Perhaps a reference or link would be in order. I did a brief search. Could not find such a remark by Feinstein before the Senate Judiciary Committee in recent times. Almost anything can be claimed on the internet. When you read something that seems unlikely, or ridiculous, it is always a good idea to check it out before propagating it.
"All Vets Are Mentally ill.. should be prevented from owning guns..." -- Dianne Feinstein
- Thread starter Scataphagos
- Start date
Do you believe everything that comes to you in your email? If so, that would explain you misplaced anger.1. It was forwarded to me in an email.
2. Checking sources, one says it's accurate, now some ET'ers say it's not. Which to believe? (Just because somebody tells you this statement isn't true, how the hell do you know you're right?..)
3. Feinstein, Boxer, Waters, Pelosi are all arguably Leftist/Commie CUNTS! (Regardless of this issue.)
4. Any anti-American, Liberal thing they say or do supports my argument against them and Libtards in general.
5. Don't like it? Sue me.
1. It was forwarded to me in an email.
2. Checking sources, one says it's accurate, now some ET'ers say it's not. Which to believe? (Just because somebody tells you this statement isn't true, how the hell do you know you're right?..)
3. Feinstein, Boxer, Waters, Pelosi are all arguably Leftist/Commie CUNTS! (Regardless of this issue.)
4. Any anti-American, Liberal thing they say or do supports my argument against them and Libtards in general.
5. Don't like it? Sue me.
My comment was more a dig on kut2k who, apparently has forgotten that he has made some claims before that turned out to be false, and when asked for proof replied "I saw it on a hard copy and cannot produce it here".
The essence of what's attributed to her is correct.
If I understand this, this [amendment] adds an exemption of retired military. As I understand our bill, no issue has arose [sic] in this regard during the 10 years the expired ban was in effect and what we did in the other bill was exempt possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States. So that included active military. The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this. So, you know, I would be happy to sit down with you again and see if we could work something out but I think we have to — if you’re going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally don’t have access to this kind of weapon.
the following is a rebuttal to her position from Shawn J. Gourley, co-founder of the organization Military with PTSD:
PTSD is not a, "new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War." It has been called soldier's heart in the Civil War, shell shock in WWI, battle fatigue in WWII, and only most recently, post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. PTSD made its first appearance in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Third Edition, which was published in 1980. The doctors who lobbied for its inclusion viewed it as a measure that would finally legitimize the pain and suffering of Vietnam War veterans.
However, adding PTSD to the DSM turned out to be an action with more far-reaching effects than just that population; it opened doors for a lot of people who desperately needed help. PTSD is a psychological reaction that occurs after an extremely stressful event involving the threat of injury or death. Anyone can get PTSD at any age. This includes war veterans, police officers, firemen, and survivors of physical and sexual assault, abuse, accidents, disasters, and many other serious events. So as you can see, Senator, with all due respect, PTSD is not exclusive to either veterans in general or specifically veterans of the Iraq War.
Senator Feinstein, your bill already has an exemption for retired law enforcement officers, but did you know nationwide, it's estimated as many as 18 percent of police are suffering from PTSD according to a CBS News article in 2012? So I ask you: Why are 100 percent of veterans being stripped of the right to own these types of firearms because of "no way to verify that there was no impairment of that individual," that might affect only 30 percent of that population, but you seem to have no problem allowing assault weapons to law enforcement officers, of which 18 percent may be suffering from this same "impairment," as you say? PTSD in a veteran is the equivalent of PTSD in law enforcement officers. They all have the same symptoms.
If I understand this, this [amendment] adds an exemption of retired military. As I understand our bill, no issue has arose [sic] in this regard during the 10 years the expired ban was in effect and what we did in the other bill was exempt possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States. So that included active military. The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this. So, you know, I would be happy to sit down with you again and see if we could work something out but I think we have to — if you’re going to do this, find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally don’t have access to this kind of weapon.
the following is a rebuttal to her position from Shawn J. Gourley, co-founder of the organization Military with PTSD:
PTSD is not a, "new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War." It has been called soldier's heart in the Civil War, shell shock in WWI, battle fatigue in WWII, and only most recently, post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. PTSD made its first appearance in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Third Edition, which was published in 1980. The doctors who lobbied for its inclusion viewed it as a measure that would finally legitimize the pain and suffering of Vietnam War veterans.
However, adding PTSD to the DSM turned out to be an action with more far-reaching effects than just that population; it opened doors for a lot of people who desperately needed help. PTSD is a psychological reaction that occurs after an extremely stressful event involving the threat of injury or death. Anyone can get PTSD at any age. This includes war veterans, police officers, firemen, and survivors of physical and sexual assault, abuse, accidents, disasters, and many other serious events. So as you can see, Senator, with all due respect, PTSD is not exclusive to either veterans in general or specifically veterans of the Iraq War.
Senator Feinstein, your bill already has an exemption for retired law enforcement officers, but did you know nationwide, it's estimated as many as 18 percent of police are suffering from PTSD according to a CBS News article in 2012? So I ask you: Why are 100 percent of veterans being stripped of the right to own these types of firearms because of "no way to verify that there was no impairment of that individual," that might affect only 30 percent of that population, but you seem to have no problem allowing assault weapons to law enforcement officers, of which 18 percent may be suffering from this same "impairment," as you say? PTSD in a veteran is the equivalent of PTSD in law enforcement officers. They all have the same symptoms.