Prelude to Veteran Disarmament?

imported post

Well, let's see what happens when they try to recall a VET back to active service that was BANNED from gun ownership due to PTSD! Theywould have totake up the very arms they'rebanned from owning to defend that nation that banned themfrom owning them!

How many vets had "Shell Shock" after WWII and went on to fight honorably in Korea? Or had Shell Shock in Korea and went on to fight honorably in Vietnam?

They are then saying that it's OK to carry a gun to serve the nation, but your life is not worth defending while at home.

By their own numbers, eventually EVERY vet that has ever suffered under the stress of battle, will be banned. Who will defend that nation then? Carolyn McCarthy or her bedwetting ilk?

imported post

Phssthpok wrote:

Absolutely it was planned.......Snipped..... "The Davidians were targetted (IMHO) because they held to a different belief structure than the one that the Government wanted them to."

Click to expand...

Well, they ran out of ammo so that does not hold water too well for your argument that they planned it.

And everyone is supposed to shoot only to stop the threat so it must have been their training that allowed the LEOs to return to their vehicle.


And I believe the raid was because they believed he had several weapons violations and I guess having illegal weapons would be a different belief structure.

But this is not a discussion we should have in this thread since David was not a disabled vet.

imported post

BobCav wrote:

They are then saying that it's OK to carry a gun to serve the nation, but your life is not worth defending while at home.

Click to expand...

Of course, Bob, but isn't that what they've always said and thought?

It's the collectivist/statist creed. One for all, none for one!

I agree with XDcoyote. This stuff, even if it looks harmless in small bites, when you take it as a whole it's all aimed at disarming citizens for this excuse or for that one by various means.

imported post

I agree, in principle, that this really isn't the thread for this discussion, but since there isn't another, and I cannot let your misstatements go unanswered I am compelled to preply.

Well, they ran out of ammo so that does not hold water too well for your argument that they planned it.

Click to expand...

I see you conveniently editd out the fact that they thought it would be a cakewalk. They planned....just not very well.

And everyone is supposed to shoot only to stop the threat so it must have been their training that allowed the LEOs to return to their vehicle.

Click to expand...

They shot to stop the threat all right... right up till they shot their guns dry, and found them selves pinned down behind cover and surrounded by clear fields of fire on all sides. It was a voluntary action on the part of the Davidian's to ALLOW them to retreat, and NOT open fire as they did so. Unless thay receive some special training in un-armed retreat tactics, I don't think training had anything to do with it.

And I believe the raid was because they believed he had several weapons violations and I guess having illegal weapons would be a different belief structure.

Click to expand...

TRUMPED UP weapons allegations that were proven to be unsubtantiated even BEFORE the raid. when the wepons allegations were de-bunked, they also trumped up meth-lab, and child abuse allegations which were proven un-substantiated as well.:uhoh:

imported post

Phssthpok wrote:

Snipped

Click to expand...

I can say that they could have done things better. Any time you deal with a compound you are dealing with a ton of people and not a family with 2.3 kids.

I do not know all the details anymore as it was a while ago. But I do not think the deaths were planned. It was an unfortunate outcome on both sides.

imported post

.....I do not think the deaths were planned. It was an unfortunate outcome on both sides.

Click to expand...

In that we are agreed.

imported post

XD40coyote, thank you for your service, and I am happy to hear that you are doing well. Unfortunately for a lot of vets depression and PTSD will 'disqualify' them under this bill. But just as unfortunate, your first sentence made me realize that another group will also suffer.

XD40coyote wrote:

I think the issue is that a vet comes back with depression and PTSD and has to see a doc for it.

Click to expand...

Those vets who are informed enough on this issue that they avoid seeking any treatment and will not find theirpeace. God bless them too.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

BobCav wrote:

They are then saying that it's OK to carry a gun to serve the nation, but your life is not worth defending while at home.

Click to expand...

Of course, Bob, but isn't that what they've always said and thought?

It's the collectivist/statist creed. One for all, none for one!

I agree with XDcoyote. This stuff, even if it looks harmless in small bites, when you take it as a whole it's all aimed at disarming citizens for this excuse or for that one by various means.

Click to expand...

How do you eat an elephant?

One bite at a time.

imported post

Nelson, I myself am not a vet, but was using my own experience as someone who has had clinical depression to point out about vets with mental problems. Surely what is seen and felt in war is nothing like what I saw and felt living in Crappymore MD. My problems were very superficial by comparison. I can see a vet who has seen some hard combat and some awful things REALLY needing some form of counseling if it has gotten to him/her. It is terrible that if by doing so and getting help, they may end up on a prohibited list for simply having depression/PTSD. Yet they were/are fit to carry weapons and to kill enemy combatants. Prohibited to own firearms at home, yet can be called for another tour of duty?

And yes think of all the men in WW2 who saw combat, yet came back and had families and went on with functional lives, and did not go nuts and shoot some place up. My grandfather was at Midway, and although he had some quirks and wasn't a very good grandpa ( he just plain acted like I didn't exist), he never went on some violent rampage, and did not abuse his kids by beating them or other such behavior. My grandma on the other side of the family lived through Nazi occupied Paris, had a friend who disapeared after the Gestapo had interveiwed her, and had a tooth pulled by a Nazi bastard, without any painkillers. She saw some terrible stuff, including some gunned down airman who landed on a roof and was left there to rot.She also had a horrible childhood. But she never went and shot anyone or went on some crazed rampage, though she did abuse my mother, mostly mental abuse. BTW my mother survived it and vowed she would not do that to her own child, and that is how it was, she raised me with love and mild discipline when needed.

imported post

I don't agree with veteran disarmament due to mild mental health issues because I don't agree with disarmament of any person due to mild mental health issues. If a person is fit to live in society, he should have the right to own and carry a gun, regardless of his military history or lack thereof.

My questions are to those who treat veterans and soldiers in general as a class of people with better training than the average citizen. What makes this training applicable to living in civilian society? How does this training relate to the proper use of force outside of a war context? When humans are put in the line of fire repeatedly, and generally experience hellish conditions in a war zone, are there implications for their reactions to events in the civilian world different to the reactions of those who have never been in the military? Are these implications beneficial or not? And are these implications affected by an insufficient effort by the military of transitioning soldiers to civilian life?

Don't get wrong, I'm not anti-military, and I respect soldiers and what they do and have done. But I have concerns about equating training for warfare with training for self-defense. Unfortunately, it has become taboo to treat soldiers as anything other than a higher class of people than non-soldiers, so I don't hope to see much useful discourse about this.

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

I don't agree with veteran disarmament due to mild mental health issues because I don't agree with disarmament of any person due to mild mental health issues. If a person is fit to live in society, he should have the right to own and carry a gun, regardless of his military history or lack thereof.

My questions are to those who treat veterans and soldiers in general as a class of people with better training than the average citizen. What makes this training applicable to living in civilian society? How does this training relate to the proper use of force outside of a war context? When humans are put in the line of fire repeatedly, and generally experience hellish conditions in a war zone, are there implications for their reactions to events in the civilian world different to the reactions of those who have never been in the military? Are these implications beneficial or not? And are these implications affected by an insufficient effort by the military of transitioning soldiers to civilian life?

Don't get wrong, I'm not anti-military, and I respect soldiers and what they do and have done. But I have concerns about equating training for warfare with training for self-defense. Unfortunately, it has become taboo to treat soldiers as anything other than a higher class of people than non-soldiers, so I don't hope to see much useful discourse about this.

Click to expand...

Agree on the mild mental health issues across the board, military or non-military.
I would say general gun safety and familirization and proficency are translatable, butspecific combattraining may only relate to outside lifeshould you chooseto become a LEO or a specialagent of some sort.But there are things that are taught that you can use anywhere in life such as responsibility, honor, courage committment,perseverence and leadership to name a few. Not that you can't learn those elsewhere but in the military, it's a force fedcrash course! Those aspects aredefinitely translatable into civilian life and arehighly sought after in the civilian community.

We'rejust citizens with a burning passion for America and a believe that she is worth defending with our livesif necessary to protect and preserve this great nation of ours. But mostly, it'sjust about the personbeside you. You're not thinking about the political ramifications or big campaign picture. Just how to get yourself and your buddies home alive. We tend to be the types that do not just take things for granted and have a deep appreication for our liberties, very much like gun owners and those here on OCDO such as yourself.

When I retired we had a Transition Assistance Progran (TAP) class that lasted a week and was mandatory for anyone leaving the service. Ittaught things like VA benefits and education, job searching and resume writing, how to adjust to civilian life, things like that. Whenever we returned from a 6 month Med deployment even during peacetime we were met in Rota, Spain by a team of counselors that rode the ship home and provided special sessions on how to readjust and reacquaint yourself with your family, how to adjust to being a new father, how not to take over the house the first day you're home, things like that. Life at sea on a ship, or any deployment for that matter, has its own stresses that can tear a family apart if you're not careful. Those agressive behaviors necessary out there just don't work at home. Just ask Gunny Highway!

I do know we have special programs overseas for the folks returning from combat that are much more specialized for those needs, but I haven't been through those myself. Perhaps someone that has can jump in here.

I don't look forspecial privilege, but will take a beer if you buy me one! But we certainly don't want tobe treated as second class citizens.

imported post

BobCav wrote:

Whenever we returned from a 6 month Med deployment even during peacetime we were met in Rota, Spain by a team of counselors that rode the ship home and provided special sessions on how to readjust and reacquaint yourself with your family, how to adjust to being a new father, how not to take over the house the first day you're home, things like that. Life at sea on a ship, or any deployment for that matter, has its own stresses that can tear a family apart if you're not careful. Those agressive behaviors necessary out there just don't work at home.

Click to expand...

The Oprahfication of society is in full swing in the military.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

BobCav wrote:

Whenever we returned from a 6 month Med deployment even during peacetime we were met in Rota, Spain by a team of counselors that rode the ship home and provided special sessions on how to readjust and reacquaint yourself with your family, how to adjust to being a new father, how not to take over the house the first day you're home, things like that. Life at sea on a ship, or any deployment for that matter, has its own stresses that can tear a family apart if you're not careful. Those agressive behaviors necessary out there just don't work at home.

Click to expand...

The Oprahfication of society is in full swing in the military.

Click to expand...

Brother it was even15 years ago! I hated those classes, but they were mandatory. There was a few good points, butI can say I got maybe 5 minutes of useful info out of it.