Posted on Jan 5, 2016
Is anyone worried about the ramification of President Obama's actions regarding mental health care and firearms ownership?
5.68K
22
14
1
1
0
I'm curious because those with domestic violence convictions are not allowed to own or posses fire arms, meaning, they are not allowed to even carry them for employment. Could this lead to a purge of veterans from service?
Health
Army National Guard
Promotions
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 6
9
9
0
I’m very concerned about the part that delves into mental health – there seems to be a movement to label all combat vets as unstable. I’m also concerned about mental health “professionals” who can make a determination that someone is mentally unstable and then reporting this to the government. Having dealt with a number of these so called “professionals” I can attest many have no clue – I am also worried that their personal feelings regarding gun control could affect their decisions.
(9)
(0)
(1)
(0)
CW4 Russ Hamilton (Ret)
I’m also concerned that the first place they’re going to look for the “mentally unstable” will be the VA: You have a rating for PTSD? You’re unstable. No doubt this will cause people to NOT seek treatment and we all know how that could potentially turn out. Bad.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
This is exactly the point that I've tried making in a few conversations that I've had with people.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
The Lautenburg Amendment has been in place for well over a decade. It prevents anyone from carrying a weapon who has a DV conviction. It hasn't caused a major purge and it is a reason to discharge someone
(2)
(0)
CW2 Michael Mullikin
Let's pause a moment and think logically about the Lautenberg Amendment. Of course we should de all we can to minimize domestic abuse; my preferred response would be charging the perp with assault/battery and letting the criminal justice system apply corrective action. BUT… does it make sense to deny someone employment in the military because they have a propensity for violence? A reasonable person might consider that a plus for someone in the military (control their access to weapons when not on duty). BTW, can we credit the Lautenberg Amendment for the virtual elimination of domestic violence since it was passed in in 1996? If not, it looks an awful lot like a legislative bone thrown to a special interest group.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
In the case of the Lautenburg amendment, I would say that yes it does make sense to deny them employment in the military. The reason domestic violence is considered so heinous is that it is violence against the people you are supposed to be protecting. Translating that to a military setting, your family is your coworker group. Violence is only valuable to the military when it can be controlled and directed. Otherwise that person becomes a danger to those around him.
The amendment certainly doesn't eliminate all domestic violence but it does prevent abusers from legally owning guns and from putting guns in their hands, as in instances where police officers are the abusers.
The amendment certainly doesn't eliminate all domestic violence but it does prevent abusers from legally owning guns and from putting guns in their hands, as in instances where police officers are the abusers.
(1)
(0)
CW4 Russ Hamilton (Ret)
SFC (Join to see) - Unfortunately, someone who has a propensity who to harm to their spouse or other will do it - gun or no gun. Again, if they want one, they will get one. The Lautenburg amendment is nothing but "feel good" legislation.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I haven't read too much on the issue as far as this new proposal involving mental health but I will say that what needs to be addressed and improved upon in the US as a whole is better mental health treatment, coverage, diagnosis & care. I work in a substance abuse facility in Flint MI, 9/10 of our clients are dual diagnosis (they not only are suffering from a substance abuse disorder but a mental health disorder that has gone untreated & teated incorrectly).
If improved treatment is part of this, I agree 100%. My husband is an ex army combat vet and even tho he may deserve to have a gun, it's in his best interest. He's way too unstable & suicidal, so when speaking on this issue, look at the broad spectrum and not just your immediate community. This effects everyone.
If improved treatment is part of this, I agree 100%. My husband is an ex army combat vet and even tho he may deserve to have a gun, it's in his best interest. He's way too unstable & suicidal, so when speaking on this issue, look at the broad spectrum and not just your immediate community. This effects everyone.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google