TexasCHLforum.com

I think many are overlooking this fact that was pointed out in the original post.

almost completely filled with veterans – 99.3% to be exact.

If you stop and think about it, that is pretty darn close to 100%.

No, there's nothing to it. No veracity at all. Only 99.3% of "mentally defective" added to the list are vets.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/04/21/p ... ent-rights" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

from Grassley's letter.

According to the Congressional Research Service, as of June 1, 2012, 99.3% of all names reported to the NICS list’s "mental defective” category were provided by the Veterans Administration (VA) even though reporting requirements apply to all federal agencies.

Stunning how we allow those that protect our rights to be treated. Whoever said, In Government We Trust?

Here an article about an amendment to a bill that was filed on this issue. There must be something to the issue.

http://archive.armytimes.com/article/20 ... lls-Senate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think it should take more than just a pencil pushing paper shuffling bureaucrat checking a box to remove one's rights. Here's a quote from the article

The amendment sought allow the VA to only report to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System if a judge, magistrate or other judicial authority determines a veteran is a danger to himself or others.

rbwhatever1 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:rb, can you post a link to your quote? It would be good for all interested to see it in context.

That paragraph was at the bottom of anygunanywhere's original link and it was from the original DHS analysis on "right wing extremists". Full DHS assessment linked below...


http://michellemalkin.com/wp-content/up ... -04-07.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I didn't make the connection. I thought it may have been a different sources. Thanks

rb, can you post a link to your quote? It would be good for all interested to see it in context.

EEllis wrote:I have more than a little doubt as to the veracity of this story but even in the information given we are not talking about a little bookkeeping help. They are referring to vets that have someone other than themselves legally responsible for their government benefits. This is not using some VA bookkeeping assistance but someone else having control over their finances. This wouldn't be something one did because they were bad with budgets. You would have to have much bigger issues.

Doubt all you want. I don't believe the bill to stop this would have been put forth and received the support it did without there being some validity to the article and issue that's being discussed.

Saw this the other day and have been thinking about it.

I think they are creating a catch 22 as far as vets suffering from and needing assistance with PTSD. I think this kind of adverse treatmemt will penalize many that seek help and will discourage future vets from getting the help they need.

Many of the mental illnesses do warrant people losing their gun rights. It comes down to the specific person's illness and to the degree of their illness. Unfortunately, bureaucrats male broad sweeping decisions that effect many unnecessarily.