"Vets are mentally ill"? REALLY???!!!

[IdaRam]

This woman is the poster child for why we need the Second Amendment now more than ever.
And I dislike the LA Times less and less every day...

Dianne Feinstein: "All vets are mentally ill in some way, and government should prevent them from owning firearms."

Yep, - she really said it on Thursday in a meeting in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.... and the quote below from the LA Times is priceless. Sometimes even the L.A. Times gets it right!!!

Quote of the Day from the Los Angeles Times: PRICELESS!!!

"Frankly, I don't know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I'm not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we're Number One. There's no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Maxine Waters, and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on ' Macbeth '. The four of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of blab. You don't know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words."
Columnist Burt Prelutsky,
Los Angeles Times

 

[Royal27]

I have no words... is that really a quote??? That seems nuts even for her!!!

 

[35bore]

I have no words... is that really a quote??? That seems nuts even for her!!!

There are NO words to attempt to understand what these globalist are spitting out for the sheep to swallow without question.

Anyone can proclaim that someone else is mentally ill. Does that make them right? I think not. Is it more mentally ill to send a 20 year old to fight and possibly die for another persons political advancement? Me thinks yes. Is it mentally ill to send said 20 year old to do a deed, but if killed or captured said 20 year old is not acting on said political figures authority? The mentally ill are running the world, plain and simple.

No country is immune to this epidemic, we all know it. What are we going to do should be the question. ..

They call vets nuts, because they (politicians) don't have the courage nor the patriotism to do the things we do and have done! They are the ones who are ill. Ordering someone to kill someone else is NO different than killing that person yourself. I bet $1000 this bitch has signed off on those papers before.

 

[35bore]

There are NO words to attempt to understand what these globalist are spitting out for the sheep to swallow without question.

Anyone can proclaim that someone else is mentally ill. Does that make them right? I think not. Is it more mentally ill to send a 20 year old to fight and possibly die for another persons political advancement? Me thinks yes. Is it mentally ill to send said 20 year old to do a deed, but if killed or captured said 20 year old is not acting on said political figures authority? The mentally ill are running the world, plain and simple.

No country is immune to this epidemic, we all know it. What are we going to do should be the question. ..

They call vets nuts, because they (politicians) don't have the courage nor the patriotism to do the things we do and have done! They are the ones who are ill. Ordering someone to kill someone else is NO different than killing that person yourself. I bet $1000 this bitch has sigNed off on the paperwork.

Sorry for ranting.

 

[Scott Slough]

This erroneous quote was sent around the internet 2 years ago.

 

[35bore]

Mr. and Mrs. America, if I had the votes I would take them all.

That's an old quote too, from Dianne Frankenstein, and it still pisses me off to this day.

 

[IdaRam]

I agree @35bore . The latest trend on gun control is "mental health". I fear that will become a hurdle put in the way of obtaining firearms. A "prove you are not crazy" test.
So, I've been doing some digging to check the validity of the quote above.
Here's some of what I found
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 for retired military personnel might be 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:
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 ten 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.
Nonetheless, what Senator Feinstein actually did say was the subject of some harsh criticism. Shawn J. Gourley, co-founder of the organization Military with PTSD, penned a rebuttal that took the senator to task for asserting that PTSD was a "new phenomenon" and suggesting it was an issue only for military veterans:
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.

 

[Velo Dog]

There are NO words to attempt to understand what these globalist are spitting out for the sheep to swallow without question.

Anyone can proclaim that someone else is mentally ill. Does that make them right? I think not. Is it more mentally ill to send a 20 year old to fight and possibly die for another persons political advancement? Me thinks yes. Is it mentally ill to send said 20 year old to do a deed, but if killed or captured said 20 year old is not acting on said political figures authority? The mentally ill are running the world, plain and simple.

No country is immune to this epidemic, we all know it. What are we going to do should be the question. ..

They call vets nuts, because they (politicians) don't have the courage nor the patriotism to do the things we do and have done! They are the ones who are ill. Ordering someone to kill someone else is NO different than killing that person yourself. I bet $1000 this bitch has signed off on those papers before.

+1 with 35bore here (Yes, the loonies are evidently taking over the asylum).

 

[Upton O. Good]

Having worked with combat veterans for over 20 years, including veterans from WWII to present day combat theaters, I am in awe of their self control and ability to make choices for themselves regarding firearms. A number of vets have chosen not to own firearms, citing a number of reason. Other vets have CWP's and are armed to the teeth but do not act out with firearms. Unless a veteran was suicidal or I had concerns about his potential for self harm, I would never suggest to that individual that maybe they should let another family member or a trusted friend hold onto their firearm for the time being. Most individuals in this situation did just that. (In 20 years I never had a vet commit or even attempt to commit suicide).

PTSD is thought to result from huge surge in adrenaline and cortisol into the brain during trauma events. These chemicals alter the brain chemistry which produces the hyper-vigilence, exaggerated startle response, intrusive memories, flashbacks, nightmares, etc. And, so far, once the brain has been "shocked" by the chemicals there is no way to make it "switch back" to a state prior to trauma. In other words, when you change a cucumber to a pickle you can not change it back to cucumber again.

The sad part is the irresponsible media that starts labeling and inventing stories which they append to veterans with the common thread of "combat veterans have PTSD and are crazy, see this story we're publishing now". An in depth interview and assessment of the subject of that story would most likely would show the individual committing firearms offense had issues prior to enlisting in the military.

The other ingredient in dealing with PTSD is the use of alcohol and certain other drugs. Individuals with trauma histories frequently over use, abuse and/or are dependent on substances. When using these substances, their judgement becomes flawed and their behavior erodes quickly. The number one challenge in treating a veteran with PTSD is to assist them with addressing the substance use, find ways to avoid triggers for substance use and have "management plans" in place to avoid violent acting out. Most combat vets have seen so much horror they really don't care to see any more.

Interestingly, if you read the biography of Robert Ruark you will see both PTSD from his military service and his heavy use/dependence on alcohol. And he was definitely armed to the teeth. If you haven't read it, it is a good read.

Hemingway also had a significant trauma history and some other issues. His suicide was tragically a result of the times and a lack of effective, helpful mental health treatment. He was actually further disabled by the medical interventions that were used at the time (electro-convulsive shock therapy). He was also trying to get a handle on his drinking at the time of his suicide.

 

[Red Leg]

I am not necessarily a Feinstein fan, but I am pretty sure she never actually said this. When I was Army Chief of Legislative Liaison, we always found her level-headed and very respectful of the uniformed services and veterans. Of course I wasn't defending gun rights in those discussions. Boxer and Waters were a very different experience.

Unfortunately, a minority of fellow veterans are perpetuating some of this by taking advantage of the PTSD phenomena. And it undermines the real needs of those in need, while painting all of us who saw combat with a very broad and unflattering brush. I had a reservist in my former corporation milking the system. He made the mistake of filing a complaint to "senior management" which landed on my desk. I introduced him to motivational dialogue as a new form of treatment.

We just need to be careful not to arm our enemies.

 

[BRICKBURN]

This erroneous quote was sent around the internet 2 years ago.

Ill Advised

Claim: Senator Dianne Feinstein said that "All vets are mentally ill and the government should prevent them from owning firearms."

FALSE

Examples: [Collected via e-mail, April 2013]

Can you verify this quote? Dianne Feinstein: "All vets are mentally ill and the government should prevent them from owning firearms."

Origins: A subject of discussion during a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on 7 March 2013 was an amendment offered by Texas senator John Cornyn which sought to modify the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 legislation proposed by California senator Dianne Feinstein by allowing an exemption for former military personnel (in addition to an exemption for retired law enforcement personnel which was already part of the bill). Senator Cornyn objected to the notion that the original bill should provide an exemption for retired law enforcement but not for retired military, saying (in part):
Members and veterans of the Armed Forces are the most highly-trained and qualified individuals to own these weapons for self-defense purposes. We should think long and hard before disarming these heroes, preventing them from protecting their families and communities.

Is it because we believe [retired police] have some special competency and training to use these weapons to defend themselves and others, or do we think their families are worthy of special protection?

If you don't believe these weapons can be used lawfully for self-defense, then you should be offering an amendment to strike the pass for law enforcement. But of course, I don’t expect that.
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 be 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:
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 ten 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.
Nonetheless, what Senator Feinstein actually did say was the subject of some harsh criticism. Shawn J. Gourley, co-founder of the organization Military with PTSD, penned a rebuttal that took the senator to task for asserting that PTSD was a "new phenomenon" and suggesting it was an issue only for military veterans:
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.
Others countered that the means for verifying a potential firearms purchaser's status as a veteran were already readily available (or could easily be made so):
First of all, there is a very easy way to find out if an individual was a member of the armed forces. It is called a DD-214 and I highly doubt any veteran would be opposed to providing that information to a registered firearms broker if it meant they could get certain guns they wish to own. If Feinstein were serious about this, she would put extra personnel and funding into the National Archives to make DD-214s more quickly accessible or make sure that information is accessible in any background check which are already required by law to receive a gun. Everything she is worried about is already covered by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or NICS. Between 2001 and 2011, the FBI reports that over 100 million Brady Act background checks were performed; resulting in more than 700,000 gun purchases being denied.

Variations: Some later versions of this item included the following block of text:
Quote of the Day from the Los Angeles Times:

Frankly, I don't know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I'm not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we're number one. There's no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on "Macbeth".

The three of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of speech. You don't know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words.

Columnist Burt Prelutsky,
Los Angeles Times
This paragraph was indeed part of a larger piece authored by Burt Prelutsky, but Prelutsky is not a Los Angeles Times columnist, nor were these words published in that newspaper. Burt Prelutsky is a conservative pundit (who occasionally sends letters to the Los Angeles Times), and the text reproduced here is the concluding paragraphs of his 6 December 2009 blog post, "The New and Improved Iron Curtain."

Last updated: 5 January 2014
Source: http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/feinstein.asp

 

[IdaRam]

So, I've been doing some digging to check the validity of the quote above.
Here's some of what I found
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.

Yup, sorry to propagate an exaggeration. Per above quote, Feinstein did not actually say this. She drew the ire of some folks who took exception to what she did say and who paraphrased and exaggerated her comments.

 

[BRICKBURN]

Happens! Whatever.

 

[tarbe]

I have no words... is that really a quote??? That seems nuts even for her!!!

I agree. I guess it was too "good" to be true!

 

[tarbe]

I read the rest of the thread and had to edit my post above....appears it was too crazy even for Diane!

 

[lcq]

"Frankly, I don't know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I'm not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we're number one. There's no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on "Macbeth".

The three of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of speech. You don't know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words. "

truer words were never written

 

[lcq]

Yup, sorry to propagate an exaggeration. Per above quote, Feinstein did not actually say this. She drew the ire of some folks who took exception to what she did say and who paraphrased and exaggerated her comments.

It never would have gained any traction if not for the fact that Feinstein and her fellow travelers have proven time and again that is what they believe and their end game is to abolish the second amendment and private firearms ownership. Never smoke without fire

 

[Brent in Az]

The Democrats know that most Veterans are true Patriots, and would stand against the socialist, and totalitarian Government these Libtards are trying to create. Veterans know how to handle weapons, and that scares the people on the radical left. It's not about gun control, it's about people control. Democrats will attack on any angle they can to chip away at the freedom of gun ownership.

There are some vets with issues, but we can't just lump all Vet's into the same category. Our Government should help them, instead of labeling them.

 

[lcq]

The Democrats know that most Veterans are true Patriots, and would stand against the socialist, and totalitarian Government these Libtards are trying to create. Veterans know how to handle weapons, and that scares the people on the radical left. It's not about gun control, it's about people control. Democrats will attack on any angle they can to chip away at the freedom of gun ownership.

There are some vets with issues, but we can't just lump all Vet's into the same category. Our Government should help them, instead of labeling them.

the most terrifying words uttered by governments the world over. "we are doing this in the interests of public safety". it always goes down the same road and never ever results in retention of your freedoms

 

[Bobpuckett]

With no time served in the Military I wounder what is the reason for her mental illness??? No doubt in my mind she's a frigging Nut!!!