It's a common topic of discussion among not only vets but those who are still serving, even if NG or Reserve.
PTSD has it's difficulties, but perceiving the system as attempting to rat you out as if there is a propensity to violence is the exact same thing as demonizing any other mental health issue - there is no blanket determination, it's case by case.
There is also the issue of prior restraint, and I don't mean the printed word version. Can you limit the rights of an individual simply because someone in authority thinks they might commit violence?
The ongoing debate over Monica's Law gives some insights. Husband beats wife, gets told stay away, violates order. Now what do you do?
I believe that simply due to the liability of needing defensible reasoning in court, it's going to take documentation of previously committed acts to justify a denial of rights. We already do that with forms of sexual crime. Convicted pedophiles cannot live within close distance to a school.
Now, extend that to the school bus shooter who kidnapped the kid: known to carry a gun, was aggressive about defending his property, was known to be building an underground bunker. Public knowledge of his behavior pattern suggests that in the future, it's going to get a lot more attention from local officials.
That alone is going to drive some to even greater lengths of privacy, too. That lead to the case of the guy who had the neighbor girl straw purchase firearms, which he used to shoot firemen who responded to his house burning. Can we even see that coming? Or do all felons now fall onto a list?
Post that on the internet, you will find neighborhoods filled with vets, felons, pedophiles, and preppers, and in rural areas, most of the Mennonite and Amish, too. They don't depend on much of American government, they mind their own business, do what they want on their land, pay cash, are debt free, have weeks if not months of food stored, etc.
Where do you draw the line? Who gets to say - same people proposing the AWB? Or are we just crumpling the tin foil a little tighter again?
And when things go terribly wrong, what will the backlash be? Been there, done that, we didn't see Tim McVeigh.
What all to many forget are the unintended consequences of issues. They cannot be predicted or foreseen. In this rush to make a solution and impose it on the public, I ask - how much did the AWB actually contribute to the current interest in AR15? Industry reports show they sell in larger quantities than traditional firearms.
I say again, AR15's sell in larger quantities than traditional firearms.
That started when the AWB had it's sunset, and it's been a major shift in the industry. The non AR shooter has missed it entirely, they have no clue. Just a nagging thought that their favorites are falling away.
So, the issue is, how do we keep America's documented sporting and hunting rifle selling as the majority of firearms sold out of the hands of people who we may not feel comfortable having them? Good luck with that.
It does nothing since those individuals with propensity to firearms violence can use something else. Looking at the variety of weapons used in school shootings alone, it's already been done.
The AWB is just a symbol being used by the antigunners to deprive us of our rights, so they can gain even more political power over the country. After that, they will then ban the next kinds of guns used, and then, the next. That track record already exists in Britain and Australia.
Everything else they propose can't and won't ever keep perpetrators of violence from acting. Take ALL the guns away, we still have the biggest examples left - bombs, and hijacked planes.
That is why there is no need to compromise, and why a list won't do any good. You can't see them all, and humans have a unique tendency to get around the law in a surprising amount of ways. They are going to do what they are going to do.
We cannot make the world safe. What we need to be doing is to be able to protect ourselves, and that is a documented fact throughout history. Deliberately choosing to be a victim means there will be. It's simply a matter of playing the odds and maybe you won't be.
Not all of us are comfortable with that. If you want to, go ahead, and I'll appreciate it if you don't impede my choices to do otherwise. You don't have the right to take away my rights, and the first is freedom of choice.
Don't count on many vets to sign up for PTSD treatment. They didn't serve to come home and be seen as damaged goods not to be trusted, especially when it's a political ploy meant to disarm the population at large.
