Senator Feinstein expressed her opinion that creating an exemption in an assault weapons ban for retired military personnel might was inadvisable due to
1. the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among that group and
2. the difficulty of verifying that a potential gun purchaser was in fact a veteran, and (seems she never heard of a DD-214)
3. that the proposed amendment should therefore include a provision for screening out "mentally incapacitated" veterans" (as it should be for everyone, including police)
If I understand this, this [amendment] 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 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.
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.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/feinstein.asp#KsPCRcUTAYxSSSdW.99
===========================================================
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, 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
http://tinyurl.com/kgcgqs6
Prelutsky paraphrases Feinstein's remarks but is not quite accurate as snoops points out as these bill concerns only assault type weapons.
1. the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among that group and
2. the difficulty of verifying that a potential gun purchaser was in fact a veteran, and (seems she never heard of a DD-214)
3. that the proposed amendment should therefore include a provision for screening out "mentally incapacitated" veterans" (as it should be for everyone, including police)
If I understand this, this [amendment] 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 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.
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.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/feinstein.asp#KsPCRcUTAYxSSSdW.99
===========================================================
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, 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
http://tinyurl.com/kgcgqs6
Prelutsky paraphrases Feinstein's remarks but is not quite accurate as snoops points out as these bill concerns only assault type weapons.
Last edited:
