Apparently the VA is now denying veterans the opportunity to purchase weapons.
I'm sorry, but they are clearly up to something!!!
They are trying to strip anyone capable of defending against a government takeover from any possible resistance they might be able to offer. There is literally no other possible explanation that makes any sense at all.
Between this, the stripping of the 2nd amendment, the approved use of drones, the purchase of 1.6 billion bullets by DHS, the newly granted ability of DHS to search anyone in a "border state", it's clear Obama is trying to push us towards a socialist globalist government/police state. Socialists and communists LOVE police states.
This is absolutely no different than how democracy has died in every other country in recorded history that got turned into a socialist/ fascist nation.
Even the purposeful collapse of the economy plays it's role. How can ANYONE support this????
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/...-firearms/
Thank you veterans for putting your lives at risk.
More conservotainment. The gift that keeps on giving.
Unless this is only for extreme mental problems cannot think of a more feasible conclusion than you one you mentioned.
(02-22-2013 09:50 AM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2013 09:49 AM)firmbizzle Wrote: [ -> ]More conservotainment. The gift that keeps on giving.
And if it's true?
firmbizzle is armed with the deadliest of weapons: snark.
Next will come being obtuse.
Then he'll explain how they're actually more free b/c of this.
Liberals have no problem with an overbearing, high-taxing, abusive central government.
In the American Revolution, they would have been the tories.
(02-22-2013 09:49 AM)firmbizzle Wrote: [ -> ]More conservotainment. The gift that keeps on giving.
Provide something of substance or f.ck off idiot. If you could possibly support this you are beneath scum.
(02-22-2013 09:49 AM)GoApps70 Wrote: [ -> ]Unless this is only for extreme mental problems cannot think of a more feasible conclusion than you one you mentioned.
Mental problems according to whom? We don't take away rights to people in this country unless an actual crime is committed or planned... period... not because a shrink, judge or bureaucrat says that some day a person might possibly commit a crime.
(02-22-2013 09:58 AM)EverRespect Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2013 09:49 AM)GoApps70 Wrote: [ -> ]Unless this is only for extreme mental problems cannot think of a more feasible conclusion than you one you mentioned.
Mental problems according to whom? We don't take away rights to people in this country unless an actual crime is committed or planned... period... not because a shrink, judge or bureaucrat says that some day a person might possibly commit a crime.
Don't we put folks in mental facilities for that very reason?
(02-22-2013 09:55 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote: [ -> ]Liberals have no problem with an overbearing, high-taxing, abusive central government.
In the American Revolution, they would have been the tories.
Liberals are generally unhappy with life and society in general. That is why they constantly want to change society.
(02-22-2013 09:59 AM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2013 09:58 AM)EverRespect Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2013 09:49 AM)GoApps70 Wrote: [ -> ]Unless this is only for extreme mental problems cannot think of a more feasible conclusion than you one you mentioned.
Mental problems according to whom? We don't take away rights to people in this country unless an actual crime is committed or planned... period... not because a shrink, judge or bureaucrat says that some day a person might possibly commit a crime.
Don't we put folks in mental facilities for that very reason?
As far as I know, we don't put adults in facilities unless they themselves sign off on it or they have committed a crime, in which case a judge does have that leeway. We are not and should not be a society that just locks people up because someone thinks they are nuts. That is pretty much exactly how Hitler and Stalin were able to consolidate power. If you are willing to compromise freedom in the name of security, you get neither.
(02-22-2013 09:58 AM)EverRespect Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2013 09:49 AM)GoApps70 Wrote: [ -> ]Unless this is only for extreme mental problems cannot think of a more feasible conclusion than you one you mentioned.
Mental problems according to whom? We don't take away rights to people in this country unless an actual crime is committed or planned... period... not because a shrink, judge or bureaucrat says that some day a person might possibly commit a crime.
If you can be involuntarily committed because you are a danger to your self or others than there is precedence to not allow the exercise of other rights.
Not saying it should be done easily but there has to be a bar somewhere.
(02-22-2013 09:58 AM)EverRespect Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2013 09:49 AM)GoApps70 Wrote: [ -> ]Unless this is only for extreme mental problems cannot think of a more feasible conclusion than you one you mentioned.
Mental problems according to whom? We don't take away rights to people in this country unless an actual crime is committed or planned... period... not because a shrink, judge or bureaucrat says that some day a person might possibly commit a crime.
While not a right, don't ever trust the government to protect your civil liberties.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Man-L...741747.php
(02-22-2013 10:11 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2013 09:58 AM)EverRespect Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2013 09:49 AM)GoApps70 Wrote: [ -> ]Unless this is only for extreme mental problems cannot think of a more feasible conclusion than you one you mentioned.
Mental problems according to whom? We don't take away rights to people in this country unless an actual crime is committed or planned... period... not because a shrink, judge or bureaucrat says that some day a person might possibly commit a crime.
If you can be involuntarily committed because you are a danger to your self or others than there is precedence to not allow the exercise of other rights.
Not saying it should be done easily but there has to be a bar somewhere.
I disagree, it is a slippery slope and would actually make society more dangerous because nobody would even bother seeking help if it is punitive. Imagine living in a world where anyone who has taken Ritalin or has seen a shrink for any reason (even something as minor as help with coping with a death) can have their rights taken away... or anyone diagnosed with depression, bipolar, aspergers or some other subjective disease that everyone in the country seems to have (or whatever the flavor of the month is to sell a pill). It is already on its way with Obamacare, which requires all doctors to ask if you have a gun in your home. No thanks, I'd rather take my one and a billion chance that I'll be gunned down randomly by a lunatic. And if you read the article, it is about denying vets the right to bear arms because they might be mentally damaged. That is madness akin to going through all Americans' bank records and confiscating the vehicles of anyone who has purchased alcohol because they are more predisposed to drive drunk.
(02-22-2013 09:50 AM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2013 09:49 AM)firmbizzle Wrote: [ -> ]More conservotainment. The gift that keeps on giving.
And if it's true?
I expect this kind of stuff from RRM but you are smarter than this. Some guy creates a story on his website from his basement and everybody gets upset. Typical conservotainment. It will probably get picked up by Drudge, then Beck and Rush will devote an hour on the radio to it. Fox & Friends will use it as their opening story Monday morning. By Wednesday, Ted Cruz will give a speech about it on the Senate floor. I'm enjoying this train wreck.
(02-22-2013 10:48 AM)firmbizzle Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2013 09:50 AM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2013 09:49 AM)firmbizzle Wrote: [ -> ]More conservotainment. The gift that keeps on giving.
And if it's true?
I expect this kind of stuff from RRM but you are smarter than this. Some guy creates a story on his website from his basement and everybody gets upset. Typical conservotainment. It will probably get picked up by Drudge, then Beck and Rush will devote an hour on the radio to it. Fox & Friends will use it as their opening story Monday morning. By Wednesday, Ted Cruz will give a speech about it on the Senate floor. I'm enjoying this train wreck.
And the fact that he has an actual email from the VA, as do other vets, isn't the least bit important is it dunce?
God you are predictable and dumb.
(02-22-2013 10:50 AM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2013 10:48 AM)firmbizzle Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2013 09:50 AM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2013 09:49 AM)firmbizzle Wrote: [ -> ]More conservotainment. The gift that keeps on giving.
And if it's true?
I expect this kind of stuff from RRM but you are smarter than this. Some guy creates a story on his website from his basement and everybody gets upset. Typical conservotainment. It will probably get picked up by Drudge, then Beck and Rush will devote an hour on the radio to it. Fox & Friends will use it as their opening story Monday morning. By Wednesday, Ted Cruz will give a speech about it on the Senate floor. I'm enjoying this train wreck.
And the fact that he has an actual email from the VA, as do other vets, isn't the least bit important is it dunce?
God you are predictable and dumb.
1.)The Brady Act was signed in 1993, by Bill Clinton
2.)If someone is incompetent to handle their VA funds, why would/should they be allowed to operate a firearm?
So you be the dumb and predictable one for trying to stir $h1+ up about Obama. What a joke.
(02-22-2013 10:04 AM)EverRespect Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2013 09:59 AM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2013 09:58 AM)EverRespect Wrote: [ -> ] (02-22-2013 09:49 AM)GoApps70 Wrote: [ -> ]Unless this is only for extreme mental problems cannot think of a more feasible conclusion than you one you mentioned.
Mental problems according to whom? We don't take away rights to people in this country unless an actual crime is committed or planned... period... not because a shrink, judge or bureaucrat says that some day a person might possibly commit a crime.
Don't we put folks in mental facilities for that very reason?
As far as I know, we don't put adults in facilities unless they themselves sign off on it or they have committed a crime, in which case a judge does have that leeway. We are not and should not be a society that just locks people up because someone thinks they are nuts. That is pretty much exactly how Hitler and Stalin were able to consolidate power. If you are willing to compromise freedom in the name of security, you get neither.
Civil commitment is allowed in this country. As its name implies this is a civil procedure unrelated to any previous violation of criminal law. Perhaps its most common use is with people deemed to be sex predators, who are civilly committed not because of their past crimes (it happens after they would have been released from prison) but because the danger they will commit future crimes. It is also used for the mentally ill and developmentally disabled.
http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/l...-standards
It appears the Brady Bill prohibits a certain class of mental ill people to be prohibited from owning firearms. The letters seem to be telling the veterans that if they are deemed incomptent (to the extent that a fiduciary need be appointed to handle their VA benefits) they will fall into this category. It also gives them the opportunity to present additional evidence and request a hearing. You can (barely) read a full copy of one of the letters here:
http://redflagnews.com/headlines/disarmi...ammunition
I have no idea how many veterans are getting these letters and I have no idea how good the evidence they based their preliminary determination is. Given it's a government operation I suspect it's rife with errors, including veterans who are in no way incompetant receiveing letters, but it will take a little more to convince me it's a nefarious government plot.
(02-22-2013 11:03 AM)firmbizzle Wrote: [ -> ]So you be the dumb and predictable one for trying to stir $h1+ up about Obama. What a joke.
Kinda like those who mindlessly defend him.
Joke, indeed.