260,000 Veterans Have Lost Their Gun Rights Since December

[frigidweirdo]

Dylann Roof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You know Dylann Roof? He was a Christian. He killed 9 people.

A terrorist act? Almost certainly.

So, just because he was a Christian, does this mean all Christians are terrorists? No it does not.

So Muslims commit acts. Does this mean all Muslims are terrorists? No, it does not.


The point here being that you make some comment about Muslims. I reply saying this isn't so.

I make THE SAME POINT you make about Christians, and then you come, not with an argument, but you a way of avoiding discussing what I have said.

If a Muslim commits a terrorist act, should ALL MUSLIMS be considered guilty for this and suffer the repercussions?

If a Christian commits a terrorist act, should ALL MUSLIMS be considered guilty for this and suffer the repercussions?

So, let's see if you can reply sensibly to my comments, or if you're going to just attack something or other and avoid.

Isolated incidents hardly count as terrorism.
When Christians start calling for the mass murder of everyone who isnt a Christian you can talk.

Define "Isolated incidents"!!!

Terrorism does include isolated incidents. Terrorism is terrorism.

terrorism: definition of terrorism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims:"

So, when a White Supremacist goes and does an "Isolated incident", it might not be as isolated as you think.

Besides, it makes no different. Christians kill people. Therefore are all Christians a danger and need to have their rights removed?

Also, your last comment is just another tactic of many people to avoid talking about the subject. Again, are you going to talk properly or are you just going to play these silly games?

SOME Muslims, not most, not all, just some, call for the mass murder of all who aren't Muslims. Should ALL MUSLIMS be punished for this? Yes or no?

Show me where Christians have called for the death of all unbelievers.

Why?

What does this have to do with anything?

Stop fucking around and answer my question.

SOME Muslims, not most, not all, just some, call for the mass murder of all who aren't Muslims. Should ALL MUSLIMS be punished for this? Yes or no?

Actually their religious writings call for the killing of all unbelievers. The Prophet Mohammad told his followers to either convert or kill all unbelievers. The only exception is some that are useful can be 3rd class citizens by paying a tax to live under the control of Islam but when their usefulness is gone they either convert or die.

Religious writings say a lot of things. That doesn't mean people have to accept ever single thing written in their religious books, does it? I mean, it's impossible.

Contradictions in the Bible | A Comprehensive List of Contradictions in the Bible, identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them. By Dr. Steven DiMattei, biblical scholar

Here's just one website that shows contradictions in the Bible.

When it comes to killing... well, you have contradictions too.

Matthew 5:21 - Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

Exodus 20:13 - Thou shalt not kill.

So, we have plenty of quotes from the Bible saying killing is bad.

Exodus 21:12-14 - He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

Romans 13:4 For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

Exodus 21:22-25 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

And here we have the justification for killing.

So, what do Christians do? Do they say you should not kill? Do they kill in the name of their religion as the Bible says you should? Do you accept the contradictions and choose to mold the Bible into the shape you want it to be shaped in?

The same goes for Muslims.

In the Koran 5:32 you have this:
"
Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. "

5:40

"
Do you not know that to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth? He punishes whom He wills and forgives whom He wills, and Allah is over all things competent."

So what do Muslims do? Do they accept the killing or do they see the contradictions?

Again, same question for Christians as for Muslims.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Isolated incidents hardly count as terrorism.
When Christians start calling for the mass murder of everyone who isnt a Christian you can talk.

Define "Isolated incidents"!!!

Terrorism does include isolated incidents. Terrorism is terrorism.

terrorism: definition of terrorism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims:"

So, when a White Supremacist goes and does an "Isolated incident", it might not be as isolated as you think.

Besides, it makes no different. Christians kill people. Therefore are all Christians a danger and need to have their rights removed?

Also, your last comment is just another tactic of many people to avoid talking about the subject. Again, are you going to talk properly or are you just going to play these silly games?

SOME Muslims, not most, not all, just some, call for the mass murder of all who aren't Muslims. Should ALL MUSLIMS be punished for this? Yes or no?

Show me where Christians have called for the death of all unbelievers.

Why?

What does this have to do with anything?

Stop fucking around and answer my question.

SOME Muslims, not most, not all, just some, call for the mass murder of all who aren't Muslims. Should ALL MUSLIMS be punished for this? Yes or no?

Actually their religious writings call for the killing of all unbelievers. The Prophet Mohammad told his followers to either convert or kill all unbelievers. The only exception is some that are useful can be 3rd class citizens by paying a tax to live under the control of Islam but when their usefulness is gone they either convert or die.

Religious writings say a lot of things. That doesn't mean people have to accept ever single thing written in their religious books, does it? I mean, it's impossible.

Contradictions in the Bible | A Comprehensive List of Contradictions in the Bible, identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them. By Dr. Steven DiMattei, biblical scholar

Here's just one website that shows contradictions in the Bible.

When it comes to killing... well, you have contradictions too.

Matthew 5:21 - Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

Exodus 20:13 - Thou shalt not kill.

So, we have plenty of quotes from the Bible saying killing is bad.

Exodus 21:12-14 - He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

Romans 13:4 For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

Exodus 21:22-25 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

And here we have the justification for killing.

So, what do Christians do? Do they say you should not kill? Do they kill in the name of their religion as the Bible says you should? Do you accept the contradictions and choose to mold the Bible into the shape you want it to be shaped in?

The same goes for Muslims.

In the Koran 5:32 you have this:
"
Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. "

5:40

"
Do you not know that to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth? He punishes whom He wills and forgives whom He wills, and Allah is over all things competent."

So what do Muslims do? Do they accept the killing or do they see the contradictions?

Again, same question for Christians as for Muslims.

Hates Christians but loves muslims....go figure.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I'll agree, but that should be decided on a case-by-case basis.... NOT by a blanket denial of the very rights our vets fought to protect, based on some murky criteria.

so you think someone deemed incapable of handling their own money should be trusted to handle a firearm?

Another liberal who can't read. It doesn't say anyone "deemed" them to be anything, most of them asked for help probably from someone in their family. Had a court declared them incompetent you would have a point. But your point is based on one you made up or just didn't understand or grasp, doesn't say that. My sister helps my mother with medical decisions and I manage her finances. She's wise, not incompetent

this is just incorrect. 'help' is not the same as a conservatorship.
if you can't be trusted to make sound decisions about va benefits why should uou be trusted with a deadly weapon?

I'm pretty sure not everyone that depends on government welfare are fully capable of making sound financial decisions. Does this mean the government now has a right to step in and make a determination whether they should be trusted in receiving further financial benefits?

people on 'welfare' do have their finances managed, to a point, by the government.

Seriously? If that's the basis for which you define "financial management", you could say that of everyone that receive their benefits and income straight from the government, to include veterans. So in one single statement, you just nullified your entire previous response.

Those who serve in the military, by the way, are the most equipped of anyone in knowing how to handle and respect a firearm.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Well, if you're mentally ill. Should you have a gun?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Good for the VA

With the number of PTSD suicides, the last thing these guys need is a handy firearm

That should be determined by qualified physians to determine not the government to "assume" for all to be told after their service to defend this nation. Rather veterans of PTSD should be offered assistance through federal funded programs if Obama showed any real serious interest in helping veterans. Doubtful, but he could at least appear to show some real concern.

If you are diagnosed and being treated for PTSD it is only common sense that you surrender your guns for the protection of yourself and others

That's not what I said in my response. Being diagnosed by a competent trained physician is a lot different than a government making a decision based on prejudice by assumption without any established medical facts of the individual's personal health given. If Presidrnt Obama did seriously care about veterans with PTSD he would based his decision on a case by case basis with regard to firearms

are you under the impression that obama has something to do with either the reporting or the background checks?

Are you saying our government health care system is incapable of determining if a patient, that depends on the government system (Medicare) for treatment, is able to qualify for a certain medical procedure? Do we not have a health care mandate that uses the IRS to investigate and enforce everyone's participation in the new medical system?

If there is no concluded report that a veteran suffers from a medical condition, such as PTSD or any other oroven illness that would deem the individual a threat, then there is no basis by which the government can take away their firearm.

 

[Iceweasel]

Meanwhile:

New Trend: Seniors Are Packing Heat

So y'all still have ample opportunity to kill each other and your spouses and children and friends and relatives and neighbors and...

...or muggers. Sorry, robbing old folks is getting harder for you. Maybe switch to prostitution to support your drug habits?

 

[Iceweasel]

Well, if you're mentally ill. Should you have a gun?

Right now liberals are allowed but we probably do need to fine tune it.

 

[kaz]

I didn't say the VA has to go to court for their determination, I said actually they don't have to do that. I said they have to go to court to get someone's Constitutional rights restricted. Try to keep up.

Have you taken a civics class and learned how your government works? The judicial branch has the right to adjudicate, not the executive branch. Think about that, you're arguing the executive branch should be able to remove Constitutional rights on it's own.

Now in this country, who knows what the courts will rule. But the Constitution is clear. You want to remove someone's Constitutional rights? Fine, but you have to follow due process of law, which specifically means:

1) The legislative branch must enact the law you violated
2) The executive branch must enforce the law by arresting and charging you with violation of the law
3) The judicial branch must interpret the law and concur you broke it and pass a sentence which includes limiting your Constitutional rights.

There are no legitimate Constitutional shortcuts to that process

then you have no issue with the va as they are doing just what they are required to do.

your issue is with the law and has nothing to do with the va.

Are you reading the conversation or just posting?

do you take issue with the va for reporting the mental incompetence to the fbi?

it's a simple question.

now you may think that i'm not paying attention but it's you that seems unable to follow.
the law says that it's illegal to sell guns or ammunition to someone that is mentally incompetent. that incompetence includes people that have had their decision making assigned to someone else because they are incompetent.

people deemed incompetent can appeal that decision. they can challenge the finding and the law in court. they have not lost their right to due process but the law says they can't be sold guns or ammo.

why do you want guns in the hands of the mentally incompetent?

So yes, you are posting without reading the conversation.

Again, I'm good with all that. You completely missed the issue. The issue is due process. The executive branch (in this case the military) cannot remove Constitutional rights without due process, which means going to the judicial branch to PROVE their case.
Nowhere did you address the actual point, yet again. Everything you say is fine, if they prove it in a court of law, then they can remove the right to have a firearm

if that's what you think fine, but that's not reality. reality says it's illegal to sell to them. reality says unless that law is challenged and ruled unconstitutional it stands.

so why hasn't it been challenged?

It's not what I "think," it's our legal system. Maybe you need to take a civics class and learn about the three branches of government and their roles

 

[kaz]

So yes, you are posting without reading the conversation.

Again, I'm good with all that. You completely missed the issue. The issue is due process. The executive branch (in this case the military) cannot remove Constitutional rights without due process, which means going to the judicial branch to PROVE their case.
Nowhere did you address the actual point, yet again. Everything you say is fine, if they prove it in a court of law, then they can remove the right to have a firearm

if that's what you think fine, but that's not reality. reality says it's illegal to sell to them. reality says unless that law is challenged and ruled unconstitutional it stands.

so why hasn't it been challenged?

What law?

the gun control act of 1968

The gun control act of 1968 says that veterans forfeit their civil rights? Where does It say that?

Don't be an idiot.

That's exactly what you are arguing,, the executive branch can remove your civil rights without proving dick in a court

 

[kaz]

Well, if you're mentally ill. Should you have a gun?

Swish, now there's a guy who doesn't follow the conversation at all in any way.

No one's arguing they should, try to keep up

 

[Obiwan]

kind of bringing things back to the op - this isn't a new thing. the mental incompetence rule has been in place since 1968. the va is recognized, legally, as being able to make that determination.

why would anyone want the mentally incompetent to have greater access to guns?

Well except for the LEGAL requirement that before one LOSE a protected right ONE MUST BE so adjudged by competent authority which MEANS a JUDGE not a bureaucracy.

And the fight's coming...
VA and FBI Blocking Veterans From Owning Guns

The Obama administration is facing congressional scrutiny for blocking more than a quarter-million military veterans from owning guns.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has reported more than 257,000 former members of the military who cannot manage their finances to the FBI’s list of people who are not allowed to own guns, Republicans claim, even though “it has nothing to do with regulating firearms.”

“The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is effectively a national gun ban list and placement on the list precludes the ownership and possession of firearms,” Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley wrote in a recent letter to VA Secretary Robert McDonald.

The VA is responsible for appointing a fiduciary to help veterans who it determines cannot manage their own finances, but the agency is also taking the additional step of reporting these veterans to the “mental defective” category of the FBI’s background check system, even if they do not pose a danger to society, the senators allege.

The senators called the practice “highly suspect” and said veterans’ ability to manage their own finances is “totally unrelated” to whether they should be prohibited from owning a gun.

“Under the current practice, a VA finding that concludes a veteran requires a fiduciary to administer benefit payments effectively voids his Second Amendment rights,” the senators wrote.

“At no time in the process does the VA determine a veteran to be a danger to themself or others, a key determinant for whether someone is a ‘mental defective,’ precluding the right to own firearms,” they added.

In a separate letter to Senate appropriators, Grassley requested lawmakers block the VA from continuing this practice in the upcoming budget negotiations.

Grassley also complained about the practice in another letter sent last year to the Justice Department.

Republicans hope the congressional inquiries will pressure the VA to stop the practice.

 

[jon_berzerk]

the instant checks system is a joke

half the time it delays my purchase other times

they dont bother to reply in three days

 

[ogibillm]

kind of bringing things back to the op - this isn't a new thing. the mental incompetence rule has been in place since 1968. the va is recognized, legally, as being able to make that determination.

why would anyone want the mentally incompetent to have greater access to guns?

Well except for the LEGAL requirement that before one LOSE a protected right ONE MUST BE so adjudged by competent authority which MEANS a JUDGE not a bureaucracy.

And the fight's coming...
VA and FBI Blocking Veterans From Owning Guns

The Obama administration

which is what this 'controversy' is really about - attacking obama.
the law says the mentally incompetent cant own or be sold guns, and the law says if you can't be trusted to make your own decisions you aren't mentally competent.

this isn't new, it's been happening since 1968. you guys just want to blame obama

 

[jon_berzerk]

kind of bringing things back to the op - this isn't a new thing. the mental incompetence rule has been in place since 1968. the va is recognized, legally, as being able to make that determination.

why would anyone want the mentally incompetent to have greater access to guns?

Well except for the LEGAL requirement that before one LOSE a protected right ONE MUST BE so adjudged by competent authority which MEANS a JUDGE not a bureaucracy.

And the fight's coming...
VA and FBI Blocking Veterans From Owning Guns

The Obama administration

which is what this 'controversy' is really about - attacking obama.
the law says the mentally incompetent cant own or be sold guns, and the law says if you can't be trusted to make your own decisions you aren't mentally competent.

this isn't new, it's been happening since 1968. you guys just want to blame obama

due process part of the constitution the prezbo likes to overlook the constitution

 

[ogibillm]

kind of bringing things back to the op - this isn't a new thing. the mental incompetence rule has been in place since 1968. the va is recognized, legally, as being able to make that determination.

why would anyone want the mentally incompetent to have greater access to guns?

Well except for the LEGAL requirement that before one LOSE a protected right ONE MUST BE so adjudged by competent authority which MEANS a JUDGE not a bureaucracy.

And the fight's coming...
VA and FBI Blocking Veterans From Owning Guns

The Obama administration

which is what this 'controversy' is really about - attacking obama.
the law says the mentally incompetent cant own or be sold guns, and the law says if you can't be trusted to make your own decisions you aren't mentally competent.

this isn't new, it's been happening since 1968. you guys just want to blame obama

due process part of the constitution the prezbo likes to overlook the constitution

again, this has fuckall to do with the president.

they have due process. if they want to challenge the va's finding they can.

 

[Obiwan]

kind of bringing things back to the op - this isn't a new thing. the mental incompetence rule has been in place since 1968. the va is recognized, legally, as being able to make that determination.

why would anyone want the mentally incompetent to have greater access to guns?

Well except for the LEGAL requirement that before one LOSE a protected right ONE MUST BE so adjudged by competent authority which MEANS a JUDGE not a bureaucracy.

And the fight's coming...
VA and FBI Blocking Veterans From Owning Guns

The Obama administration

which is what this is really about.
the law says the mentally incompetent cant own or be sold guns, and the law says if you can't be trusted to make your own decisions you aren't mentally competent.

this isn't new, it's been happening since 1968. you guys just want to blame obama

Sorry, Jackass, but you're WAY off base. Someone with serious MENTAL HEALTH issues can be dangerous (and shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm if that can be proven), but the fact that someone has problems balancing their checkbook doesn't make them dangerous.


So the question is, will the VA agree to go by the law, or face the wrath of the Senate when their budget comes up???

Would you like to place a bet on the outcome???

 

[jon_berzerk]

kind of bringing things back to the op - this isn't a new thing. the mental incompetence rule has been in place since 1968. the va is recognized, legally, as being able to make that determination.

why would anyone want the mentally incompetent to have greater access to guns?

Well except for the LEGAL requirement that before one LOSE a protected right ONE MUST BE so adjudged by competent authority which MEANS a JUDGE not a bureaucracy.

And the fight's coming...
VA and FBI Blocking Veterans From Owning Guns

The Obama administration

which is what this 'controversy' is really about - attacking obama.
the law says the mentally incompetent cant own or be sold guns, and the law says if you can't be trusted to make your own decisions you aren't mentally competent.

this isn't new, it's been happening since 1968. you guys just want to blame obama

due process part of the constitution the prezbo likes to overlook the constitution

again, this has fuckall to do with the president.

they have due process. if they want to challenge the va's finding they can.

the fuck it dont asshole

the prezbo is responsible for the success or failure of the va

plus the prezbo pledges over a bible

that he will uphold the Constitution

removing ones rights without due process is stunningly obvious violation of the Constitution

 

[ogibillm]

kind of bringing things back to the op - this isn't a new thing. the mental incompetence rule has been in place since 1968. the va is recognized, legally, as being able to make that determination.

why would anyone want the mentally incompetent to have greater access to guns?

Well except for the LEGAL requirement that before one LOSE a protected right ONE MUST BE so adjudged by competent authority which MEANS a JUDGE not a bureaucracy.

And the fight's coming...
VA and FBI Blocking Veterans From Owning Guns

The Obama administration

which is what this is really about.
the law says the mentally incompetent cant own or be sold guns, and the law says if you can't be trusted to make your own decisions you aren't mentally competent.

this isn't new, it's been happening since 1968. you guys just want to blame obama

Sorry, Jackass, but you're WAY off base. Someone with serious MENTAL HEALTH issues can be dangerous (and shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm if that can be proven), but the fact that someone has problems balancing their checkbook doesn't make them dangerous.

so change the law

So the question is, will the VA agree to go by the law

the va is going by the law. the senators are pushing for them to ignore it

 

[ogibillm]

Well except for the LEGAL requirement that before one LOSE a protected right ONE MUST BE so adjudged by competent authority which MEANS a JUDGE not a bureaucracy.

And the fight's coming...
VA and FBI Blocking Veterans From Owning Guns

The Obama administration

which is what this 'controversy' is really about - attacking obama.
the law says the mentally incompetent cant own or be sold guns, and the law says if you can't be trusted to make your own decisions you aren't mentally competent.

this isn't new, it's been happening since 1968. you guys just want to blame obama

due process part of the constitution the prezbo likes to overlook the constitution

again, this has fuckall to do with the president.

they have due process. if they want to challenge the va's finding they can.

the fuck it dont asshole

the prezbo is responsible for the success or failure of the va

plus the prezbo pledges over a bible

that he will uphold the Constitution

removing ones rights without due process is stunningly obvious violation of the Constitution

they have due process

 

[Iceweasel]

kind of bringing things back to the op - this isn't a new thing. the mental incompetence rule has been in place since 1968. the va is recognized, legally, as being able to make that determination.

why would anyone want the mentally incompetent to have greater access to guns?

Well except for the LEGAL requirement that before one LOSE a protected right ONE MUST BE so adjudged by competent authority which MEANS a JUDGE not a bureaucracy.

And the fight's coming...
VA and FBI Blocking Veterans From Owning Guns

The Obama administration

which is what this 'controversy' is really about - attacking obama.
the law says the mentally incompetent cant own or be sold guns, and the law says if you can't be trusted to make your own decisions you aren't mentally competent.

this isn't new, it's been happening since 1968. you guys just want to blame obama

It's happening now while it didn't before under this administration. How does obama get a pass? And you pretty much ignored the whole conversation to cling to your idol.