Go to the Hospital in Illinois and Lose Your Gun Rights

Ooooooooooh!
That's gotta hurt

Just filled my chamber with Pine-Sol today too. :5:

Look up the VETERANS DISARMAMENT ACT

Its all part of the same game.. they will get them one way or another.

In this day and age, can you honestly tell me that you are so naive that you could possibly believe that this policy is for the benefit of the citizenry? This is plainly an excuse to cast the net extra wide and disarm as many gun owners as they can. It is a gun grab as naked as the law will allow. There is a reason everyone laughs when you say "I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Smell the freaking coffee.. please

the SS# gives them jurisdiction :)

Be careful of what kind of toilet paper you use too. I know you have heard of 'Smart Dust,' the latest nanotechnology to follow us all about and eavesdrop.

I know this country is headed down a dangerous path entirely, but Illinois has got to be one of the worst states to live in. Let me tell you, I live 10 mins from that shitty state, and I'm glad to be on this side of the Mississippi River and not over there! Illinois people barely have a 2nd amendment, far worse than other states. And now this..

Isn't it ironic.. "They're over there fighting for our freedoms!".. then they come home, and there isn't much freedom left.

Fucking right, I agree!!

this is a great law.
it means less idiots, hopefully GLP members, will have less guns.

Ok, California needs kicked out of the U.S., and now Ill-noise, needs an ass kick to the moon.

These vermin will be the start of a nation wide trend. Time to man up and get these asswipes out of business.

No wonder Obama is such a dick head. Look where he came from. (or was that Kenya?)

Last Edited by Ricfly52 on 11/21/2009 09:53 PM

I think I will go buy another gun on Monday, something scary looking that holds lots of boolits.

I've smelled a lot of freaking coffee. Enough to know when it's gotten too strong to drink without getting heartburn.

And I consider myself a realist. That to me means recognizing that there are many in the goverment who do want our guns.

And it still means that I don't want any MI people running around on the streets with loaded weapons. When you've met enough of them you'll know this is a good idea.

The gun-happys and the gun deniers are both unhealthy extremes of the spectrum.

Balance is my middle name. Out there on the end is teetery. ;)

It's the ones on the ends that are throwing everything out of whack, ya know. If you want to stay afloat you gotta stay in the center of the boat. (And you can have a gun, too, if you aren't a nut-job.)

A gun is a practical tool, but deadly, and needs to be handled by someone who isn't ruled by impulse.

How dare you!!

Don't play dumb with me. I did NOT wish death on the OP. What I did, with an economy of words was to point out the reason why such might be in place.

I was shot at at the Strathfield massacre (look it up) and saw people I knew killed.

Such an experience will make one want to support the removal of weapons from the mentally ill!

People who have been ruled mentally unstable by the courts have been denied firearms for decades.

This is a whole new ball of wax, where a 10 minute interview in the emergency room can strip someone of their rights forever.

Only a freaking nazi would support this.

I voluntarily checked myself into a hospital a few years BEFORE the Virginia Tech massacre. My best friend for 12 years Killed himself and my parents were afraid I would do the same. Long story short...they made me turn in my gun card but after 5 years I was elibible to get it again.

This law is not new due to the Virginia Tech tragedy.(Concerning giving up your gun rights)

Please get the facts straight before making accusations.

That's interesting. Something similar happened to my hubby in Pennsylvania.

We were there visiting family for the holidays, and my hubby celebrated the festivities by having a few drinks with his uncle. It was a holiday for goodness sakes.

My hubby has a history of back trouble, and that night his back acted up enough for me to drive him to the hospital. The doctor did not ask him any questions about drinking, and the examination seemed routine.

It was only later that we found out the doctor had filed an official statement labeling my hubby an alcoholic, because he had smelled booze on my hubby's breath. The doctor also speculated on the record that my hubby's back pain was most likely due to an injury that occurred from falling down drunk.

As soon as we heard this, we paid the bill out of pocket in cash. We did not want our insurance company or any officials in our state of origin getting wind of it. Fortunately, this was back in the days before they asked for ID or a social security number. And it seemed to work; the problem went away.

The whole thing was ridiculous. My husband was not drunk and does not have a drinking problem at all. Sheesh, it was a holiday. I really have to wonder how many people that doctor has labeled alcoholics around New Years Eve.

Nice! I wonder if this was something Obama cooked up before he left senate? Thought we would be a good place to start...

if someone puts out a restraining order on you, in MA, no matter what the reason; they seize all the guns registered to any family member...

Now there's a state with its share of large cities and the criminal gangs to go with them. I wonder how many gang-bangers and illegals, which is where most of the crime problems are coming from, are actually registering their guns? Why, by the way, are the people putting up with this illegal seizure of their private property? Where do these 'laws' or ordinances come from?

Having been a former EMT, I can attest to the fact that many mental health care providers are deeply disturded. This comes from the fact that they were drawn to the profession through their troubled past's...most police and fire department personnel try to sheild individual's from them!!!!

DCFS should be elimilinated in ILLINOIS, it causes more problems and expensive court cases then it should. Most professional services such as police and fire department's abhore them!!!!

In all seriousness, I've found in the last few years, that if you're talking with someone, and the subject of anti-depressants come up, and they find out that you're not taking any, everyone looks at you like you're the one that's mentally ill.

I'd guestimate that approximately 80-85% of all the people I know are on some sort of prescribed, mind-altering drug for some sort of depression or "mental illness". It use to be that it was something to be ashamed of, but now it's like people boast about what drugs they are on, and what "mental illness" label they've had attached to them. I think it's really forked up!!

In "Brave New World Revisited", in chapters I & III, Huxley talks about what you posit. It makes 1000% total sense!

We, as a society, have been brainwashed into "group think", which is totally incompatible with individuality and freedom. I'd highly suggest reading Huxley's commentary on his own book, written like 27 years after he wrote Brave New World. I was totally dumbfounded by how semi-prophetic his book is...and where we're at today.

I see before us a combination of 1984, blended bitter-sweetly with Brave New World...and we have our present conditions.

:pin: :flipoffnan:

I hope YOU never have a gun when you need one, for what you just said PROVES that law abiding people NEED guns to protect themselves from the mentally unstable folk such as YOURSELF.
I'm sure you're a nice person and all that, but if blood needs to be spilled, may it start with YOU.

[link to www.youtube.com]

Every time you buy put one in the safe and one in the ground. Same with ammo (of course). Burying your own firearms and/or ammunition is not illegal.

Just realize that when the day arrives that they take your guns (there never will be an outright ban, they will take the firearms one person at a time, like this article suggests) they are gonna want to know where the rest are.

Call it "firearms insurance".

Not to worry:


Senate Bill Would Allow "Mentally Incapacitated" Vets to Buy Guns

By Corbin Hiar November 16, 2009


Major Nidal Hasan, accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood Army base, has been described by former colleagues as "psychotic." As more details emerge about Hasan's troubled state, gun safety advocates are launching fresh attacks on a Senate bill they say would make it easier for mentally unstable veterans to buy firearms.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) says his "Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act" will protect veterans' gun rights. But the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence calls it a "dangerous" proposal that could allow "over 100,000 mentally incapacitated or incompetent persons" to buy guns—people who would previously have been barred from doing so by the Veterans Administration (VA).

With debate over Fort Hood still raging on cable news, one might think that Burr might try to quietly shelve the measure, whose co-sponsors include Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.). Instead, Burr fired back at the Brady Campaign in an interview with Fox News, accusing its president, Paul Helmke, of using the tragedy to "exploit the senseless murder of American soldiers in the quest to secure personal triumph."

Responding to Burr Thursday in an open letter, Helmke wrote, "it is hardly 'exploitative' to have an honest debate" about the proposal, which would cancel out key provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and override standards used by the VA for nearly four decades.

Burr contends that, “under current law, veterans who have come to VA for help but who are determined to be unable to manage their own financial affairs are labeled as mentally defective and, on that basis alone, are denied their 2nd amendment rights." Yet even the National Rifle Association disputes Burr's description of the process by which veterans are ruled ineligible to own firearms. As the NRA notes in the current issue of its magazine First Freedom [PDF], "VA records are only reported to NICS [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] if a patient has been 'adjudicated as a mental defective,' a lengthy process that includes opportunities for hearings, appeals, etc." (The NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, which has not issued an official position on the measure, did not respond to Mother Jones' requests for comment.)

According to a 2008 New York Times report, at least 121 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans "committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war." In addition, as Helmke also points out in his letter, "veterans are far more likely to die of suicide than non-veterans in the general population, with firearms the most common method of suicide among veterans."

Nevertheless, several veterans' organizations favor the measure, citing concerns that the VA might begin providing the Justice Department with the names of veterans seeking help for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Patrick Campbell, the chief legislative counsel for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, has said that his organization backs the bill "in the hopes it will quell any fears veterans might have about seeking treatment for mental health injuries."

In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, the Brady Campaign joined the NRA to support strengthening mental health background checks. This time around, it has offered to work with Burr's office to find a more precise way to address his concerns about veterans' gun rights. But it staunchly opposes the current proposal. As Helmke noted after the Fort Hood shootings, "this latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places. Enough is enough." [link to www.motherjones.com]

I share your opinion and the reasons for it. However according to the argument being put forth here by the folks who think everyone should have a gun regardless of their mental and emotional capacity, it's not a valid observation.

You need to have a degree and a great deal of time to diagnosis mental instability, according to them!

The person who made the comment about passing through a period of instability and later having his gun restored to him when he was once again stable makes an excellent point.

Our emergency rooms are nearly madhouses. And in spite of the fact that LEOs may desire to bring order there, they also seem increasingly subject to moments of unreason these days.

If one is rational and aware it doesn't take more than a few minutes to determine who may be dangerous to those around them. We all know that. And erroring on the side of safety is wise, I think.

Recognizing that human error will occur, of course. It always does, ya know. We can't avoid that. Most medical people are called upon to make rapid diagnoses and decisions all the time.

Some of us have unreasonable expectabtions for perfection.

The important thing is reassurance for restitution for professional mistakes. There's the sticky part.