Look at that LAPD Cop that got fired a few years back that went on a shooting spree killing all those involved in his firing and a few innocent people as well. So a psych test or eval really wouldn't work...How about that Army Major That was a Shrink that got turned by ISIS and he went on a killing spree on Base...

Response by LTC John Wilson made May 13 at 2018 9:34 PM

LTC John Wilson — Sun, 13 May 2018 21:34:34 -0400

Most military have had weapons training and it is important for them throughout their career. If they had never had weapons training, it would not matter, because it was not an everyday or formal requirement for their job as civilians unless police or security of some type.
It has been my experience that you don't miss what you never trained for or never had and experience.
Since I have been through Marine Boot Camp, Marine AIT and after transferring to the Army, Special Forces Training, Weapons training, and multiple schools to advance my career; A lack of anyone of these skill sets would be missed and cause some concern among my peers and myself.
Why do military personnel come out strongly against restrictions on firearms is simple, it is a basic skill that they are taught to enable them to protect their fellow soldiers and themselves. Being restricted from it inhibits us mentally because we feel we are not part of the active force.
Restrictions also cause other problems such as confidence in our ability to support the mission.
We know that mental health is frowned upon today and we know that if it is in our records, it may be used against us to keep us from ever owning or using a weapon in the future. It is a stigma most of us don't want to take and try to avoid at all costs.
If seeking Mental Health counselling was considered an asset to help the soldier instead of an obstacle, we would be more open to Mental health counselling and psychological help with our fears and our daily emotions. I sure hope I expressed this right, because it is an issue that we have to make acceptable to continue to have healthy soldiers for the present and the future.

Response by SGT Robert Agee made May 16 at 2018 8:37 AM

SGT Robert Agee — Wed, 16 May 2018 08:37:42 -0400

Why aren’t there restrictions for abortions? More people are killed through the abortionists knife than by guns by 100 fold.

Response by SSG Patrick Sloan made May 19 at 2018 11:53 AM

SSG Patrick Sloan — Sat, 19 May 2018 11:53:25 -0400

And why should we? Does our military association or status as veterans give us any kind of right to do so? Nope. We are not weapons handling experts except for combat arms and SF/SOF. Weapons handling amongst the majority is deplorable. No wonder the Marines laugh at us! And our mental evaluations are still lacking. We have the right to advocate to improve our Army and that is about it.

Response by SGT Charles Bartell made May 21 at 2018 9:53 PM

SGT Charles Bartell — Mon, 21 May 2018 21:53:28 -0400

The first thing is tack there wepons away right down to any Kinfe's they have, Some comand's go as far as going to one's home and tacking there wepons on and off Base. Even this Is eligle. The comand threatens the Individual with U.C.M.J. actions. We all know that there are some that need to have there wepones seized. But it needs to be done the right way. Then some go to the V.A. and get the ASS HOLE that thinks they are gods and do not like people having any guns at all. The way the law's are heading You go to get any help for P.T.S.D. The Goverment wants to use this to take any and all guns you may have. Most of us that are Combat Arm's carry Someting at least the people I know. I am not speaking for all. I say unless you are a real danger to your self or some one elec leave peoplr alone.

Response by Sgt Douglas Hadley made May 24 at 2018 10:57 PM

Sgt Douglas Hadley — Thu, 24 May 2018 22:57:42 -0400

With the current rate of PTSD claims in the VA system and the alarming rate of weapon violence attributed to "possible mental health issues, many Vets probably feel that they would not pass any mental health screenings. Between the stigma that the term mental health gives the general public and the shortage of mental health services in the VA system, the cry for stiffer weapons laws have only added to the pressure Vets are feeling about losing their right to bear arms because they might "go mental" at any point. So, why give the gun control advocates any more ammunition to strengthen their crusade.

Response by SGM Jeffrey Hall made May 25 at 2018 2:29 AM

SGM Jeffrey Hall — Fri, 25 May 2018 02:29:55 -0400

As a veteran as well as a mental health provider, I appreciate your sentiment. However, I am concerned that private medical information may be placed in the public domain. From personal experience, my ex-wife tried to use a test result against me (thankfully the judge took care of that). When I joined the Army in 1986, I was not given a full psych eval before going to basic training. Why should that be necessary for the exercise of a right as guaranteed by the Constitution? If this is a rational argument, then should we not screen people before they post their opinions in the public domain? After all, that too is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Response by SPC Franklin McKown made May 26 at 2018 4:31 PM

SPC Franklin McKown — Sat, 26 May 2018 16:31:00 -0400

in the field there are RAMPANT politicians who are ready ,willing and ABLE to declare anyone insane simply based on what THEY think,there really isn't any mental health system to even oversee.MOST realize if they betray us os on guns we would opt out fast.

Response by SFC Brian Gillum made May 27 at 2018 10:59 AM

SFC Brian Gillum — Sun, 27 May 2018 10:59:49 -0400

I find it funny that people think that because Rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights that they are wholly inviolable or inalienable to the extreme.

The freedom of expression (speech, gathering, etc) is an inalienable right, but has limits. Those limits SHOULD be self imposed through ones own understanding that any freedom comes with responsibility, i.e. one is free to subscribe to and practice (or not) any religion or belief of conscience they desire, up to the point where it infringes upon the life, liberties or ability to pursue happiness of any other person.

The right to keep and bear arms is no different. The right of self defense is inalienable. However, and it even says this in the damn wording of the amendment, well-regulated (which doesn’t just mean muster and drill, especially since those have fallen away from usage) means that rules can be put into place. If mental health screens are a part of the process...what is wrong with that? So long as, as with any process, there is a right and ability to appeal any adverse decision that denies or severely limits ones ability to exercise their other rights.

My issue with the whole gun “control” movement is that they try to sell people on the idea that their whole thing is about lowering and controlling violence. Removing a tool doesn’t control violence. Look at London. The number of stabbings in that city is outrageous. The Mayor of London has stated that their is no legitimate reason for anyone to carry a knife. The Brits practically eliminated any and all private ownership of firearms and yet those disposed to violent behavior still commit violent acts that injure maim and kill.

If we want to lower incidence of violence, then let us return to civility. Teach how to f@&$ing think and debate and reason through problems, instead of glorifying violent behavior. Do we still allow for outlets where aggression and violence and frustration can be vented ? Absolutely. But they should be through sports that are refereed and regulated.

So tired of both camps (and this doesn’t just refer to the gun issue) sitting on the extremes of their positions and refusing to budge. Ideas come from the extreme positions. Rules, regulations, laws...those come from the compromises and the weighing of the pros and cons so that THE PEOPLE are able to enjoy the most freedom and receive the most benefits from those rules and laws while having the least restrictions and penalties imposed upon them. Hell, the whole purpose of law and government is so that when a person or group fails in their responsibility to exercise their freedom without causing harm to or violating the rights of others they there is a means of redress that doesn’t resort to Lex Talionis and shit like blood feuds.

Response by SSG Michael Bryant made May 27 at 2018 11:18 AM

SSG Michael Bryant — Sun, 27 May 2018 11:18:46 -0400

The mental health screening is subjective to the whims of the doc performing it. My brother had to go through one as part of the process to get concealed carry permit in California. He was denied because the doc felt that he was still stressed after a motorcycle accident he was in three months earlier. Her opinion, no real precedence to back it up, so no CCW permit and $800 gone. If someone has been "adjudicated as mental defective" they're to be reported to the NICS were they will be prohibited from firearm ownership. Granted this occurs after something has happened, but it works for later attempts to purchase a firearm IF they are reported. Here's the problem I have with it: current Liberal/Democrats want to add ANYONE with PTSD that take mood stabilizers to that list. So now you go see a doc that doesn't like guns, you're taking mood stabilizers because of your Service Connected PTSD, the doc opinion says you're not fit to own a firearm. Now you're faced with a legal battle to get your rights back.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2018 8:05 PM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 May 2018 20:05:15 -0400

Because we've experienced the green weenie firsthand, and don't want to inflict that on civillians... Do you really trust government to determine who is and is not mentally healthy? I don't.

When you join, you volunteer to forfeit many of your civil rights in the name of good order and discipline.

A civilian hasn't made any such choice. Their rights are inviolate.

Response by SN Kristi Kalis made Jun 5 at 2018 5:51 PM

SN Kristi Kalis — Tue, 05 Jun 2018 17:51:04 -0400

I do. There is no Constitutional right for every citizen to own a firearm. If there was, convicted felons would be able to legally own them. I advocate for licensing, mandatory insurance and for violent offenders to be denied ownership, including domestic abusers. A lot of people are saying 2A gives them the absolute right to own any firearm they want. That's just not true. Also, Amendments are able to be repealed. They are not in the body of the Constitution itself. Reference prohibition.

Response by CW4 Russ Hamilton (Ret) made Jun 6 at 2018 2:56 AM

CW4 Russ Hamilton (Ret) — Wed, 06 Jun 2018 02:56:57 -0400

Because mental health screenings are subjective and discriminatory. You can bet your sweet bippy combat vets will be the first ones denied their rights.

Response by SSG Ken Forester made Jun 9 at 2018 8:11 AM

SSG Ken Forester — Sat, 09 Jun 2018 08:11:27 -0400

I'll say this it's not about health issues. The government could damn well care less about your health or safety. It's all about gun control, as long as the American people are armed they cannot control us, and you had better trust what I'm saying. Hell even China is pushing for are disarmament. That should really open your eyes. Japan once said that they couldn't take America because there was a gun behind every blade of grass. People wake the hell up, socialism is coming as surely as the sun is going to rise tomorrow.

Response by SSG Ken Forester made Jun 9 at 2018 8:36 AM

SSG Ken Forester — Sat, 09 Jun 2018 08:36:21 -0400

I agree a nut should not own a gun. But the constitution says shall not be infringed. That means nobody's rights nuts and all. Where I'm going with this is where did the government get the right to change this. I didn't, they took it upon themselves to do it. Moral of the story they don't need our permission they will sneak things through and tell us it was legal along. You and i will not do a damn thing about it, and the political liberals know it.so let's just sit down like good little children we are and shut up while they continue to take our rights.

Response by SFC Mark Bailey made Jun 9 at 2018 5:35 PM

SFC Mark Bailey — Sat, 09 Jun 2018 17:35:26 -0400

Easy to say...
Hard to enforce...
Impossible to identify...

It is easy to say that we need to do something like this, however those are mere words and you cannot do much more than that.

It is hard to enforce since individual State Laws have to be weighed as opposed to a simple UCMJ action. While I am on that topic, it is also hard to enforce in the Military without just cause, due diligence and some kind of unit leader counseling/ interaction. We do not pull 'Joe or Josephine Private" out of the unit and yank their weapon. UCMJ or at least personal counseling and unit leadership have to agree that it is necessary.

It is often impossible to identify these things until it happens (or hopefully at best is in the process of happening...) but oftentimes it is only AFTER the occurrence has already "...made history on the Rifle Range". that we then "do something".

Otherwise in the Military (and even more so in the "Civvie World") we run the alternate reality of "thought Police" wandering around with special mental monitors pulling people from the street because " they were about to do something in the future and we will stop them beforehand...".

I refuse to give anyone the ability to stop someone in the street based upon arbitrary things written into a mumble jumble code so they can detain me, arrest me, and take my rights away from me without my 6th Amendment rights ("innocent until proven guilty")

Until Human beings are born with a LED monitor on their forehead that reads "404 Human Error- Processor is bad, take something away"... we will never have an easy solution to another human beings thoughts and actions.

Response by MSgt J D McKee made Jun 15 at 2018 12:51 AM

MSgt J D McKee — Fri, 15 Jun 2018 00:51:32 -0400

Who decides? Some fucking liberal PHD that really believes anyone who wants a gun is crazy anyway?

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, USA (FIABUH) ??

Who is a "mental health hazard"? And what is that anyway? Anyone who has PTSD? There are people who believe anyone whom is able to perform in combat is insane. They may be right, a sane person would probably run away.

I think my ancestors had it right. Warriors don't ask permission to bear arms. Slaves, do. Subjects, do. Citizens, do not. Free men, do not. That became famous in Rome, but really, it was everywhere. In medieval Europe, a free man could bear arms, a serf could not unless in service to a noble of some sort. Gotta control the slaves, after all, can't let them get uppity.

I prefer to be a citizen, or a free man, as I am now too old to really be a warrior any more. As for guns, my opinion is that I was born with the right, and anyone who wants to take it away, violates my basic human rights, and the constitution of the US, which I have sworn multiple times to defend against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC.

Come and get it, little metrosexual bitches....I will hold true to my oaths.

Or, just leave me the fuck alone, and I won't hurt anyone because I don't want to anyway, and I'll sit at home polishing my weapons and giggling occasionally for no apparent reason.

Response by Edward Samsen made Jun 18 at 2018 9:15 PM

Edward Samsen — Mon, 18 Jun 2018 21:15:01 -0400

To quote a Psychology instructor in college, "To be perfectly normal is ABNORMAL" Once you give government the right to take one's weapons away, for some "mental issue" what is there to stop the government from doing the same thing for another issue or eccentricity that may be harmless but someone with the power deems to be a "Danger to society"
Our founding fathers in their wisdom gave us tremendous freedom in the ownership of arms. It is our duty to protect that right at all costs unless a competent DOCTOR rules that an individual is a danger to society BEFORE a Judge makes a ruling, after a hearing....not just a rubber stamp tie on to a court order.....think orders of protection claiming domestic violence when there is no evidence or history.

Response by Cpl David Bryan made Jun 19 at 2018 9:19 AM

Cpl David Bryan — Tue, 19 Jun 2018 09:19:33 -0400

I think a lot of conceptions about Vets is that we all have "mental health issues" in the eyes of the civilian world. Our military way of life was ingrained in each and every one of us.

Response by SFC Chad Ranes made Jun 19 at 2018 7:16 PM

SFC Chad Ranes — Tue, 19 Jun 2018 19:16:19 -0400

Most "mental health screenings" are far too ambiguous and left to the opinion of the examiner in my opinion. If you are "depressed" but not a threat to yourself or others some might argue that you actually ARE and use that as an opportunity to strip you of your rights. And because they spent time in school to get a piece of paper they now have the power to take away your rights...?? In my mind this is a slippery slope to akin to the idea that we should imprison someone, not because of the crime, but because we believe they may commit the crime.

I can understand the fear of "what if" but also believe in what Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

In returning to the original question, I would say that because of my military service I've been exposed to more politics than the average citizen, and seen far more wagging the dog than most know about and than others would admit exists. When chaos ensues, take a pause and half step back... Perspective changes everything.

Response by MAJ Michael Flynn made Jun 20 at 2018 1:10 AM

MAJ Michael Flynn — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 01:10:12 -0400

2nd Amendment reads - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

Response by SSgt Holden M. made Jun 20 at 2018 3:36 PM

SSgt Holden M. — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 15:36:01 -0400

It's a slippery slope, because we already have people that don't go to a mental health counselor because of the stigma that they must be "crazy" or something like that. If you make it so anybody with any kind of mental health issue and/or diagnosis isn't able to poses and/or firearms you are going to have even a bigger issue of people not getting the help they need. When I was having some issues and was trying to find the right medication to help I had a friend of mine who happened to be my pastor hold onto my personally owned firearm until I talked to my therapist about how I was doing and made sure my therapist was ok with me having it back before I asked my pastor for it back.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Jun 20 at 2018 3:54 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Wed, 20 Jun 2018 15:54:56 -0400

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201602/study-half-all-presidents-suffered-mental-illness

Q: At what point will congress take that authority from the president for the release of nuclear weapons? A: it takes the VP and 13 cabinet members to remove the president, and congress has 21 days to uphold that or it goes back to him. Think about that for a moment. Now define all the different forms of mental health. Does that mean every gun owner has to go through some form of scrutiny? So if a rape victim seeks treatment for PTSD they should have to surrender their firearms?

Why don't we do the same thing for motor vehicle owners? Archery enthusiasts? Britain is seeking to ban butcher cutlery as it is the new weapon of choice for homicidal maniacs. We should ban those two right? I got news for you, do you relize that medical malpractice will kill between 250,000-400,000 annually? There is only 1,000,000 registered physicians in the US. That means statistically every one of them kills someone every 2.5 to 4 years. Where is your outcry for that? Influenza will kill 40,000-100,000 annually. Where is the outcry for better vaccines and mandate that everyone has to get vaccinated?

Study: Half of All Presidents Suffered from Mental Illness

Research to consider when evaluating this year's field of candidates.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2018 4:08 PM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 16:08:58 -0400

Define mental health hazard. A paper review does not equal the facts. Many that are the greatest threat appear to be model AMCITs on paper and vice versa. That trend has almost reversed recently, with a few cases that begged for intervention.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 21 at 2018 7:33 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 19:33:31 -0400

Because some liberal snowflake Shrink would screw over any Veteran that he/she had as a patient. Why should a doctor have the authority to take away Constitutional Rights!!!!

Response by SPC Ken Sawyer made Jun 26 at 2018 6:53 PM

SPC Ken Sawyer — Tue, 26 Jun 2018 18:53:12 -0400

Why well maybe because we took an oath to defend the Constitution. So my question to you is what else in the Constitution are you okay with denying others?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 1 at 2018 6:48 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Jul 2018 06:48:03 -0400

Typically the removal of a constitutional right (2nd amendment) involves due process of some sort. Are you willing to give up other rights so easily?

Response by SSG Robert Pratt made Jul 1 at 2018 7:35 PM

SSG Robert Pratt — Sun, 01 Jul 2018 19:35:12 -0400

Why...because of all the uncouth politicians out there. They like to use mental health issues as a catch all to do away with your freedoms!

Response by SGT Phil Marnette made Jul 12 at 2018 1:35 AM

SGT Phil Marnette — Thu, 12 Jul 2018 01:35:45 -0400

Until the laws that are already on the books are enforced, there is an issue with making new ones. Start with what is already there. There are too many laws that don't get enforced, are opened to interpretation and usually unfairly applied to minority groups when they are. Leaving the US open to more racial divide than what is currently happening. We as veterans need to lead the charge in reuniting America to the one we all fought for and believe in.

Response by TSgt James Carson made Jul 18 at 2018 7:17 PM

TSgt James Carson — Wed, 18 Jul 2018 19:17:54 -0400

You are begging people like Feinstein, and many other Liberals to take your second amendment rights away? I hope you are joking. Liberals have disgraced Veterans many times and have put out the thought of demanding mental health screenings of Veterans to protect Americans from armed Veterans. If you want this you are telling the veterans to give up their second amendment rights, then the rest of our Constitutional rights Once you loose your second amendment rights you are granting the government the power to take everyone's' rights away. Fact check what I say and what the media and liberal politicians have proposed, to control the population here in the U.S. Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Book stores sell pocket size copies of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I hope you will educate yourself as to why the second amendment is the glue that holds this country together.

Response by CPL Bryan Thornton made Jul 20 at 2018 8:57 AM

CPL Bryan Thornton — Fri, 20 Jul 2018 08:57:23 -0400

Because a lot of us would get our guns taken away. lol

Response by CPL Michael Graham made Jul 24 at 2018 1:59 PM

CPL Michael Graham — Tue, 24 Jul 2018 13:59:02 -0400

Nope..so over it..nobody gets guns..the only reason you need a gun is because you are scared..and the lack of knowledge..the basis of fear, whether religiously motivated or not. Is what makes you think you need a gun...other than that..idiots that post pictures of themselves with a bottle of jack...and a weapon or a gun in there belt..."to look cool"? Wtf? How about this...manditory 8weeks basic training..at 17...everybody's drafted...Build schools not walls...

Response by SGT Chris Wagoner made Jul 24 at 2018 6:04 PM

SGT Chris Wagoner — Tue, 24 Jul 2018 18:04:34 -0400

Because Constitutional Rights do not have "qualifications" to be able to exercise them. If they did I would advocate for an intelligence test for free speech. ;)

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2018 7:41 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 31 Jul 2018 07:41:06 -0400

Wow!! If the current laws on the books now were enforced, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. My rights under the 2A shouldn’t be infringed upon simply because a ‘government entity’ failed to do their job.

Response by SSG Paul Carrier made Aug 5 at 2018 11:03 PM

SSG Paul Carrier — Sun, 05 Aug 2018 23:03:02 -0400

Because after our years of service we know just how capricious and dysfunctional any large bureaucracy will be.

Response by MCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 13 at 2018 4:08 PM

MCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Aug 2018 16:08:55 -0400

Why should the military be the first to advocate for this? Active duty military represents less than .5% of the US population so the only effect this policy will have will be on ourselves. The reason the military secures the weapons of those members identified as a mental health hazard is to prevent possible workplace violence. Most of the members are still required to show up to work to earn their pay. In contrast, identified civilians will either be put on an administrative leave of absence or dismissed from their employment altogether.

Response by SFC Joseph McCausland made Aug 19 at 2018 1:37 PM

SFC Joseph McCausland — Sun, 19 Aug 2018 13:37:44 -0400

Are you talking about initial "mental health screening" for "all" or are you speaking of applicants with a documented condition of which those records would be unattainable under the "doctor patient" confidentially clause?

Response by SGT Breck Wilson made Aug 20 at 2018 4:21 PM

SGT Breck Wilson — Mon, 20 Aug 2018 16:21:40 -0400

Just because that's what the military does don't mean it's the right thing to do. For example NCO's can no longer smoke a solider for doing wrong which takes away tools for recourse. Now you either have to forget about it or put it on paper most soldiers don't earn from the "paperwork" option. The Army also gave out stress cards to privates in training environments! Isn't that the whole purpose of basic training to make them learn and Excel under stress. And they wonder why so many failed under the pressure of deployment and combat! If someone receives a PTSD no matter the severity the also received a no weapons profile that's not right most that show symptoms of PTSD are still more competent and safer with weapons than most military members with less than 3 year's in.
Also I don't care how much school you went to and how many letters you have before your name you don't have the right to take my Rights away. If we were willing to fight and die for others right's what do you think we are willing to do for our own!

Response by SSgt Robert Bell made Aug 21 at 2018 7:19 PM

SSgt Robert Bell — Tue, 21 Aug 2018 19:19:33 -0400

Funny how you can’t vote a thumbs down without 1500 followers...

Response by SSgt Boyd Herrst made Aug 27 at 2018 7:50 AM

SSgt Boyd Herrst — Mon, 27 Aug 2018 07:50:36 -0400

The previous members all have good points and I concur with all:
Maj(vts)
Sgt Theodore(Ted M. Hallock
1SGT DennisHicks.

Response by LTC Dan Haveman made Aug 27 at 2018 5:22 PM

LTC Dan Haveman — Mon, 27 Aug 2018 17:22:20 -0400

It violates the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Response by SSG David Forler made Aug 29 at 2018 5:38 PM

SSG David Forler — Wed, 29 Aug 2018 17:38:33 -0400

it is very simple...The obama admin. VA sec, basically has had every Military person diagnosed with PTSD....A issue handled by mental health...The lefts goal to have all Veterans not able to purchase and those that have guns, to have them forcibly taken away from them..PERIOD....

Response by SrA Paul Flaherty made Aug 30 at 2018 3:36 PM

SrA Paul Flaherty — Thu, 30 Aug 2018 15:36:20 -0400

The federal government should be protecting rights, not restricting them. My view is to leave that up to the states, with the Federal gov't (again), ensuring rights are protected. I don't want someone from Mass telling someone from Alaska what they need to properly defend themselves. My view also is one directed to each individual regarding their personal beliefs: Do you feel every other constitutional right should be treated the same way? If you do, fine. But if you feel that only one's 2nd amendment rights require some sort of additional screening, and would be offended if someone thought that another one of your 'preferred' rights deserved screening.....well.... then you might want to take a 2nd look at your views to see if there is a bit of hypocrisy hidden in there. A right is a right.

Response by SSG Glenn Morse made Sep 3 at 2018 2:52 PM

SSG Glenn Morse — Mon, 03 Sep 2018 14:52:46 -0400

In today society we cannot trust the mental health system. And once a person is in it you're never out of it. The screening process to hard to establish and the government can add whatever criteria they want.think about how our government is today and tell me UNLESS YOU ARE A FOOL You trust them. I could go on and on, but for now we need a strong BATTLE BUDDY SYSTEM. You know if a buddy has a problem and handle it the right way don't throw him/her to the system first you may ruin a salvageable life.

Response by SFC Roger Senatore made Sep 5 at 2018 3:39 PM

SFC Roger Senatore — Wed, 05 Sep 2018 15:39:25 -0400

I signed up to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, not destroy it with feel-good bull shit laws that will solve nothing. Gun violence is way, way down; Oxycontin and texting-while-driving are the real killers. GI's and veterans shooting up innocent people is not a real problem, and we're all at least a little f*cking crazy!

Response by SFC Adam Rothas made Sep 10 at 2018 1:04 PM

SFC Adam Rothas — Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:04:37 -0400

A well known tactic of oppressive governments is the use of "Mental Hygiene" police. If you look to be someone that the government sees as being opposed to it then they would call up a doctor to say you are clearly not stable. Since psychology is not an exact science two of them can swear in complete opposite directions. This happens every day between "expert" testimony in our court system. If a very left leaning party gains the ability to require mental health screenings for gun ownership we may find that NO ONE will be able to own a gun (based on the idea that the desire to own a gun is a disqualifier).

Response by SGT James Copley made Sep 13 at 2018 7:45 PM

SGT James Copley — Thu, 13 Sep 2018 19:45:52 -0400

To build upon some of the other post. If you look at the most up to date DSM-5 it states that if you had a bad day at work, that would make you eligible to be classified and or diagnose with a mental health issue. You need to do some more research in to this topic. Then you a
Would see, that like others have pointed out. There are already laws on the books to take care of this kind if issue. But a lot of the time things are over look because of a lack of funding, Incompetency and politics. The other issue with this topic comes down to our constitutional rights, if they can take one right away because of somebody's mental competency, which is a ever changing dynamic. Then what's to say they won't use the same reason to take away the rest of our rights.

Response by PFC Kevin Adrian made Sep 18 at 2018 9:25 PM

PFC Kevin Adrian — Tue, 18 Sep 2018 21:25:37 -0400

Having a mental health issue which is diagnosed and being treated does not make a vet a hazard. It is absolute crap for anyone to say this.

Response by LCDR Bruce Cooley made Sep 22 at 2018 3:00 PM

LCDR Bruce Cooley — Sat, 22 Sep 2018 15:00:49 -0400

Because "they're" using this to get even more deeply into our personal lives by using the extreme to manage the normal. First, like a lot of the respondents, I am a 2nd Amendment supporter. Second, most of these laws are meant to appease a vocal minority and blind the apathetic majority with BS. Thirdly, why are they looking at "gun ownership" when Doctors kill more patients than guns do?? Just to throw a weird curve ball into the mix....lets look at the "demographic" make up of "gun crimes".......IF you look at it a certain way, it could be said that these individuals pushing for more gun control are trying to disarm our minority (Non-white) population! So....what really is this proposed regulation really aimed at??? To give the govt. more power over you (In direct opposition to what the Constitutions Framers intended) and their ability to take away your power resist should that time ever come.

Response by CPT Brock Young made Sep 23 at 2018 12:23 AM

CPT Brock Young — Sun, 23 Sep 2018 00:23:26 -0400

Because 1 any limitation of Rights, those who serve tend to shy away from

Response by CPO Cory Cook made Sep 25 at 2018 2:12 AM

CPO Cory Cook — Tue, 25 Sep 2018 02:12:04 -0400

In the case of a military member who has documented problems (ptsd, and the like) or a bad conduct discharge, I think there may be a legit reason. However, before a military member is just cast off (there you go dude, on your own with your problems, no help from here) they should receive the care they deserve. It probably not be prudent to cast them off after they have had the training to make them dangerous if unstable. Counterpoint, military members should not be treated any different than civilians just because some h8r politico has an agenda or pretend fear.

Response by SSgt Ed Hamlin made Sep 25 at 2018 4:39 PM

SSgt Ed Hamlin — Tue, 25 Sep 2018 16:39:37 -0400

Current laws provide individuals with legal remedies. If they day in court say they have to transfer or surrender until the judgment has been relieved is appropriate. What is not appropriate is anyone and their brother with an axe to grind can infringe on your constitutional rights due to the pandering by democrats to the deceived populous to institute laws that are unjust and unconstitutional. Those laws violate due process provided for under the constitution.

Ultimately registration is what it is and used by regimes like Hitler used registration. Also just because you see someone in mental health doesn't mean your not capable of keeping your rights under the constitution.

Response by TSgt Michael Williamson made Sep 26 at 2018 12:45 AM

TSgt Michael Williamson — Wed, 26 Sep 2018 00:45:03 -0400

Because we took an oath to support the Constitution, not to create an oligarchy with class levels.

Response by SGT Charles Ludwigsen made Sep 30 at 2018 11:01 PM

SGT Charles Ludwigsen — Sun, 30 Sep 2018 23:01:51 -0400

Why stop there? Addictions often mask deeper psychological issues. Why don’t we screen and deny rights of anyone we deem prone to addiction?

I don’t know if you posed this as a serious question or not. But why draw the line at the second amendment? Shouldn’t you be screened, according to your logic, before you are allowed to exercise your first amendment right of speech?

Ludicrous! As is this question. As a nation, under the constitution, we have no right to pre-judge. That is why you do not have to pass a test to exercise your right.

Response by SPC Thomas Smith made Oct 6 at 2018 9:25 PM

SPC Thomas Smith — Sat, 06 Oct 2018 21:25:21 -0400

I don't know what army you are in but when I was in we never took a weapon away unless it was ordered. To many soldiers takes it to get out the military. So sorry maybe the army today does that but in my day they just made you train harder.

Response by PO1 Charles Babcock made Oct 20 at 2018 1:31 AM

PO1 Charles Babcock — Sat, 20 Oct 2018 01:31:00 -0400

in my case, because the liberal press and those pushing the liberal agenda have already tried to dictate that all military vets were not competent to handle weapons. I refuse to accept anyone's decision for mass screenings controlled by non-military persons for military vets gun rights.

Response by SPC Chris Ison made Oct 21 at 2018 9:48 PM

SPC Chris Ison — Sun, 21 Oct 2018 21:48:21 -0400

Simple. Too many veterans are afraid that there PTSD will be disqualifying.

Response by LTC Andrew Addison made Oct 25 at 2018 8:47 PM

LTC Andrew Addison — Thu, 25 Oct 2018 20:47:48 -0400

Well...what about those that are diagnosed with ptsd? That's why vets will not support stricter requirements. I suggest that they just enforce the rules and laws that already are in place

Response by MAJ Lyle F. Padilla made Nov 12 at 2018 4:38 AM

MAJ Lyle F. Padilla — Mon, 12 Nov 2018 04:38:56 -0500

Most of my military career was in the Guard or Reserve, and during that period I had a simultaneous career as a school psychologist.

Now, a school psychologist's primary function is to act as the gateway to Special Education, by evaluating students for learning disabilities and emotional disturbance, determining eligibility for Special Ed and, if eligible, the most appropriate educational setting in concert with teachers, other school professionals and the student's parents. And upon a student's placement in Special Ed, acting as case manager to continue determining eligibility and placement. A pretty benign, innocuous sounding job. As a school psychologist, I was certified by and acted as an agent for the State. Not just literally the State of New Jersey where I lived and worked, but State as in The Government.

The greatest stress of the job, however, was the pressure from school principals and other administrators to take students out of regular mainstream class settings and place them in Special Ed, especially in classes for the Emotionally Disturbed (and especially class settings in another building or out of the district altogether), when the students are NOT ACTUALLY clinically eligible, or such placement was at best questionable. This was often done for the convenience of the principal or other administrator or teacher, simply because the student pissed off one of those professionals one time too many. School psychologists and other Special Services professionals are technically employees of the state but are hired by the individuals districts and normally housed in offices within the specific school buildings they service, so even though we don't answer to the building principal, the principal cane make working conditions very miserable when we don't bend to their whims, especially getting rid of the "bad" kids. That's the greatest reason why I retired from that career of the very first day I was eligible.

Now consider the fact that psychologists, social workers and psychiatrists who conduct mental health screenings for gun ownership would ALSO be licensed by and acting as agents for The State, subjected to the same coercions by The State for the convenience of The State.

Response by MSgt Arvin Stott made Nov 14 at 2018 8:23 PM

MSgt Arvin Stott — Wed, 14 Nov 2018 20:23:51 -0500

Simple answer is to require all to be armed. Yes, I know there are those who shouldn't be allowed near a firearm as they will hurt themselves. The thing is now whenever I see commonsense gun safety all that means is someone is attempting to justify infringing on my rights. Gun control is never about safety, it is always about others trying to control you.

Response by Sgt Aaron Cook made Nov 15 at 2018 8:09 AM

Sgt Aaron Cook — Thu, 15 Nov 2018 08:09:27 -0500

Why aren't military/ veterans the first to advocate not having your rights taken away without due process? And I don't mean you get to appeal to get them back, I mean innocent until proven guilty.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 16 at 2018 2:42 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 16 Nov 2018 14:42:51 -0500

Who sets the standard and who will make sure those standards aren’t being abused. I know several liberals that think people who own guns are already suffering from a mental defect.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 17 at 2018 12:22 PM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Nov 2018 12:22:07 -0500

I'm against more anti-gun laws. When the restrictions that are already in place are not being enforced, additional measures are not going to help. (See definition of insanity.) Additionally, adding new measures which take into account PTSD, or other parallel mental health concerns, you start letting the government dabble in restricting arms to some of the country's truest patriots. One then would have to ask why? ... These would be indicators towards a dictatorial governance, instead of a liberty-based governance. More gun restrictive laws are not going to help while current ones are not followed. Change my mind.

Response by SSG Ricky Johnson made Nov 18 at 2018 9:55 AM

SSG Ricky Johnson — Sun, 18 Nov 2018 09:55:00 -0500

This really troubles me. If we require a mental exam to own a gun, what is next? A mental health exam before you can vote? If they can detect the gene for mental defects, then just a DNA test to test for a drivers license, a job, a teacher, a college professor? Where would it end? Lets just fix everything and do a DNA test at birth (or earlier). It would be a world of the Minority Report. Far fetched.

Response by SFC Brian Gillum made Nov 28 at 2018 10:06 PM

SFC Brian Gillum — Wed, 28 Nov 2018 22:06:14 -0500

My answer will get me crap from both ends of the spectrum on this because God forbid someone should advocate a middle ground, but to hell with it.

Since this is addressed to a military crowd, let me ask this. Did you get your weapon the day you swore in? How about the day you arrived for boot camp/basic? You didn’t get assigned a weapon until you went to a range they showed you how to do all the things you needed to know (even if you had been born with a pistol in one tiny hand and a rifle in the other and raised to shoot from the day you could properly squeeze a trigger. And look at some of the guys and gals they gave a weapon to? Holy crap didn’t want to be within three firing positions of them.

Now, back to the good ol’ 2AM. The first clause of the amendment specifically states “A well-regulated...”. Wait, what? You know rules, laws and stuff to make sure you know what the hell you are doing.

Like any right, if the government wishes to impinge upon it, there must be a due process and the weight of proof is upon the one challenging the right of the individual. But if the government wants to set regulations upon the militia (read as any person who could serve in the military and has the full duties and responsibilities of citizenship) who wishes to be prepared for some such highly improbable but always possible need for the militia to serve should be able to own, carry, possess and use in all legal manner a firearm or firearms, that government can and by language in the amendment MUST propose, place and use regulations which ensure that those said same firearms are not going to be in possession of persons who are as much a threat to the safety and welfare of others or themselves as any potential enemy force could be.

End of point. Discuss amongst yourselves.