My right to bear arms is under fire right now.

As a veteran who has served in battle, and taken lives. I have come away with PTSD. It is traumatic to be in a situation like that. Unfortunately, that is what our government seems to hope from its troops, so it can demonize us, and make us all look like psychopaths. I am more aware of my surroundings. I refuse to carry a gun or knife on my person, because I suffer from anxiety and flashbacks. I no longer drink to get drunk, just because I do not want to have a flash back and hurt someone with my stupid drunk strength.

But, our government wants to continue to take away my rights to own a gun, because of my mental condition. A condition that was created in a war that they sent me to. Myself, and my brothers and sisters, fought for the right to come home and live our lives the way we see fit. But, when we get back, we are told we are unfit to do so, because of what we experienced in war.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/3/change-on-veterans-gun-rights-lights-fire/?page=all

Luckily there is at least one man who is making sense with stating that a judge should be the one who chooses. Not the VA.

If a judge can choose which "right" you can have, then it really isn't a "right" at all, now is it?

Outcast said:

As a veteran who has served in battle, and taken lives. I have come away with PTSD. It is traumatic to be in a situation like that. Unfortunately, that is what our government seems to hope from its troops, so it can demonize us, and make us all look like psychopaths. I am more aware of my surroundings. I refuse to carry a gun or knife on my person, because I suffer from anxiety and flashbacks. I no longer drink to get drunk, just because I do not want to have a flash back and hurt someone with my stupid drunk strength.

But, our government wants to continue to take away my rights to own a gun, because of my mental condition. A condition that was created in a war that they sent me to. Myself, and my brothers and sisters, fought for the right to come home and live our lives the way we see fit. But, when we get back, we are told we are unfit to do so, because of what we experienced in war.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/3/change-on-veterans-gun-rights-lights-fire/?page=all

Luckily there is at least one man who is making sense with stating that a judge should be the one who chooses. Not the VA.

Click to expand...

Judging by your posts on here you are in no way what I would consider 'mentally incompetent'.

Rich Z said:

If a judge can choose which "right" you can have, then it really isn't a "right" at all, now is it?

Click to expand...

Exactly! But they sure believe they can.

I agree Rich. But, I would rather have someone who knows the law making that decision, than someone who just feels that I am incompetent and should not own a weapon... The problem with that thinking is that they do not realize that I can literally turn anything I touch into a deadly weapon, because of how I was trained to think. I do not need a gun when I have a flashback or whatever, in order to hurt someone. But, I do not want my gun rights taken from me, because some jerkoff who has never served in combat thinks that I am mentally unfit because I did what I had to do and am suffering the consequences of survival. There is a reason that I go to therapy twice a week, and it isn't because I was told that I had to, I choose to go, because I know it helps.

This isn't even really a right to bear arms problem. It's a veteran abandonment problem, one that affects us all. There is simply not enough support given to veterans who come back from the trauma of war a changed person.

Rich: A judge CAN choose which rights you have. A judge can send you to prison, can confiscate property, can take your children away. A judge can take away your right to vote. By your definition, the only nation that has 'rights' is a lawless one.

It's a shame that this is happening. I'm a psychologist, and in my last job we worked on a self-help manual for Soldiers suffering from post-deployment issues, including PTSD. So I became really aware of what a huge problem it really is, and just how much it's being ignored and misunderstood.

PTSD doesn't make for violence any more than ADHD makes for violence. People just see "mental disorder" and think "omg crazies they gonna kill us all." This is the kind of thing we need to fight, NOT the veterans!

Nova_C said:

... A judge CAN choose which rights you have. A judge can send you to prison, can confiscate property, can take your children away. A judge can take away your right to vote. By your definition, the only nation that has 'rights' is a lawless one.

Click to expand...

Incorrect a judge can take none of those things without cause.

tsst said:

Incorrect a judge can take none of those things without cause.

Click to expand...

Uh, where did I say the judge can do it without cause? A judge cannot take away Outcast's right to bear arms without cause as well. The contention is what constitutes cause.

My point stands.

Nova_C said:

This isn't even really a right to bear arms problem. It's a veteran abandonment problem, one that affects us all. There is simply not enough support given to veterans who come back from the trauma of war a changed person.

Rich: A judge CAN choose which rights you have. A judge can send you to prison, can confiscate property, can take your children away. A judge can take away your right to vote. By your definition, the only nation that has 'rights' is a lawless one.

Click to expand...

Then I hope you see the issue I am trying to bring to light.

I'm afraid I don't. Can you elaborate?

Outcast Being a combat vet. myself I know where your coming from. I also suffer from PTSD. I am a registered Firearms collector including NFA Wep's and avid firearms shooter. I have done all the rite things in life to earn the right to keep and bare arms. I cant stress enough how important it is to join NRA and any local firearms organizations. They help defend out rites and are a large voice. I am astonished that this has come up when so many shootings are not related to us vets how often do you hear a vet went into a rage and shot up a movie theater. I would like to know how we as vets are any different from police who shoot and kill people. Are they mentally incompetent. Shooting and killing another human being is traumatic for anyone, I don't care who you are. Being shot at is traumatic for anyone, I don't care who you are. I think about it every single day. I struggle with wondering will I be forgiven when my time comes to leave this earth. It's not an easy decision to shoot someone as a soldier its your job. A job we were trained to do one that becomes a willing task when coupled to the will to survive. My father was one of the worst I have ever seen flashbacks, nightmares you name it he never hurt a fly outside of his job as a soldier. To me this is yet another Ploy to snatch firearms from Good law abiding US citizens. I wasn't declared incompetent while I was in Mogadishu nor after. I had to shoot people there. I must have been ok because they were more then happy to send me to Afghanistan. I don't have flashbacks or nightmares, but its not something I can easily put out of my head. I have no desire to shoot up a theater or a guy standing on the corner. I think it's safe to say we combat vets have had our share and then some of discharging firearms at humans. I personally don't want to ever settle the cross hairs on another human being ever again. I mean after all it's why we suffer from PTSD in the first place. You are 100% correct in saying taking firearms from us doesn't prevent us from harming others. I'm a Marine and trained to do that with my bare hands, will I be ordered to surrender those.

Nova_C said:

I'm afraid I don't. Can you elaborate?

Click to expand...

Please enumerate any and all of the TRUE rights we actually have. "Rights", of course, meaning something that cannot be taken away from us, restricted in any way, nor require permission, authorization, permit, tax, nor fee, in order to exercise.

"Due process" and "just cause" be damned.

Rich Z said:

Please enumerate any and all of the TRUE rights we actually have. "Rights", of course, meaning something that cannot be taken away from us, restricted in any way, nor require permission, authorization, permit, tax, nor fee, in order to exercise.

"Due process" and "just cause" be damned.

Click to expand...

There are none. And there is no possible way to make them so.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Nova_C said:

There are none. And there is no possible way to make them so.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Click to expand...

YOU are the one who replied to my initial comment in this thread. What were YOU getting at?

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml There is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a non-binding agreement that has no authority in any country, but it had to be written up just like any law or "right". Rights were created by people, just like the calendar and how we mark the passage of time. They are not inherent, because they have to be created/upholded by someone in order to apply. When we accept them as inherent, we have to uphold them as such or everything loses all its meaning.

Example:
It's usually accepted that we have an "inherent right" to life at least. If someone kills another person, didn't they violate that person's "right" to exist? Killing the killer would also violate their "right". Rights which by definition as "inherent" cannot be taken away by law. So what happens now?

Nova_C said:

Uh, where did I say the judge can do it without cause? A judge cannot take away Outcast's right to bear arms without cause as well. The contention is what constitutes cause.

My point stands.

Click to expand...

My bad. You seemed to be implying it with this line.

"A judge CAN choose which rights you have."

Rich Z said:

YOU are the one who replied to my initial comment in this thread. What were YOU getting at?

Click to expand...

Well, the reason I replied to you is that you seem to be implying that a right is only a right if it cannot be taken away. If that's the case, then by that definition no one anywhere has any rights, and never will.

Which makes that definition largely useless.

Tsst: Okay, I see. I worded that poorly.

What I meant is that a judge can make the choice, given cause, to restrict a person's rights. At no point does he have to, but judges that don't restrict rights as much as possible tend to be labelled 'Activist' or 'Soft on Crime', whatever those mean.

IMHO the gov should NOT have any ability to remove a right. The ONLY time a right should be taken is on an individual basis. And only the individual that violated a law should be forced to give up the right. And being libertarian there should only be minimal laws to maintain society. i.e. only the person that went off and shot people should lose the right to own a firearm. No more Brady crap, lets punish everyone because an individual did wrong.

Guns are an easy target so think of something you like and replace it. For example one person lets a snake free, knee jerk gov, nobody can own snakes. One person speeds and causes a death, knee jerk gov, lets outlaw cars. One person uses a kitchen knife to stab someone, knee jerk gov, all knives outlawed. One person used the Internet to steal money, knee jerk gov, lets shut down the Internet. Etc etc etc.

Just because you don't like guns doesn't mean your opinion should be forced upon everyone that does.

Nova_C said:

Well, the reason I replied to you is that you seem to be implying that a right is only a right if it cannot be taken away. If that's the case, then by that definition no one anywhere has any rights, and never will.

Which makes that definition largely useless.

Click to expand...

Which is EXACTLY my point. Everyone is talking about this right and that right that they have, when fact of the matter is, we really have NOTHING that is a "right" at all. The government CAN do anything it wants to you and your property.

Go to court over it? Sure, that's the ticket. Where do those paychecks for the judges come from? At most levels they are politically appointed. Going to ask them to bite the hand that feeds them?

Call up the local newspapers to try to drum it up into a public issue? Yeah, good luck with that too if it's you against the people who issue them their licenses.

Everything that we do and own is at the whim of some privilege granted by those in power over us. The sooner you realize that, the better off you will be in how you plan on keeping what you own and doing what you want to do.

"Power" being very flexible in this case.

Your neighbor has the capability of taking any of your rights, should they choose to do so. But like I said, this definition of rights is largely useless.

"Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology."

Nothing in there about a right being invalidated by violation. A right isn't something that is inviolable, that cannot be taken by any means. A right is something defined by law, which is a construct of human society. Law isn't a tangible thing, but something we choose in order to belong to a community.