Fine, you have offered your interpretation of the bill. Doesn't address the claim made by Bumbler....So I'll ask again... BUMBLER, PROVE YOUR CLAIM!!!!!!!
It's not an interpretation, the bill exempts law enforcement from the ban. Why doesn't she exempt ALL veterans? Why does she exempt ALL law enforcement? You would agree that it is more likely veterans recieve more training on "assault weapons" than law enforcement.
All she needed to do is take the law enforcement exemption away, and make the same presumption that cops may suffer from PTSD. Instead she made the argument against the exemption, presuming only veterans have PTSD , but not cops.
It's not an interpretation, the bill exempts law enforcement from the ban. Why doesn't she exempt ALL veterans? Why does she exempt ALL law enforcement? You would agree that it is more likely veterans recieve more training on "assault weapons" than law enforcement.
All she needed to do is take the law enforcement exemption away, and make the same presumption that cops may suffer from PTSD. Instead she made the argument against the exemption, presuming only veterans have PTSD , but not cops.
But Feinstein wasn't willing to exempt veterans like law enforcement, because she makes the assimption that returning vets may have PTSD, but she doesn't make that same assumption with law enforcement. So she is able to determine ALL law enforcement do not and will not suffer from PTSD, but she can't make that determination for military veterans.
That's your interpretation! Unless she told you she wasn't willing or that it is documented as a direct quote from her, then you are making that determination...i.e. your interpretation!
PS - She is not an authority on this and quite honestly, I don't support her as a credible representative. I have her in a category with Pelosi, Palin, Bachman....not my choice of representation!!!!
STILL WAITING FOR BUMBLER TO PROVE HIS CLAIM!!!!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
That's your interpretation! Unless she told you she wasn't willing or that it is documented as a direct quote from her, then you are making that determination...i.e. your interpretation!
Quoted Text
Her bill seeks to reinstate and expand the ban on assault weapons that was first enacted in 1994, but which lapsed in 2004. It would prohibit semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature, such as a pistol grip or telescoping. Purchasing the AR-15 Bushmaster rifle, which was used by the shooter in Newtown, would be illegal under the ban.
Mrs. Feinstein's measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel.
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.
Read and posted some of that already...you're going in circles and still, how you phrased and commented, it was an INTERPRETATION! This is supported by your own links where the wording you used is not present. So again, let me provide this quote.
Quoted Text
In response, Senator Feinstein stated neither that "all vets are mentally ill" nor that "the government should prevent [veterans] from owning firearms"; that claim is a highly exaggerated paraphrase of her remarks. What Feinstein did do was express her opinion that creating an exemption in an assault weapons ban (not a general firearms ban) for retired military personnel might was inadvisable due to both the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among that group and the difficulty of verifying that a potential gun purchaser was in fact a veteran, and that the proposed amendment should therefore include a provision for screening out "mentally incapacitated" veterans: Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/feinstein.asp#AdgKc7eAtZD4Wo0c.99
Notice, this is even not what BUMBLER thinks it said or has bothered to try and provide proof for his claim!!!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Read and posted some of that already...you're going in circles and still, how you phrased and commented, it was an INTERPRETATION! This is supported by your own links where the wording you used is not present. So again, let me provide this quote.
Notice, this is even not what BUMBLER thinks it said or has bothered to try and provide proof for his claim!!!
Fully understand what Feinstein said, it's here ACTIONS in the law exempting ALL law enforcement from the ban. Her concern is with PTSD of returning vets, but does not share that same concern with retired law enforcement. ALL veteran are BANNED from owning an assault weapon, while ALL retired law enforcement are exempted. And the reason she will not exempt vets is because she believes they suffered from a mental disorder. She clearly says she is concerned on how vets prove themselves mentally fit under the law, while law enforcement does not have to. Law enforcement is categorically exempted, with no screening for mental illness.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist here..........REALLY!! Grasping for straws!!
It just amazes me how ANY vet (active or retired) can't see the writing on the wall. How the collective government takes NO responsibility for creating these 'dangerous' men/women. How once you become 'government issue'.....they will control and own you to the grave!!!
Looks like the collective government is correct............all vets are mentally ill and dangerous if they can't see thru this crap!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
So Bumbler, is your poster accurate or not??? Is your post what Feinstein said or not???
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Fully understand what Feinstein said, it's here ACTIONS in the law exempting ALL law enforcement from the ban. Her concern is with PTSD of returning vets, but does not share that same concern with retired law enforcement. ALL veteran are BANNED from owning an assault weapon, while ALL retired law enforcement are exempted. And the reason she will not exempt vets is because she believes they suffered from a mental disorder. She clearly says she is concerned on how vets prove themselves mentally fit under the law, while law enforcement does not have to. Law enforcement is categorically exempted, with no screening for mental illness.
You just want to make it your won instead of what was/is said. (1) "ALL veteran are BANNED from owning an assault weapon" FALSE! Not said in the bill or her statements. It's your false interpretation. (2) "And the reason she will not exempt vets is because she believes they suffered from a mental disorder." FALSE! Not said in the bill or her statements. It's your false interpretation.
Read the information again and try to understand it instead of making it fit your agenda!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
It doesn't take a rocket scientist here..........REALLY!! Grasping for straws!!
It just amazes me how ANY vet (active or retired) can't see the writing on the wall. How the collective government takes NO responsibility for creating these 'dangerous' men/women. How once you become 'government issue'.....they will control and own you to the grave!!!
Looks like the collective government is correct............all vets are mentally ill and dangerous if they can't see thru this crap!!
Step up and prove your fabrications Bumbler....why don't you provide the proof asked for. Stop going MIA when people ask for proof and provide it or retract it or qualify it. You love to throw fabrications out there and never prove what you say. FACT! And while we are at it, you claim you don't slam Vets,,,what do you call this crap???? "Looks like the collective government is correct............all vets are mentally ill and dangerous if they can't see thru this crap!!" I see straight through your crap!!!!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
You just want to make it your won instead of what was/is said. (1) "ALL veteran are BANNED from owning an assault weapon" FALSE! Not said in the bill or her statements. It's your false interpretation. (2) "And the reason she will not exempt vets is because she believes they suffered from a mental disorder." FALSE! Not said in the bill or her statements. It's your false interpretation.
Read the information again and try to understand it instead of making it fit your agenda!
Read the bill summary. The only people exempted from the bill are military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement. Everybody else the isn't listed as exempt are subject to the law(including veterans) So your neighbor, the retired police officer can possess the types of banned weapons listed in the law, while you, a vet, with probably tons more training on those types of weapons, IS BANNED from possessing them. This isn't an interpretation, it's how the law is written.
Honestly, I'm shockedthat a veteran would not be offended by such a blatant disregard for you service. A retired cop has more rights than you guys that are told you risk your lives protecting them.
Honestly, I'm shocked that a veteran would not be offended by such a blatant disregard for you service. A retired cop has more rights than you guys that are told you risk your lives protecting them.
me 2!! There are no words left. ya can't cure stupid!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
me 2!! There are no words left. ya can't cure stupid!
Ya sure can't!
You must have missed my post. I'll ask it again: So Bumbler, is your poster accurate or not??? Is your post what Feinstein said or not???
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
me 2!! There are no words left. ya can't cure stupid!
Stupid is people that fabricate information and post it here with "FACT" after it when it is a complete lie! Stupid is when people post fabricated information from their imaginary friends and family and claim it is FACT! Stupid is when people post these "FACT" items and are asked to prove it they just go MIA and avoid it BECAUSE THEY CAN'T PROVE ANY OF IT!!! Pretty stupid huh Bunbler...FACT!!!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Read the bill summary. The only people exempted from the bill are military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement. Everybody else the isn't listed as exempt are subject to the law(including veterans) So your neighbor, the retired police officer can possess the types of banned weapons listed in the law, while you, a vet, with probably tons more training on those types of weapons, IS BANNED from possessing them. This isn't an interpretation, it's how the law is written.
Honestly, I'm shockedthat a veteran would not be offended by such a blatant disregard for you service. A retired cop has more rights than you guys that are told you risk your lives protecting them.
I read the bill and all the articles, and that was not the issue about what you posted...and you know that! OKAY, I give...you are spinning everything around to cover up that what you posted was interpretation and I have no energy to play your game. I could just sit here and agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
ALL ACTIVE/RETIRED VETS SHOULD BE SHOCKED AND APPALLED!!!!
Quoted Text
On Thursday, Michael Connelly, J.D., executive director of the United States Justice Foundation, said that veterans are receiving letters informing them that the government is about to declare them incompetent to handle their own affairs. As a result, Connelly said, the government will "appoint a stranger" to handle their affairs at their expense, and restrict them from owning firearms. Worse yet, he says, this is being done without due process.
“A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2),” the letter reportedly says.
According to Connelly, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has sent this letter to "hundreds, perhaps thousands" of veterans.
"In my capacity as Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) I have been contacted by some of these veterans and the stories I am getting are appalling," he added.
The letter contains no specifics and gives no reason for the proposed judgment other than to say that someone in the VA has made the recommendation. The letter then tells the veteran that he or she must provide evidence to the contrary within 60 days. If the veteran desires a hearing, they must inform the VA within 30 days.
Connelly says this clearly violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
"In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent. This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall '…be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,'” he wrote.
He goes on to say the effort is part of the administration's effort to disarm Americans.
"Think about it," he wrote, "the men and women who have laid their lives on the line to defend us and our Constitution are now having their own Constitutional rights denied." Connelly then wonders if recipients of Social Security are next in line.
"Will the government declare that you are incompetent because of your age and therefore banned from firearm ownership. It certainly fits in with the philosophy and plans of the Obama administration. It is also certain that our military veterans don’t deserve this and neither do any other Americans," he concluded.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Logged
