HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Should Mentally Incompete...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:47 AM

Should Mentally Incompetent Veterans Retain Gun Rights?

The Washington Post reports

Should veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their own financial affairs be prevented from buying a gun?

The issue, for a time last week, threatened to become the biggest sticking point in a $631 billion defense bill for reshaping a military that is disengaging from a decade of warfare.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sought to amend the bill to stop the Veterans Affairs Department from putting the names of veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their finances into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which prohibits them from buying or owning firearms.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., objected, saying the measure would make it easier for veterans with mental illness to own a gun, endangering themselves and others.

“I love our veterans, I vote for them all the time. They defend us,” Schumer said. “If you are a veteran or not and you have been judged to be mentally infirm, you should not have a gun.”

Currently, the VA appoints fiduciaries, often family members, to manage the pensions and disability benefits of veterans who are declared incompetent. When that happens, the department automatically enters the veteran’s name in the Criminal Background Check System.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said gun control advocates consider the VA’s current policy reasonable.

“We’re talking about people who have some form of disability to the extent that they’re unable to manage their own affairs,” Gross said. “If you’re deemed unable to handle your own affairs, that’s likely to constitute a high percentage of people who are dangerously mentally ill.”


Coburn, and his NRA overlords, are really showing their true colors on this one. They have no concern for anything other than pushing gun rights, even if it means returning those rights to the worst of the worst.

The number of veterans directly affected by the VA’s policy doesn’t appear to very large. Only 185 out of some 127,000 veterans added to the gun-check registry since 1998 have sought to have their names taken off, according to data that the VA shared with lawmakers during a hearing last June.


Can you imagine how incompetent those 185 are? We're not talking about people with mild mental problems who need a little help with their affairs. These are the worst, most damaged 185 veterans out of 127,000.

I find the extremism of the NRA and its minions truly shocking. Don't you?

Please leave a comment.
Cross posted at Mikeb302000

70 replies, 5637 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 70 replies Author Time Post
Reply Should Mentally Incompetent Veterans Retain Gun Rights? (Original post)
mikeb302000 Dec 2012 OP
ileus Dec 2012 #1
darkangel218 Dec 2012 #3
darkangel218 Dec 2012 #2
dballance Dec 2012 #10
darkangel218 Dec 2012 #14
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #16
Spryguy Dec 2012 #34
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #36
gejohnston Dec 2012 #37
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #43
gejohnston Dec 2012 #64
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #41
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #47
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #51
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #53
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #55
mikeb302000 Dec 2012 #59
dballance Dec 2012 #23
Ilsa Dec 2012 #4
no_hypocrisy Dec 2012 #5
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #6
Kaleva Dec 2012 #7
slackmaster Dec 2012 #17
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #42
slackmaster Dec 2012 #62
gejohnston Dec 2012 #65
slackmaster Dec 2012 #67
msongs Dec 2012 #8
Remmah2 Dec 2012 #12
DonP Dec 2012 #18
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #21
jody Dec 2012 #9
SQUEE Dec 2012 #11
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #22
Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #29
SQUEE Dec 2012 #32
Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #33
SQUEE Dec 2012 #35
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #30
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #44
gejohnston Dec 2012 #66
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #69
Clames Dec 2012 #13
slackmaster Dec 2012 #15
PavePusher Dec 2012 #20
PavePusher Dec 2012 #19
ellisonz Dec 2012 #24
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #27
Straw Man Dec 2012 #57
petronius Dec 2012 #25
lyingsackofmitt Dec 2012 #26
krispos42 Dec 2012 #28
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #38
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #39
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #40
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #45
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #46
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #49
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #48
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #50
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #52
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #54
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #56
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #68
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #70
krispos42 Dec 2012 #60
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #31
spin Dec 2012 #58
Historic NY Dec 2012 #61
Remmah2 Dec 2012 #63

Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:53 AM

1. 50% of the people out there are too mentally incompetent

to handle their own financial affairs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:57 AM

3. lol true on that one :)

But he has a point here.
In cases where mental capacity to make rational decisions is compromised, the gun permit should be at least suspended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:54 AM

2. I agree with you on that one.

Mentally incapacitated should NOT be allowed a gun permit under no circumstance. I would go as far as anyone under psychiatric care should have their permit suspended until a doctor deems them stable again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:35 AM

10. I'm totally with you on the "Mentally incapacitated should not be allowed a gun permit" BUT...

But I believe you might want to re-think that whole "I would go as far as anyone under psychiatric care should have their permit suspended until a doctor deems them stable again." That's pretty far. There are a lot of people under "psychiatric care" for things like eating disorders who are no threat to anyone if they possess a gun. Hell, they don't even have Twinkies to shoot at anymore.

So I just think you might have been a bit overly broad in your concerns by including anyone under psychiatric care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:45 AM

14. Okay that needs to be rephrased i guess.

It's a Pandora box when it comes to psychiatric disorders. What about simple anxiety, should we be allowed to purchase and carry a gun?
I guess I need to retract my statement, I didn't think it throughly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:15 AM

16. Good reason to never see a psych doctor.

If you never speak to one, they can't diagnose you. If they don't diagnose you, they can't punish you. Trust is a difficult thing for people struggling with their own heads, and politicians (especially gun controllers) don't help when they paint every person with a mental disorder with the same brush, as a defective, a psycho, a worthless subhuman whose rights can be revoked at the drop of a hat.

Not to mention that the black mark never goes away. Maybe you'll make it through 2012 just fine. Maybe you'll lose the right to vote in 2014. Or driving privileges in 2016. That's life as a political prop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:08 PM

34. Sooo....

 

what you are saying is that you think people with mental disorders should have guns? Sorry, gotta disagree- a doctor should be able to make the decision that you are too dangerous to yourself or others to possess a firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spryguy (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:12 PM

36. Some should, some shouldn't.

Last edited Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:23 AM - Edit history (1)

A bill was recently introduced here that would have automatically disqualified a person for gun ownership if they sought treatment for ANY "mental disorder" in the DSM-IV list, including (among others): Anorexia, Bulimia, Insomnia, Transsexuality, Anxiety, Hypochondria, Erectile Dysfunction, Phobias, Dyslexia, Stuttering, or Attention Deficit Disorder. To me, that says that I only get to remain a first-class citizen if I never, ever disclose my problems to a professional. Otherwise, I'm at risk of being legislated against out of society's hatred and contempt for anybody who seeks help for mental problems. It's the same situation for depression, neurosis, psychosis, or any condition that could (not necessarily does) legitimately make me a threat to public safety. HB 730 sends a VERY clear message to me: seeking professional help for mental illness is dangerous, and there are many people who will try very hard to punish you for it.

People like mikeb30200 and fightthegoodfightnow are the reason I am resolved never to speak to a psychiatric professional. Ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spryguy (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:28 PM

37. when it comes to any civil liberty,

such decisions should only be made by the judiciary via due process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #37)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:56 AM

43. Right

Let's let judges decide who is mentally ill rather than doctors?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #43)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:42 AM

64. that is how it works for anyone else

the VA should be no different especially what is an individual right under the Constitution. A judge would take evidence from competing experts, like how it works for everyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:45 AM

41. WOW

What a surprise.

Let's not help the mentally ill?

Let's help them keep their guns?

Is THAT really the best argument you can come up with?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #41)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:18 AM

47. You're not very good at comprehension, I think

Gun controllers don't give half a shit about the mentally ill. They're simply a prop they can use to terrify and propagandize others. What I'm saying is that people who would zealously punish ANYBODY who seeks treatment for ANY mental disorder, regardless of type or severity, contributes to the stigmatization and marginalization of the mentally ill, and strongly discourages them from seeking care. I believe it's people like you that grind the mentally ill under your heels in your desire to disarm anybody you possibly can, rather than advocating a fair system, consistent with due process, which treats those suffering mental illness as human beings with a treatable medical condition, rather than political rag-dolls to be whipped and chained as a stepping stone to complete disarmament.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #47)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:24 AM

51. LOL

I'm not good at 'comprehension' but you support the right of the mentally ill to own a gun! LOL. Oh, goody...thanks for the insult....good thing us stupid people can have a gun.

Denying anyone mentally ill a gun is no more of a 'crime' or 'punitive' than denying a drunk a drink.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #51)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:27 AM

53. Bingo.

To you, all mental illness is identical, and all people suffering from it, regardless of type or severity, are defective, unworthy of the benefits of citizenship. And you accuse me of "not wanting to help the mentally ill." You disgust me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #53)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:31 AM

55. See

To you it's all about the personal insult.

I'll leave you to argue the mentally ill should be allowed to have a licensed gun.

No doubt you think I am crazy! LOL!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:15 AM

59. We're not talking about guys who went into therapy for a while.

These guys are INCOMPETENT. The NRA and their minions want them to enjoy gun rights like everybody else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 02:20 PM

23. Thanks for being able to take a comment and be reasonable about it.

It's nice to see folks here be reasonable and be able to reflect on what they said rather than just raise their backs and get defensive. I need to remember to do the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:06 AM

4. Yet the pro-gun argument in the linebacker

murder-suicide is "guns don't kill; he was mentally ill." And here if legally declared mentally incompetent, and the NRA still wants to arm them.

Being a veteran should afford one the utmost respect. But that doesn't mean endangering other people's lives (or the veteran's). Maybe it's time for others to protect the veteran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:14 AM

5. Been through this already.

My SO's late brother was a Vietnam Vet with mental problems and an alcoholic. His world revolved around weapons, especially rifles. He couldn't hold a job due to his mental and drinking problems. We discussed having his yellow card revoked and taking away his guns, but realized that it would be a waste of time for our goals. He had enough contacts where he could buy or get a gun outside of commercial establishments (through social associations, gun shows, on the street) and he'd find a way.

You might slow down the process but my guess is that these vets will attain their weapons one way or another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:34 AM

6. If he isn't handling his own money...

...then where does he get the money to buy a gun? That judgement would be made by the person who is administering his affairs. So the veteran's gun buying is already being closely supervised by someone who knows him well.

You assume that the 185 who want off are the worst of the worst. Maybe they have improved to the point that they can manage their own affairs now. If they have to mental competence to file a petition to be taken off the list, then they may well have to competence to have their 2A rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:08 AM

7. How does the Criminal Background Check System preclude someone from owning a gun ?

From the article:

"Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sought to amend the bill to stop the Veterans Affairs Department from putting the names of veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their finances into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which prohibits them from buying or owning firearms."

There is no record anywhere of what guns I own.

On a side note, my ex who has made multiple suicide attempts can purchase a gun at a gun shop by simply lying on the questionnaire. Her name would not show up on a back ground check because of medical confidentiality laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:15 AM

17. As is the case with MOST laws, compliance is personal and voluntary

 

I know a few people who voluntarily divested themselves of firearms after being diagnosed with clinical depression. It's incumbent on the person who is adjudicated as mentally incompetent, or that person's caretakers, to comply with the law.

On a side note, my ex who has made multiple suicide attempts can purchase a gun at a gun shop by simply lying on the questionnaire. Her name would not show up on a back ground check because of medical confidentiality laws.

That's a hole in the system. I suggest writing to your representatives in Congress to get the problem corrected. But once again, compliance with the law as it stands now is voluntary. A person who lies on the form and signs it risks a lengthy stay in prison if he or she is subsequently caught.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:50 AM

42. Huh?

Why don't YOU write YOUR Congressman to protect the life of others?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #42)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:37 AM

62. I have written my members of Congress about problems with the background check system many times

 

How about you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #62)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:43 AM

65. his delegate can't vote

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #65)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:48 AM

67. That's OK. Senator Feinstein's staff put me on their crackpot list years ago.

 

No matter what subject I write about in my communications to her, I always get back the same form letter or email saying "Thank you for contacting Senator Feinstein about gun safety..."

Seriously, I can write about Navy officer salaries or Middle East policy and get the same response every time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:10 AM

8. 2A has no restrictions on account of mental stability nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:28 AM

12. Neither does the 1A. nt

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:57 AM

18. +1 - Obviously

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:18 PM

21. Originalism can be good, but that's a bit extreme.

Do you consider it a violation of the Second Amendment for a police officer to disarm someone that's being arrested? The 2A doesn't have any restrictions on account of being under arrest or incarcerated, either. Nor on account of a violent criminal history, threats of violence, or presence in a courtroom. These are restrictions which aren't mentioned in the Constitution, but which are definitely valid under strict scrutiny. There are some people whose mental illness makes them a threat to public safety if permitted to possess a weapon as effective as a firearm. As much as I want to see them healed and have their rights restored, I don't want to just ignore a dangerous situation (for them and others) out of stubbornness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:35 AM

9. Federal law must prevail " has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any

 

mental institution; " 18 USC § 922

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:45 AM

11. What I find shocking

Is your obvious bias and intellectual dishonesty.
the " incompetent" 185 are those that are lucid and and understanding of bureaucratic procedure enough to jump through the hoops to attempt to regain the rights they fought for. You don't find 127,000 people reported as incompetent a little troubling?
I am sure no Dr. with an anti gun stance would abuse his position and report as many Vets as possible.
The NRA has no comment, so you arbitrarily give them a position via Coburn. And this position of Coburns? "All I am saying is, let them at least have their day in court if you are going to take away a fundamental right given under the Constitution,”

Damn. the article you link even brings up that it could be harmful to recovery as stigmatized vets refuse to seek help, out of fear of arbitrarily losing their rights.

I am sure you support the idea that all of our other enumerated rights are also at the mercy of the medical INDUSTRY, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:28 PM

22. The OP never misses an opportunity to use the...

_ational Rifle Association word.

Stigma is vital to prohibitionists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:23 PM

29. "the rights they fought for"?

When and where did that happen since WW2?
Do you honestly believe our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are fighting to preserve the US Constitution and BoR?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #29)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:35 PM

32. Seeing as they raised their hand

and swore/ affirmed an oath, yes most believed when they joined they fight to protect America and its core principles. Where they fight is not in their control, nor is it even remotely relevant to what they as individuals fight for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #32)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:15 PM

33. Yeah, how'd that work out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #33)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:32 PM

35. well I got an education, and training, and...

a chance to travel the world, to see governments work in other societies. to see other cultures in action and to fight for other peoples chance to live ...So for me and many other people really, really well.
Did you know some people have come home from war and still believe they did the right things and that their country is still a beautiful place and are actually proud to have served?
poor misguided fools

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:29 PM

30. I'm sure that...

..."they are the worst, most damaged 185 veterans out of 127,000..." BECAUSE they want their RKBA restored.

Just more nonsense from the king thereof.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:12 AM

44. Huhmmmm... Yea they are....

You ask.....

I am sure you support the idea that all of our other enumerated rights are also at the mercy of the medical INDUSTRY, right?


You try voting under such circumstances!
You try owning property under such circumstances!

How about a few un-enumerated rights?
You try driving under such circumstances.

Heck, you try JOINING the armed forces with a MEDICAL determination of mental illness (or flat footless)!!!!

But heh....... Let's give the mentally ill a gun. Good grief!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:45 AM

66. do you know what an enumerate right is?

owning property isn't one of them, neither is joining the military
Driving is always described as a privilege.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #66)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:52 PM

69. See What The Constitution Says About Enumerated Rights I Mentioned

Property Rights and Voting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:33 AM

13. well it isn't shocking you would deliberately spin...

 

...a paragraph to show your disdain for veterans.

Can you imagine how incompetent those 185 are? We're not talking about people with mild mental problems who need a little help with their affairs. These are the worst, most damaged 185 veterans out of 127,000.


Let's examine what was actually stated:


The number of veterans directly affected by the VA’s policy doesn’t appear to very large. Only 185 out of some 127,000 veterans added to the gun-check registry since 1998 have sought to have their names taken off, according to data that the VA shared with lawmakers during a hearing last June.



Now try and weasel word your way into an explanation of how those 185 are the worst of the worst out of 127k for trying to get their rights back when you don't have a damned clue what the circumstances are that got them put into the NICS in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:13 AM

15. As much as I respect and admire veterans, I believe that anyone who has been adjudicated...

 

...by a court of law as mentally incompetent should not be allowed to acquire a firearm, or a driver's license.

I oppose making an exception for veterans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:03 PM

20. The operative phrase there is "adjudicated by a court of law".

 

Some people want to skip that inconvenient step....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:00 PM

19. Difficulty with personal finances is not a tell-all indicator of mental instability.

 

Nor should anyone's Rights be removed without full utilization of the Fifth Amendment.

There must be a court and judge involved, not merely the whim of a beauracracy.

Nor should one have to navigate a labrynth of administration to get to that court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 02:42 PM

24. I know of only one solution to this problem MORE GUNS FOR EVERYBODY!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:39 PM

27. Your 'cut and paste a phrase' macro seems to be stuck in a loop today...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:47 AM

57. Not even mildly amusing any more.

Nor in the least bit relevant.

You jumped the shark long ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:31 PM

25. I think that if someone is demonstrably incompetent, it's reasonable to disqualify

them from firearms ownership (and many other things) for the duration of that incompetency. But I think that there needs to be a very cautious and just way of making that determination, and people judged incompetent should always have a fast and fair way of contesting that judgment. And, I don't think veterans should be treated any differently - neither more harshly nor more leniently - than anyone else in this regard.

The article, however, seems a little unclear; it sounds as though the VA has a mechanism for declaring people incompetent that isn't available to the general mental health community. I have concerns about that in two ways: I don't like the idea of incompetency declarations without strict judicial (or clearly equivalent) oversight, and I don't think vets should be treated differently.

I'm not sure what the correction needs to be, though. If vets are being treated in a more strict and less protective way than non-veterans, then that needs to stop. But if the VA has developed a better, fairer, equitable, more efficient approach to competency determinations, then perhaps we should be exploring how to expand that mechanism to the general community...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:02 PM

28. If due process can't find removing the right justifiable, then yes.



It's not that complicated.



If some people said that being put on a list by a non-judicial government agency took away your right to vote, privacy, abortion, equal pay, free speech, jury trial, legal representation, and to confront your accuser in open court, there would be a riot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:23 AM

38. Hummm

Yea...it's more complicated than that!


The 'right to vote, privacy, abortion, equal pay, free speech, jury trial, legal representation, and to confront your accuser in open court' are all subject to restriction and subjective interpretation depending on jurisdiction.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:31 AM

39. Thing is,

if you're otherwise eligible (over 18 to vote, etc.), none of these rights can be taken away without legislation (which is subject to legal challenges) or a court order. No agency can declare a person's rights to be void unless they are specifically empowered to do so by the legislature. That's what due process is about -- preventing arbitrary and malicious use of government power against an individual or group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #39)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:34 AM

40. Oh Give Me a Break


Oh Give Me a Break!

Yell Fire in a theater, invoke the first amendment and tell me what jail to visit you in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #40)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:14 AM

45. What does that have to do with anything?

That scenario was created as an example of speech that would not be protected by the 1st Amendment. It was created by the Supreme Court in Schenk v. United States when a statute restricting speech was challenged and upheld by the courts. Certain speech was deemed criminal by an act of Congress. Shouting "fire" in a theater (assuming there isn't a fire) is only punishable if there is a relevant statute, passed by the legislature. This is all consistent with due process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #45)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:15 AM

46. Rights are NOT Absolute

All are subject to restriction, including those enumerated in the first and second amendment!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #46)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:21 AM

49. Where have I stated that they are absolute

and not subject to restriction by the legislatures and courts?

You're just vomiting nothings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #39)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:19 AM

48. SOOO

If legislation is introduced and passed saying ANY citizen declared mentally incompetent to own a gun by a physician, you would approve?

Good...not unlike requiring someone to see before they get a driver's license! Agree!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:22 AM

50. You're not capable of understanding my posts,

or at least of responding coherently and honestly to them. I decline to discuss further with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #50)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:25 AM

52. LOL

Run away!


Fast!


Quickly!!!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #50)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:28 AM

54. You didn't answer the question

Try actually answering the question....


If legislation is introduced and passed saying ANY citizen declared mentally incompetent to own a gun by a physician, you would approve?

Good...not unlike requiring someone to see before they get a driver's license! Agree!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #50)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:46 AM

56. PS

Please use the ignore feature in preferences so we can both move on.

Otherwise.....see you again when you articulate better arguments.

LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #39)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:50 PM

68. SO WHAT?

?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #68)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:16 PM

70. Wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:09 AM

60. Okay, Alberto.

You're ignoring the fact that there's a huge chasm between "subject to restriction" and "subject to revocation".



And you're also ignoring the fact that this non-judicial government agency, by definition, is not due process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:04 PM

31. The VA just needs to follow existing federal law to meet their goal.

The problem is that the VA currently wants to bypass federal law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:11 AM

58. Obviously some combat veterans suffer serious mental issues such as PTSD. ...

In fact I know one and to best of my knowledge, he is not receiving any treatment.

The danger is that we should never wish to deny all combat veterans the right to own firearms. I have known a number of combat veterans who own firearms and handle them in a very responsible manner. Of course some have an intense dislike of firearms because of their war experience but some do not.

I used to shoot with a WWII vet who landed in Normandy and fought his way across Europe. He was a competitive shooter in trap and skeet and also enjoyed shooting .45 Colt handguns at the pistol range where I shot. He was also an electronic engineer who worked on numerous NASA space programs and was an excellent computer programmer. He was a very intelligent individual and was one of the most gentle and kind men I have ever met. He was also one of the few that I have known who had actually killed other men in combat.

Of course I would imagine that he went through some tough times when he returned from his war experiences. Like most true combat vets he didn't really like to discuss what he had seen.

We do need to be willing to spend the money to evaluate those who our nation has sent into harm's way and be willing to offer help to those who need it. All too often the ruling 1% in our nation are more than willing to send the lower classes into questionable wars but our nation often fails to provide the proper care for the health and mental issues they face on their return from their service.

We can and should do better.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:32 AM

61. This is a no brainer...

a cop on the rubber gun squad can't hang on to a weapon why should anyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #61)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 10:46 AM

63. I'm all for keeping guns from the mentally incompetent.

 


As therapy they should be given keyboards and Internet access.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread