We recently saw a court rule that a quadriplegic has a right to hunt with a special chair where he literally blows away deer by blowing into a tube attached to the trigger. Now, Senators have adopted a provision to guarantee the right of “mentally incapacitated” veterans to buy firearms. After the shooting at Fort Hood, the provision passed with the support of Republican North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr and Democratic Virginia Senator Jim Webb is attracting criticism.
You might not be viewed as fully loaded but you are likely sane enough to own a gun under the new change.
The provision would allow such veterans currently listed as mentally incapacitated to buy weapons.
Burr explained that “[c]urrently, when the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) appoints a fiduciary to assist a veteran with managing their financial affairs, VA also deems the veteran mentally incompetent and reports him or her to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), . . The Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act would require a judicial body to deem a veteran, surviving spouse, or child as a danger to himself or others before being listed in NICS, which would prohibit the veteran from being able to purchase certain firearms. The legislation is supported by the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, AMVETS, and the Military Order of the Purple Heart.”
The provision would alter the language of Gun Control Act of 1968 and override VA regulations that bar such purchases.
The legislation is called Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act and can be found here and here. It specifically covers any veteran “who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness.”
Critics charge that the provision would guarantee gun ownership for people like Major Nidal Hasan, who was considered ” “psychotic.”
“I am familiar with only a few other organizations as willing to engage in dishonesty as a means of promoting an agenda; opponents of legal recognition of same-sex unions, creationists and members of the “birther” movement who assert, without justification, that President Obama is not a “natural born” United States citizen are amongst the very few organizations who, along with the Brady Campaign, engage in such blatant and easily exposed willful dishonesty when attempting to promote their position. I have speculated that this dishonesty is a result of the inherent intellectually bankruptcy of the advocated positions.”
**************
I’d add the Republican Party to your list given your criteria.
” Are you implying that all of these people are dishonest and irrational?”
No. I have observed only that such advocates are disproportionately dishonest, irrational, or both when compared to the population at large. This does not imply that such advocates are universally dishonest, irrational or both.
As an example, the Brady Campaign has made numerous demonstrably false claims regarding a subset of semi-automatic rifles that they have termed “assault weapons”. They have claimed that pistol grips on rifles enable “spray-firing from the hip”, when in fact a pistol grip actually facilitates a more ergonomic grip for firing from the shoulder and when such firearms are not designed for “spray firing”. They have falsely claimed that a flash hider is used to disguise the location of a shooter at night, when in fact a flash hider serves only to “hide” a muzzle flash from an individual who is discharging the firearm to prevent temporary blindness, and the flash will be no less significantly visible to third party observers. They have falsely claimed that a telescoping stock is useful for making a rifle concealable, when in fact a telescoping stock serves only to facilitate more options for a comfortable grip, and can only reduce the overall length of a firearm by, at the most, six inches.
More recent incidents of dishonesty were Brady Campaign spokespersons claiming that a recent removal of a federal prohibition on the carrying of concealed deadly weapons on National Park properties would permit individuals to carry concealed deadly weapons at the National Mall in the District of Columbia and at Liberty Island in New York City. In fact, both of those National Park areas are located in locales where the carrying of concealed deadly weapons is heavily restricted by local statutes that would not be affected by the alteration in policy regarding National Parks; civilians in possession of concealed deadly weapons upon such locations would thus be in violation of local laws and could be prosecuted for such.
I am familiar with only a few other organizations as willing to engage in dishonesty as a means of promoting an agenda; opponents of legal recognition of same-sex unions, creationists and members of the “birther” movement who assert, without justification, that President Obama is not a “natural born” United States citizen are amongst the very few organizations who, along with the Brady Campaign, engage in such blatant and easily exposed willful dishonesty when attempting to promote their position. I have speculated that this dishonesty is a result of the inherent intellectually bankruptcy of the advocated positions.
Elaine:
“Laughing my butt off, rolling on the floor.”
I, too, look forward to being able to smoke pot without fear of being detained and charged with a crime by law enforcement. At any rate, do note that bongs are problematic, for example, these stink unless the water inside the cylinder is changed everyday. Glass pipes are better, for example, are much easier to clean. At any rate, these tidbits are what I’ve been told by criminals. I do not use drugs. I’m a law abiding citizen.
Dimensio–
You said: “I have merely noted my observation that civilian disarmament advocates, including many spokespeople for the Brady Campaign, are dishonest and irrational.”
************
Okay, so you say you have made the observation that civilian disarmament advocates are dishonest and irrational. Are you implying that all of these people are dishonest and irrational?
” The Brady Campaign has just as much right to fight its battle as the NRA has to fight its.”
I have made no statement regarding a “right to fight battles”. I have merely noted my observation that civilian disarmament advocates, including many spokespeople for the Brady Campaign, are dishonest and irrational.
“If this legislation is signed into law does that mean that they also get free ammo?”
No. There exists no possible interpretation of Senator Burr’s amendment that could allow for such a conclusion.
Dimensio–
I was responding to your accusatorial comment:
“The omission of this key information is unsurprising, however, as advocates of civilian disarmament are frequently dishonest.”
************
I guess you feel the people who are on the opposite side of the gun issue are bad guys. The Brady Campaign has just as much right to fight its battle as the NRA has to fight its.
************
John–
I don’t have a clue what LMBOROTF stands for. Maybe you can enlighten me. BTW, I wasn’t a hippie when I was young. I might consider becoming one now that I’m retired and folks are looking to loosen up the laws on marijuana usage. I can hear myself talking to my hubby now: “Honey, would you pass me the bong and the Metamucil!”
One more thing: My father was a sharpshooter and won all kinds of medals when he served in the army. I take after my deadeye dad. You best be careful if you see me toting a fiream. Ready. Aim. Make peace not war!
Ha ha ha ha ha, “Gun control means using both hands!”
BTW, where do I sign up, I have never seen the need for a firearm but now I feel the need to protect myself. If this legislation is signed into law does that mean that they also get free ammo?
Kinda of like working in the legislature, you know you should wear a body size condom just so you won’t catch something. This proposed law shows you how many dicks are really in DC.
On the political side, this is a political measure aimed at Obama so that campaign ads can be run that show he is against veterans. As stupid as it sounds. Think about the sound bites that an ad like this could generate.
AY,
You took the words out of my mouth!
Elaine,
I am with you on this one. I guess I am a “gun stealing Hippie” like you. It has been 30 plus years since I have been called a hippie, but I wear it as a badge of honor.
John Puma 1, November 16, 2009 at 8:16 pm
When do we ban from congress those who are “mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness”?
************************
We from Texas call them business loser, Governor and then President Bush.
Elaine:
LMBOROTF! You and the rest of the gun-stealing hippies’ crack me up. The gun control argument is about as silly as one answer to the question, “Why are a woman’s feet shorter than a man’s?”
My wife thinks I am crazy, but I see nothing wrong with a law abiding citizen owning automatic weapons.
I believe the majority of gun deaths are caused by criminals, typically targeting other criminals. Washington, DC had very restrictive gun laws yet still had a high rate of gun deaths.
What do you do? Target shooting and hunting are fun, skeet shooting is a blast and most law abiding people don’t kill other people with guns or without. The founders did not have a problem with the people having weapons, they thought they were necessary and they would have wanted, in my opinion, people armed with the best, most technologically superior weapons of the time.
You don’t think they could not foretell automatic weapons and other technology? They were pretty smart men and I am sure they figured that human beings would come up with something superior to the Kentucky Long Rifle. Just as the sling was replaced by the bow and arrow which was replaced by the cross bow which was . . .
Leave a loaded gun on a table and it remains inactive unless acted upon by a human being, the gun is a tool nothing more nothing less.
I do however think that gun ownership should not be for people deemed mentally incompetent until such time as they are re-evaluated and given a clean bill of health.
When do we ban from congress those who are “mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness”?
“I suppose all members of the NRA are beacons of truth”
I have made no such suggestion. Have you an actual substantiative response to my commentary?
I was raised not to use vulgar language–but after reading stories like this one, I certainly understand why saying WTF has come into vogue.
Dimensio–
I suppose all members of the NRA are beacons of truth–unlike the dishonest folk who believe in gun control.
The Republicans are becoming clear and present danger to our citizenry…They suffer from a collective mental disorder….That must be addressed….
Where was this law when Charlton Heston needed it!
Far out!
The reported effect of the amendment is being misrepresented. In fact, the proposed amendment would restore firearms ownership rights to military veterans who had completed a course of treatment and thus were no longer suffering from the mental impairment that had previously restricted their right to firearms ownership. The Brady Campaign opposes this amendment because they continually seek measures to further limit the right to keep and bear arms as a means of furthering their ultimate goal of total civilian disarmament. The omission of this key information is unsurprising, however, as advocates of civilian disarmament are frequently dishonest.