Anybody who has served in “The Desert” or in any other theater of war in the name of “freedom” (or “Big Oil” in the case of the former); has returned home to the big, beautiful, green U.S. of A., just to learn they may have a few mental issues to deal with as a consequence of their service needs to read and heed: Senator Chuck Schumer, the NRA, and “The New Democratic Congress”, wishes to DISARM YOU.
Correct — you were “well enough” to wear the uniform. You were “well enough” to carry an M-16 against America’s enemies. But now; “The New Democratic Congress” says it’s time to turn in your hunting rifles and handguns if an “expert” (i.e., anybody with a phych degree) deems you to have PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder). It’s called the Veterans Disarmament Act by opponents such as myself; H.R. 2640 (an addendum to the Brady Act) by the gun-grabbers, and it’s PUTRID, unconstitutional, a slap in the face to ANY veteran who’s served in times of war, and it should be soundly defeated, but that’s not the point. While the Gun Owners Of America vehemently opposes this blatant attack on America’s bravest, the NRA says it’s just fine because once the veteran is deemed “safe” by an “expert psychologist”, they can go ahead and purchase self-protection weapons again.
From WorldNetDaily:
Gun owners ‘get stabbed in back’
‘Veterans Disarmament Act on way to president’Congress has given gun owners in America a Christmas gift: a blade in the back, according to officials with Gun Owners of America.
The organization said the plan supported by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and others, and known as the Veterans Disarmament Act by opponents, is being forwarded now to President Bush.
While other gun groups have endorsed H.R. 2640, a comprehensive plan to expand the powers of the Brady Bill gun restriction plan, Gun Owners of America has opposed it vigorously, and described its provisions for banning individuals, especially veterans, from owning guns as unreasonable.
“The core of the bill’s problems is section 101(c)(1)(C), which makes you a ‘prohibited person’ on the basis of a ‘medical finding of disability,’ so long as a veteran had an ‘opportunity’ for some sort of ‘hearing’ before some ‘lawful authority’ (other than a court),” the organization said in a new criticism of the plan. “Presumably, this ‘lawful authority’ could even be the psychiatrist himself,” the organization said.
“Note that unlike with an accused murderer, the hearing doesn’t have to occur. The ‘lawful authority’ doesn’t have to be unbiased. The veteran is not necessarily entitled to an attorney – much less an attorney financed by the government,” the group said.
Gun Owners of America earlier launched a campaign encouraging citizens to call their U.S. senators and ask them to oppose the bill that could be described as “disarmament by diagnosis.”
The Gun Owners also were joined by other organizations in opposing the proposal, including the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and the American Legion.
“The American Legion, the nation’s largest wartime veterans’ service organization, strongly opposes specific provisions of H.R. 2640 … that would unilaterally abrogate the rights of certain service-connected disabled veterans to own firearms, a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment,” the group said in a newly released statement. …”
(Snip!)
“… Pratt’s organization also has published an open letter to members of the National Rifle Association, which has not been opposing the legislation on the grounds there are provisions that would allow an improperly classified person to “regain” his or her Second Amendment rights. …”
(Snip!)
“… “Let’s make one thing clear: the efforts begun during the Clinton presidency to disarm battle-scarred veterans – promoted by the Brady Anti-Gun Campaign – is illegal and morally reprehensible. But section 101(c)(1)(C) of H.R. 2640 would rubber-stamp those illegal actions. Over 140,000 law-abiding veterans would be statutorily barred from possessing firearms.” …
Didn’t they mean the “Clinton co-presidency“?
Not exactly a feather in the cap of Her Majesty, Sir Hillary Rodham Clinton, who claims to have co-presided in the White House during the 1990’s, is it? Back to the point though…
Just what IS it about these Democrats anyway? Can’t wait to disarm themselves while their political opponents continue to build up their weapons collections. Sort of “Darwinian”, isn’t it? These so-called “liberals” had better hope and PRAY their heated arguments don’t ever overheat to the boiling point against their Police State brethren from across the aisle or they’re in BIG TROUBLE, wouldn’t you say?
I’ve never really understood the logic behind the will of the Democrats to disarm themselves during a (at this time — VERY, thank God) “civil” war of ideas. Luckily, I believe the U.S. Supreme Court will soon take the side of the Founders in re-declaring the RTKBA as a CIVIL LIBERTY, granted by our Creator and reaffirmed in the U.S. Constitution, penned in blood by much wiser men than our current crop of so-called “leaders” in Washington, or even on the campaign trail today.
Oh, and it’s not just the Dems who are making Darwin proud; the Republicans are equally self-destructive as they refuse to address preventative health care for those less economically fortunate than themselves. No problem, we’ll just allow a bunch of disease carriers to run around, spreading their ills, destined eventually to wind their ways into the homes of, yep — REPUBLICANS. Same thing with the Katrina disaster — ignore the plight of the poor in New Orleans, leave the water mains squirting into the air in abandoned neighborhoods, broken sewer pipes to pump feces into the water table — a sure way to ensure disease will wind its way right into the households of these same Republicans one day soon enough.
These are just a few reasons why I am more than happy to remain a completely, independent, libertarian-leaning liberal with a brain who refuses to let either group of these extremists to poison my thoughts with their Darwinian motives. I THINK for myself and so should YOU.
But back to the main point of the article — disarmament against the tyrants of the Nanny State and the Police State is not only UNCONSTITUTIONAL, it could be SUICIDAL one day. You just do NOT rob the (Civil) Right To Keep And Bear Arms from a free Citizen anymore than you rob them of the preceding Civil Right to speak freely — unless and until an individual has committed a crime worthy of such confiscations of their Creator-granted civil liberties and freedoms.
And SHAME on the National Rifle Association for not only standing idly by as this newest attack occurs, but for even going as far as to ENDORSE it. These are our veterans, for Christ’s Sake. And one cannot stoop any lower than that.
My advice: Contact your Representative NOW and let them know how you feel about the disarmament of those who fought for YOUR Right to Keep And Bear Arms.
***
UPDATE:
Hey, wouldn’t you know it — enjoy a perfect example of Republican Darwinism, brought proudly to you by Sister Toljah, and courtesy of MemeOrandum, now that I’ve pointed out the Darwinism hypocrisy of BOTH parties quite accurately I believe:
The abject failure of liberalism
I know this is the time of year where we’re supposed to show “good will” towards others in the spirit of the holiday season, but I’m not feeling especially charitable towards the left these days. Christmas is 2 days away. I’ll leave the left alone on that day and that day only.
I read this blogpost by Michelle Malkin this morning about a fanatical black woman shouting down white people during an angry New Orleans city council hearing last week in which a debate was held about razing public housing. The woman, Sharon Jasper, would have you believe she’s a poor, helpless, victim, but in reality this woman is a known activist in the area who lives in the projects …”
(Snip!)
“… To say that this is the epitome of the severe damage liberal “entitlement” programs have done to society would be an understatement of epic proportions. We have an entire class of people in this country who “expect” others to do everything for them, including subsidize their very existence, and they don’t want it done “on the cheap.” …
Pot, meet Kettle.
Thanks to Pam, of Right Voices, for linking in…
Thanks also to Buck Naked Politics for linking in…
Bloggers react: The Newshoggers (Left); Pursuing Holiness (Right)
Loading ...
7:13 pm on December 23rd, 2007 1
I did not realize this bill carried that restriction. It is absolutely unacceptable.
7:37 pm on December 23rd, 2007 2
[...] The Gun Toting Liberal has a must read that will really get your blood pressure up! I will give you a teaser: Correct — you were “well enough” to wear the uniform. You were “well enough” to carry an M-16 against America’s enemies. But now; “The New Democratic Congress” says it’s time to turn in your hunting rifles and handguns if an “expert” (i.e., anybody with a phych degree) deems you to have PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder). It’s called the Veterans Disarmament Act by opponents such as myself; H.R. 2640 (an addendum to the Brady Act) by the gun-grabbers, and it’s PUTRID, unconstitutional, a slap in the face to ANY veteran who’s served in times of war, and it should be soundly defeated, but that’s not the point. While the Gun Owners Of America vehemently opposes this blatant attack on America’s bravest, the NRA says it’s just fine because once the veteran is deemed “safe” by an “expert psychologist”, they can go ahead and purchase self-protection weapons again. [...]
10:07 pm on December 23rd, 2007 3
My views have evolved to being generally anti-gun control for a number of reasons. And this bill is a terrible bill. Vets who are entrusted with weapons in theaters of war, and then come home and are singled out and barred from possessing them is a logical perversion.
9:37 am on December 24th, 2007 4
GTL
Not to defend the indefensible, but the MSM would pummel the NRA if they objected to this. The MSM is completely in bed with the anti-gun forces. They would trumpet how the NRA wants any “Mentally Deranged” person to be able to own guns.
That said, there is still no excuse for the NRA to roll over on this one. Veterans make up the backbone of the NRA and other pro-gun rights groups. They deserve better.
9:06 pm on December 24th, 2007 5
the RTKBA granted by our creator, c’mon.
it’s just that type of thinking that ’scares wimpy godless liberal’ like me.
example: my friend, a marine, when he told me recently he’d applied for a permit to carry a handgun in mass., said to me, “…and that’s bad news for some people…”; he wasn’t kidding, he’s young, he gets in street fights all the time…as i understand it, the next time somebody threatens him- they’re dead, he already carries a 9mm, now he’ll be able to legally use it?
i’m not a lawyer, i don’t know…
9:16 pm on December 24th, 2007 6
maybe you could do a photoshop of Jesus holding a shotgun GTL, i think there would be a clear contrast there.
don’t misunderstand me please, i’m highly libertarian and really don’t like people telling me what i can and can’t do. so, by a roundabout way, i’m pro charlton heston.
10:19 pm on December 24th, 2007 7
I was young, a Vietnam vet that battled PTSD, a biker, that was prone to bar and street fights. I carried a pistol.
Odd thing. Never shot anyone. Never had the need.
Mass has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the so called free world. Doesn’t seem to me they have cut down a whole lot on the gun violence. They have just removed a honest persons ability to defend themself.
Keep in mind there were a whole lot of men that fought in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam that owned weapons, suffered from PTSD. The vast majority of them never committed any kind of weapon related crime.
11:34 pm on December 24th, 2007 8
Jesus advised us to carry a sword. They didn’t have guns back then…
1:50 am on December 26th, 2007 9
[...] — be we “left” leaning, OR “right” leaning, I PROMISE you — Darwin WILL prevail (from The GTL™, December 23rd, [...]
3:54 pm on December 26th, 2007 10
ok, i’ve offended you and your Savior GTL, but it wasn’t ad hominem…and we don’t fight combat with swords anymore as you well know.
anyway, there is much debate on Jesus’ meaning when he referance’s swords, to say the least. it’s hard for me to imagine worshipping a violent savior (though ‘life’ is quite violent ie. being eaten alive etc.), i’ve always viewed Jesus as the first berkeley radical hippie…which coming from me is a compliment to Him.
the schweitzerian(if you will) view of life and ethics is more rational to me, and he was a devout Christian who lived through WW2 europe.
“Schweitzer’s worldview was based on his idea of Reverence for Life (“Ehrfurcht vor dem Leben”), which he believed to be his greatest single contribution to humankind. His view was that Western civilization was in decay because of gradually abandoning its ethical foundations – those of affirmation of life.
It was his firm conviction that the respect for life is the highest principle. In a similar kind of exaltation of life to that of Friedrich Nietzsche, a recently influential philosopher of the time, Schweitzer followed the same line as that of the Russian Leo Tolstoy. Some people in his days compared his philosophy with that of Francis of Assisi, a comparison he did not contest. In his book The Philosophy of Civilization (all quotes in this section from chapter 26), he wrote:[18]
“True philosophy must start from the most immediate and comprehensive fact of consciousness: ‘I am life that wants to live, in the midst of life that wants to live’.”- he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.
to sum up, live and let live. remember, Schwietzer’s the guy that wouldn’t so much as swat a mosquito; and he lived and prospered and will be remembered long time, may his god bless him.
it sounds like i’m accusing you of being a something i don’t mean to…i’m afraid of guns, if that makes me a sissy, fine; i’ll get mugged and shot dead and darwin will win again.
Buffalo- i agree with everything you’ve written, and i’m not surprised that people who’ve actually seen combat would be the one’s to be MORE careful with firearms. but PTSD is not some trumped up psych disorder which means “REALLY stressed out and anxious”, which includes most Americans, IT IS SERIOUS SHIT, as you well know.
anywho, my story was meant as a cautionary tale, nobody carried guns in this suburb when i was growing, that would have been CRAZY. and all this guy needs to do is let someone put one finger on him and he’s gunna blow their f’ing face off…i’ll be sure to comment about it when it happens. admittedly, i have no argument- that would simply make of him a felon most likely.
and as i’ve said before, i’m quite comfortable with the fact that (i think) most states don’t issue gun permits to people on antidepressants and other such medication. fair enough, i say (this includes myself).
DaveM
i’d rather fight Chuck Liddell than get in a ‘duel’ with hannah montana.