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.”
“Are you for Gun Control or not?”
I believe that most extant federal firearms regulation is sufficient. I am opposed to additional federal restrictions on firearms, such as the often proposed “assault weapons ban”, and I oppose the unreasonable regulation that has been applied in some states.
” Why should Guns be regulated and Abortion not be so….”
Abortion is not relevant to the current discussion.
” Try that rationalization out on the families of victims where multiple people died at the hand of a single gunman with an automatic weapon.”
Automatic firearms have been used in less than five homicides since 1934.
” The fact is that without ridiculously easy access to automatic weapons, if Person A gets pissed off at Person B, they can still (maybe) kill Person B with a knife or a baseball bat or whatever.”
Civilian access to automatic firearms is heavily regulated in the United States. If you are unaware of this, then you have conducted insufficient research upon the subject that you are discussing to credibly propose any measures.
rafflaw–
“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.”
************
Although I noted in an earlier comment that I wasn’t a hippie when I was young, I have long been an adherent to the postion that making love is better than making war.
I must admit that it disturbs me to see people bringing guns to protests–like the fellow who had one strapped to his thigh when President Obama spoke in New Hampshire a few months ago. I think I’ll also feel less comfortable when visiting a National Park knowing that some other visitors there may be carrying firearms.
How about being able to have concealed weapons in a car near a school in South Carolina? And bringing guns to church??? Good Lord, preserve us!!!
So…maybe I am a hippie now. I’m gonna go get me some beads and grow my hair long again.
Dimensio,
I am lost on your position. Are you for Gun Control or not? Why should Guns be regulated and Abortion not be so….
“As fewer than twenty-thousand homicides are committed per year (as has been the case since 1996), it can be established that even if every individual homicide was committed by an individual firearm owner (a demonstrably incorrect assumption; multiple homicides may be committed by a single individual, and approximately half of all homicides in a given year are not committed with a firearm), it would indicate that less than 0.25% of all firearms owners have engaged in the action that you claim to be common. As this appears to be a fundamental premise of your argument, it would seem as though the very foundation of your argument is invalid.”
Sounds good. Try that rationalization out on the families of victims where multiple people died at the hand of a single gunman with an automatic weapon. The fact is that without ridiculously easy access to automatic weapons, if Person A gets pissed off at Person B, they can still (maybe) kill Person B with a knife or a baseball bat or whatever. But Persons C through H (that just happen to work at the same place as Person B) don’t get cut down in a hail of auromatic gunfire as collateral damage.
“How can they endorse ideas like this and expect the rest of us to believe them when they loudly claim to value human life and boast of their great faith in the protections of Almighty God? ”
Have you an actual rational argument to offer in opposition to Senator Burr’s proposed amendment?
“Please take a moment and re-read this particular article: “You Would Be Crazy Not To Own a Gun: Senators Propose Law To Guarantee Gun Ownership For Mentally Incapacitated Veterans.” By doing so, you might (perhaps) choose to edit your previous comment.”
I have, in fact, viewed the initial posting that has resulted in this discussion. As I have noted, objections to Senator Burr’s proposal are based upon a false premise, and the headline itself is demonstrably incorrect; either the author of the headline has conducted no research of Senator Burr’s proposal or the author of the headline is lying. Senator Burr’s amendment would eliminate a policy that allows for the abridgment of a civil liberty without the application of due process. Veterans who are judicially ruled to be “mentally incompetent” would remain, by federal law, legally ineligible to possess firearms. It is disturbing that individuals such as yourself believe that Constitutionally protected rights should instead be subject to revocation and abridgment without the application of due process.
” It would take far too much space here (and no one would want to read it anyway) to fully explain it, but I believe that there should be no ownership of handgun or automatic weapons by private citzens in he US.”
Civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms are heavily restricted in the United States. Such firearms are very rarely criminally misused. There exists no rational justification for a complete prohibition on civilian ownership of such firearms. Either you have failed to adequately research the subject that you are addressing or you are intentionally advocating a fundamentally unreasonable position.
A prohibition on handgun ownership in the United States would demonstrably constitute a violation of the Second Amendment of the United States of America. Such a prohibition would also be exceedingly difficult to effectively enact, as it would require a means of accounting for all extant legally owned firearms in the country and arranging a system of compensation for their confiscation following the massive expenditure of legal fees required to first maintain such a prohibition through exhaustive and inevitable legal challenges.
“There are TOO MANY GUNS in our society, which wouldn’t neccessarily be a problem execpt that our culture nowadays is such that the first thing a person thinks of when someone looks at them cross-eyed (or even if someone just THINKS they’re being looked at cross-eyed) is to grab a gun and shoot the offending party. And then shoot a few other folks that weren’t even involved in the first place.”
There exist more than two hundred and fifty million firearms owned amongst approximately eighty million civilians in the United States. As fewer than twenty-thousand homicides are committed per year (as has been the case since 1996), it can be established that even if every individual homicide was committed by an individual firearm owner (a demonstrably incorrect assumption; multiple homicides may be committed by a single individual, and approximately half of all homicides in a given year are not committed with a firearm), it would indicate that less than 0.25% of all firearms owners have engaged in the action that you claim to be common. As this appears to be a fundamental premise of your argument, it would seem as though the very foundation of your argument is invalid.
“I full well realize I’m in the minority, but that doesn’t make me wrong.”
You are correct. It is the fact that your statements are demonstrably false that make you “wrong”.
“So who is in charge? Oh thats right, no one is in charge that is apparent. Just ask Cheney. He cannot recall. But then why does the GOP honor certain people for certain things. Me thinks they have maybe the Wizard in charge. Dorothy, get me outta here.”
Your comment relates neither to the current discussion nor to my specific statement.
” But hey if you are gonna give allow a mental person the right to have a gun, then you might as well give them the shinny things too.”
I believe that you have fundamentally misunderstood the intent of Senator Burr’s amendment. Senator Burr’s amendment is intended to prevent an individual’s right to keep and bear arms from being arbitrarily revoked without due process. It is not intended to allow individuals who are mentally defective to possess firearms, it is intended to grant individuals the right to a judicial hearing prior to the revocation of their rights for such a reason. I do find it somewhat disturbing that a number of individuals are evidently in support of current executive policy, established by former President George W. Bush, that allows for the abridgment of a civil liberty without the application of due process, as must be the motive of those who are opposed to Senator Burr’s proposal. Individuals who are judged in a court of law to be “mentally defective” would be prohibited from possessing firearms, and Senator Burr’s amendment would not alter this fact; while the Brady Campaign is attempting to claim that Senator Burr is seeking to alter a federal law that has been extant and unchanged since 1968 they are, as is common for the organization, lying.
The part about the ammo i was just kidding about. It is my understanding that they even take pencils away so they won’t hurt other people and themselves. But hey if you are gonna give allow a mental person the right to have a gun, then you might as well give them the shinny things too.
Dimensio,
“I’d add the Republican Party to your list given your criteria.”
The Republican Party does not constitute an advocacy organization for a single, specific position.
***********************
So who is in charge? Oh thats right, no one is in charge that is apparent. Just ask Cheney. He cannot recall. But then why does the GOP honor certain people for certain things. Me thinks they have maybe the Wizard in charge. Dorothy, get me outta here.
“changed their opinion”
Flipkid,
It doesn’t make you wrong, it makes you unrealistic about the history of firearms development. None of the Founding Fathers ever heard of a “machine gun” and bullets were something you made around the camp fire. Hell, I’m pretty sure Jefferson and Adams would have been appalled by the very idea of a machine gun, but I also don’t think that would have changed his opinion about a government monopoly on weaponry – a common feature in some of the less progressive states of the time. It is no accident that many martial arts weapons are developed from modified farm tools. It’s because in many societies, the standard model was/is top down oppression by those who control(led) the manufacture and distribution of armour and weapons. This in turn necessitated improvisation by the “peasants”. And if you think some poor Japanese farmer wouldn’t have much rather had a sword to fight that rogue samurai terrorizing them instead of a couple of wooden sticks he’d been using to thresh grain (the origin of tonfa)? I’m thinking he’d have rather had the biggest sword he could have gotten a hold of in order to keep the bad guys from taking his stuff and/or killing him and his people.
Yeah, hand guns and fully automatic weapons are bane upon the world.
But you can’t uninvent them.
I submit the next best option to secure liberty is what the Founding Fathers did in leveling the playing field to a certain degree. Would they have done things differently had they known about the future of firearms? One would hope. But hope is often a futile exercise when applied to the past.
Yes, I am a radical liberal on this issue. It would take far too much space here (and no one would want to read it anyway) to fully explain it, but I believe that there should be no ownership of handgun or automatic weapons by private citzens in he US. (Yeah, I know what the Constitution “says.”) Only LEOs and the military should have access to handguns.
There are TOO MANY GUNS in our society, which wouldn’t neccessarily be a problem execpt that our culture nowadays is such that the first thing a person thinks of when someone looks at them cross-eyed (or even if someone just THINKS they’re being looked at cross-eyed) is to grab a gun and shoot the offending party. And then shoot a few other folks that weren’t even involved in the first place.
I full well realize I’m in the minority, but that doesn’t make me wrong.
Well dear, Your post is superb in all angles. The Republicans are becoming clear and present danger to our citizenry…They suffer from a collective mental disorder
MESPO727272 (and others critical of gun control):
Please take a moment and re-read this particular article: “You Would Be Crazy Not To Own a Gun: Senators Propose Law To Guarantee Gun Ownership For Mentally Incapacitated Veterans.” By doing so, you might (perhaps) choose to edit your previous comment.
A prime example of what we call “spin” in the UK. Can’t see anything wrong in letting someone who is cured getting his gun permit back.
As for the anti-gun looneys, I am afraid that experience in the UK proves that there is no depths to which they will not stoop in disarming law abiding citizens.
When the 1997 firearms amendment act was introduced, the section of society most affected happened to be retired Police Officers.
Since then gun crime in the UK has risen alarmingly due to the added “cool” factor of owning an illegal weapon.
This proposal, in its stunning disregard for public safety, is further proof that the Republican Party has permanently drifted from the shores of rational policy-making.
How can they endorse ideas like this and expect the rest of us to believe them when they loudly claim to value human life and boast of their great faith in the protections of Almighty God? They can wrap themselves in the flag, the fetus, and a gun case full of Remingtons, but the reality of their moral and intellectual bankruptcy breaks through their unctuous facade every time they pull a stunt like this.
They have nothing to offer this country and they’re a perpetual embarrassment. All it appears they can do now is run ugly campaigns and, once elected, prove to the world that they have no interest in or aptitude for the art of governance.
“I’d add the Republican Party to your list given your criteria.”
The Republican Party does not constitute an advocacy organization for a single, specific position.