FEINSTEIN "ALL VETERANS ARE MENTALLY ILL"

So now this stupid, clueless, lack of knowing the truth congresswoman from california, thinks (because she has no clue) that all veterans have PTSD and should not be allowed to own a weapon. So making accusations without facts to back it up. Imagine that. She and napalitano should get together and have a party because they are both just plain stupid. No other word for it. This is being talked about everywhere also. This is one of many that was posted.

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.actio ... 4981857373

If a weapon is banned in the United States, even veterans cannot legally buy one, it is called the law.

If this is so, then our country was established, expanded, and settled by a bunch of crazies.

But I see that she thinks that PTSD was a modern product of the Iraq war. How stupid can she be?

Arlen wrote: If this is so, then our country was established, expanded, and settled by a bunch of crazies.

It just proves the point, that people that have no clue about guns, and those that own them, are trying to get laws enacted without having a clue. Just trying to make a name for themselves at the expense of others.

If she had a clue she would know that alot of the police, CIA, FBI, and other agencies throughout the United States have former military members that serve within that organization. So its all about running off at the mouth, without having the facts to back up what she says.

I guess she has never heard of a DD-214.

I have to wonder how she would feel after disarming most of the Secret Service and the Capital Police. Or is she only against the citizens, the people who put her in office, owning firearms?

Is Senator Fineswine is competing for Uncle Joe's job as the official gaffe master of the left?

She is most probably married to an urbansexual.

Wow...

I guess the poster:

"CIVIL UNREST is coming"
Member since:
December 19, 2010"

...needs a course in reading comprehension... This quote does NOT say "all veterans have PTSD and should have their Second Amendment stripped."

"…this adds an exemption of retired military. As I understand our bill, no issue has arose in this regard during the 10 years the expired ban was 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… 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."

Since IT IS A FACT that SOME have PTSD with impairment so severe that they SHOULD NOT have weapons, perhaps she was thinking of:

Link: Death of Former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle Puts Spotlight on PTSD ...

Ya think?...

I guess that would make the poster using the wacko handle "CIVIL UNREST is coming" a liar... Since she did NOT say "all veterans have PTSD and should have their Second Amendment stripped.", and the quote from her testimony shows that... Unless, of course, YOU are suggesting that ALL veterans are "incapacitated for one reason or another, mentally."

How interesting...

LadyJazzer wrote: Wow...

I guess the poster:

"by CIVIL UNREST is coming"
Member since:
December 19, 2010"

...needs a course in reading comprehension... This quote does NOT say "all veterans have PTSD and should have their Second Amendment stripped."

"…this adds an exemption of retired military. As I understand our bill, no issue has arose in this regard during the 10 years the expired ban was 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… 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."

Since IT IS A FACT that SOME have PTSD with impairment so severe that they SHOULD NOT have weapons, perhaps she was thinking of:

Link: Death of Former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle Puts Spotlight on PTSD ...

Ya think?...

I guess that would make the poster using the wacko handle "CIVIL UNREST is coming" a liar... Since she did NOT say "all veterans have PTSD and should have their Second Amendment stripped.", and the quote from her testimony shows that... Unless, of course, YOU are suggesting that ALL veterans are "incapacitated for one reason or another, mentally."

How interesting...

The poster has no problem reading what all the articles I read on this stated. There was no misinterpretation either. It says right in her so called speech that "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 let me help you out, if passed they would not be able to sell a person a firearm if they suspect that individual was a veteran and then have to make a judgement if that veteran was impaired or not. They are not qualified to do it. So it is not hard to understand it at all. Funny how all the reporters that reported this, (and because they are not from a liberal one they are wrong) all reported the same thing, so its nothing but a lie cause they are all reporting the same thing "Feinstein basically said all veterans have PTSD and should have their Second Amendment stripped. In response to the amendment, she said the following:

The exemption for military veterans she is referring to, if you read the whole story, is that she does not want an exemption for military veterans to continue to be allowed to buy weapons that are outlawed under her bill. Got no problem with that. I do have a problem when someone runs thier mouth about what they know nothing about.

Excuse me but what is "her so-called speech"...It was either a speech or it wasn't... If it was a dialogue, then it wasn't a speech. If it wasn't a speech, then why call it a "so-called speech"?

"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."

That's pretty friggin' unambiguous to me... "FIND A WAY..." to discern which veterans who have some form of severe or incapacitating PTSD so that they don't get weapons... I don't care HOW right-wing you are--you CAN NOT make that into "ALL VETERANS SHOULD LOSE THEIR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS."

That's simply NUTS, and you know it... IT IS A FACT that SOME have PTSD with impairment so severe that they SHOULD NOT have weapons...PERIOD... She's telling the person that they should TRY to "FIND A WAY" to discern that... I have NO PROBLEM with that. You STILL CAN NOT make that into "ALL VETERANS SHOULD LOSE THEIR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS (because they're all 'mentally ill')." She didn't say it...and you can't imply it.

navycpo7 wrote: she does not want an exemption for military veterans to continue to be allowed to buy weapons that are outlawed under her bill. Got no problem with that.

I have no problem with that either... I DO have a problem with this moronic mindset that "if you haven't served, you don't know anything about anything." That's B.S. too...

You know I respect you, sir...But I do think you are buying into a total misrepresentation (and the usual pro-gun hyperbole) of the extremists that want to conjure up interpretations that the facts do NOT bear out. If the authorities could have prevented Eddie Ray Routh from having weapons, Chris Kyle would be alive today.

Sorry, I have to side with LadyJazzer on this one. In no way do I read that statement as claiming all veterans are mentally ill. Even with my mistrust of the woman and her agenda.