260,000 Veterans Have Lost Their Gun Rights Since December

[HereWeGoAgain]

"may impact" Doesnt sound conclusive.

Nor does "Muslims might kill someone"....

Terrorism isnt a right.

Terrorism isn't right. But then most Muslims aren't terrorists.

So don't try pulling that crap out of the bag on me.

Some Christians are terrorists. Does that mean ALL are?

Thats weak....

Do you want to discuss this, or are you just going to pull all the tricks in the book to avoid talking about the topic?

You calling Christians terrorist pretty much ended any serious conversation regarding the subject.
And I dont even go to church.

 

[Votto]

So now we have another scandal where the VA is screwing over the veterans they are supposed to be representing.

260,000 Veterans Have Lost Their Gun Rights Since December

The Second Amendment has been under attack for some time now in the united States, and there has been a relentless assault by the Obama administration at attacking the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. At the forefront of that attack has been America’s veterans, andaccording to a report, at least 260,000 veteranshad their gun rights revoked by the Department of Veteran’s Affairs since December 2015.

Guns in the News reports:

Last December the VA started reporting thousands of veterans to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check system, which is responsible for determining whether or not a potential gun buyer is legally allowed to own a firearm.

Specifically, they’ve been reporting veterans who have a fiduciary trustee to act on their behalf for legal or financial matters. All veterans with this arrangement are beingautomatically declared “mentally defective” according to Guns.com, and are having their second amendmentrights revoked. Over the past 4 months alone the VA has reported over 260,000 veterans to the NICS, which now accounts for 99% of all “mentally defective” claims to the database.

Of course, not all veterans with a fiduciary trustee are a danger to themselves or others, and unfortunately the VA hasn’t bothered to investigate any of these individuals to see if they should be reported. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa has been questioning the VA on this matter, and hopes to put a stop to it. “The very agency created to serve them (veterans) is jeopardizing their Second Amendment rights through an erroneous reading of gun regulations. The VA’s careless approach to our veterans’ constitutional rights is disgraceful.”

This is not new and doesn’t seem to be going away. In February, the National RifleAssociation was attempting to discover which veterans this was happening to across the country.

Once again, Guns in the News reported:

As we have reported several times in the past (including here and here), the Veterans Administration (VA) has been reporting to the National InstantCriminal Background Check System (NICS) the identities of its beneficiaries who have been assigned a “fiduciary” to manage their benefits. The VA claims that such determinations constitute an “adjudication of mental defectiveness” under federal law, thereby prohibiting the beneficiary (presumptively for life) from acquiring or possessingfirearms.

Well if you are gonna deny them medical coverage it makes sense to at least disarm them.

Just say'in.

 

[ogibillm]

now at least you're raising an interesting argument.

but suicide has been shown to be an impulsive decision. going out to buy a gun isn't impulsive. also, since those people would already be included in the areas where guns are easily accessed they would not skew the results.

The problem with your theory goes back to the waiting period to buy a handgun to supposedly give someone time to think about their actions...yet gun killings still continue to happen.
Pre meditated suicide isnt that uncommon.

Research shows gun permit laws appear to impact suicide rates

"may impact" Doesnt sound conclusive.

no, it doesn't.

but when missouri lifted the license requirement gun suicides went up, when connecticut introduced the permitting requirement gun suicide went down.

they say there isn't a clear causal relationship, but since suicides by other means didn't change i'd say it's pretty convincing.

"Gun suicide went down" What about suicide in general?

had you read the article, or even my post, you would know that suicide by other methods remained constant.

 

[Obiwan]

Why would a Veteran elect to forego his/her rights to control his own legal and financial matters? It sounds to me that there is a mental problem. Is it part of a disability settlement? We need a lot more information before we go half cocked about allegations of abuses of the 2nd Amendment. While I respect the sacrifice of fellow Veterans I don't want them buying guns if they have mental issues.

But that should be adjudicated, instead of stripping someone of their Constitutional rights based on a bureaucratic decision.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Nor does "Muslims might kill someone"....

Terrorism isnt a right.

Terrorism isn't right. But then most Muslims aren't terrorists.

So don't try pulling that crap out of the bag on me.

Some Christians are terrorists. Does that mean ALL are?

Thats weak....

Do you want to discuss this, or are you just going to pull all the tricks in the book to avoid talking about the topic?

You calling Christians terrorist pretty much ended any serious conversation regarding the subject.
And I dont even go to church.

Dylann Roof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You know Dylann Roof? He was a Christian. He killed 9 people.

A terrorist act? Almost certainly.

So, just because he was a Christian, does this mean all Christians are terrorists? No it does not.

So Muslims commit acts. Does this mean all Muslims are terrorists? No, it does not.


The point here being that you make some comment about Muslims. I reply saying this isn't so.

I make THE SAME POINT you make about Christians, and then you come, not with an argument, but you a way of avoiding discussing what I have said.

If a Muslim commits a terrorist act, should ALL MUSLIMS be considered guilty for this and suffer the repercussions?

If a Christian commits a terrorist act, should ALL MUSLIMS be considered guilty for this and suffer the repercussions?

So, let's see if you can reply sensibly to my comments, or if you're going to just attack something or other and avoid.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The problem with your theory goes back to the waiting period to buy a handgun to supposedly give someone time to think about their actions...yet gun killings still continue to happen.
Pre meditated suicide isnt that uncommon.

Research shows gun permit laws appear to impact suicide rates

"may impact" Doesnt sound conclusive.

no, it doesn't.

but when missouri lifted the license requirement gun suicides went up, when connecticut introduced the permitting requirement gun suicide went down.

they say there isn't a clear causal relationship, but since suicides by other means didn't change i'd say it's pretty convincing.

"Gun suicide went down" What about suicide in general?

had you read the article, or even my post, you would know that suicide by other methods remained constant.

To be perfectly honest I really dont care if someone kills themselves unless I know them personally.
If I did I'd be a mental wreck.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why would a Veteran elect to forego his/her rights to control his own legal and financial matters? It sounds to me that there is a mental problem. Is it part of a disability settlement? We need a lot more information before we go half cocked about allegations of abuses of the 2nd Amendment. While I respect the sacrifice of fellow Veterans I don't want them buying guns if they have mental issues.

But that should be adjudicated, instead of stripping someone of their Constitutional rights based on a bureaucratic decision.

Kind of like stripping Muslims of constitutional rights based on bureaucratic decisions, which many right wingers are in favor of.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Terrorism isnt a right.

Terrorism isn't right. But then most Muslims aren't terrorists.

So don't try pulling that crap out of the bag on me.

Some Christians are terrorists. Does that mean ALL are?

Thats weak....

Do you want to discuss this, or are you just going to pull all the tricks in the book to avoid talking about the topic?

You calling Christians terrorist pretty much ended any serious conversation regarding the subject.
And I dont even go to church.

Dylann Roof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You know Dylann Roof? He was a Christian. He killed 9 people.

A terrorist act? Almost certainly.

So, just because he was a Christian, does this mean all Christians are terrorists? No it does not.

So Muslims commit acts. Does this mean all Muslims are terrorists? No, it does not.


The point here being that you make some comment about Muslims. I reply saying this isn't so.

I make THE SAME POINT you make about Christians, and then you come, not with an argument, but you a way of avoiding discussing what I have said.

If a Muslim commits a terrorist act, should ALL MUSLIMS be considered guilty for this and suffer the repercussions?

If a Christian commits a terrorist act, should ALL MUSLIMS be considered guilty for this and suffer the repercussions?

So, let's see if you can reply sensibly to my comments, or if you're going to just attack something or other and avoid.

Isolated incidents hardly count as terrorism.
When Christians start calling for the mass murder of everyone who isnt a Christian you can talk.

 

[ogibillm]

Why would a Veteran elect to forego his/her rights to control his own legal and financial matters? It sounds to me that there is a mental problem. Is it part of a disability settlement? We need a lot more information before we go half cocked about allegations of abuses of the 2nd Amendment. While I respect the sacrifice of fellow Veterans I don't want them buying guns if they have mental issues.

But that should be adjudicated, instead of stripping someone of their Constitutional rights based on a bureaucratic decision.

1. CFR › Title 27 › Chapter II › Subchapter B › Part 478 › Subpart B › Section 478.11

27 CFR 478.11 - Meaning of terms.

 

[ogibillm]

Research shows gun permit laws appear to impact suicide rates

"may impact" Doesnt sound conclusive.

no, it doesn't.

but when missouri lifted the license requirement gun suicides went up, when connecticut introduced the permitting requirement gun suicide went down.

they say there isn't a clear causal relationship, but since suicides by other means didn't change i'd say it's pretty convincing.

"Gun suicide went down" What about suicide in general?

had you read the article, or even my post, you would know that suicide by other methods remained constant.

To be perfectly honest I really dont care if someone kills themselves unless I know them personally.
If I did I'd be a mental wreck.

okay. but indifference doesn't change the facts.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

"may impact" Doesnt sound conclusive.

no, it doesn't.

but when missouri lifted the license requirement gun suicides went up, when connecticut introduced the permitting requirement gun suicide went down.

they say there isn't a clear causal relationship, but since suicides by other means didn't change i'd say it's pretty convincing.

"Gun suicide went down" What about suicide in general?

had you read the article, or even my post, you would know that suicide by other methods remained constant.

To be perfectly honest I really dont care if someone kills themselves unless I know them personally.
If I did I'd be a mental wreck.

okay. but indifference doesn't change the facts.

I doubt your link and it's content.

 

[ogibillm]

no, it doesn't.

but when missouri lifted the license requirement gun suicides went up, when connecticut introduced the permitting requirement gun suicide went down.

they say there isn't a clear causal relationship, but since suicides by other means didn't change i'd say it's pretty convincing.

"Gun suicide went down" What about suicide in general?

had you read the article, or even my post, you would know that suicide by other methods remained constant.

To be perfectly honest I really dont care if someone kills themselves unless I know them personally.
If I did I'd be a mental wreck.

okay. but indifference doesn't change the facts.

I doubt your link and it's content.

if you think you're a better authority than johns hopkins that's fine. delusional, but fine.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Terrorism isn't right. But then most Muslims aren't terrorists.

So don't try pulling that crap out of the bag on me.

Some Christians are terrorists. Does that mean ALL are?

Thats weak....

Do you want to discuss this, or are you just going to pull all the tricks in the book to avoid talking about the topic?

You calling Christians terrorist pretty much ended any serious conversation regarding the subject.
And I dont even go to church.

Dylann Roof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You know Dylann Roof? He was a Christian. He killed 9 people.

A terrorist act? Almost certainly.

So, just because he was a Christian, does this mean all Christians are terrorists? No it does not.

So Muslims commit acts. Does this mean all Muslims are terrorists? No, it does not.


The point here being that you make some comment about Muslims. I reply saying this isn't so.

I make THE SAME POINT you make about Christians, and then you come, not with an argument, but you a way of avoiding discussing what I have said.

If a Muslim commits a terrorist act, should ALL MUSLIMS be considered guilty for this and suffer the repercussions?

If a Christian commits a terrorist act, should ALL MUSLIMS be considered guilty for this and suffer the repercussions?

So, let's see if you can reply sensibly to my comments, or if you're going to just attack something or other and avoid.

Isolated incidents hardly count as terrorism.
When Christians start calling for the mass murder of everyone who isnt a Christian you can talk.

Define "Isolated incidents"!!!

Terrorism does include isolated incidents. Terrorism is terrorism.

terrorism: definition of terrorism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims:"

So, when a White Supremacist goes and does an "Isolated incident", it might not be as isolated as you think.

Besides, it makes no different. Christians kill people. Therefore are all Christians a danger and need to have their rights removed?

Also, your last comment is just another tactic of many people to avoid talking about the subject. Again, are you going to talk properly or are you just going to play these silly games?

SOME Muslims, not most, not all, just some, call for the mass murder of all who aren't Muslims. Should ALL MUSLIMS be punished for this? Yes or no?

 

[frigidweirdo]

no, it doesn't.

but when missouri lifted the license requirement gun suicides went up, when connecticut introduced the permitting requirement gun suicide went down.

they say there isn't a clear causal relationship, but since suicides by other means didn't change i'd say it's pretty convincing.

"Gun suicide went down" What about suicide in general?

had you read the article, or even my post, you would know that suicide by other methods remained constant.

To be perfectly honest I really dont care if someone kills themselves unless I know them personally.
If I did I'd be a mental wreck.

okay. but indifference doesn't change the facts.

I doubt your link and it's content.

A decent poster would say why. You have a bundle of tactics up your sleeve to avoid debate. Why do you come on here to just avoid debate? Surely it'd be easier to go on a site where no one debates.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Thats weak....

Do you want to discuss this, or are you just going to pull all the tricks in the book to avoid talking about the topic?

You calling Christians terrorist pretty much ended any serious conversation regarding the subject.
And I dont even go to church.

Dylann Roof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You know Dylann Roof? He was a Christian. He killed 9 people.

A terrorist act? Almost certainly.

So, just because he was a Christian, does this mean all Christians are terrorists? No it does not.

So Muslims commit acts. Does this mean all Muslims are terrorists? No, it does not.


The point here being that you make some comment about Muslims. I reply saying this isn't so.

I make THE SAME POINT you make about Christians, and then you come, not with an argument, but you a way of avoiding discussing what I have said.

If a Muslim commits a terrorist act, should ALL MUSLIMS be considered guilty for this and suffer the repercussions?

If a Christian commits a terrorist act, should ALL MUSLIMS be considered guilty for this and suffer the repercussions?

So, let's see if you can reply sensibly to my comments, or if you're going to just attack something or other and avoid.

Isolated incidents hardly count as terrorism.
When Christians start calling for the mass murder of everyone who isnt a Christian you can talk.

Define "Isolated incidents"!!!

Terrorism does include isolated incidents. Terrorism is terrorism.

terrorism: definition of terrorism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims:"

So, when a White Supremacist goes and does an "Isolated incident", it might not be as isolated as you think.

Besides, it makes no different. Christians kill people. Therefore are all Christians a danger and need to have their rights removed?

Also, your last comment is just another tactic of many people to avoid talking about the subject. Again, are you going to talk properly or are you just going to play these silly games?

SOME Muslims, not most, not all, just some, call for the mass murder of all who aren't Muslims. Should ALL MUSLIMS be punished for this? Yes or no?

Show me where Christians have called for the death of all unbelievers.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

"Gun suicide went down" What about suicide in general?

had you read the article, or even my post, you would know that suicide by other methods remained constant.

To be perfectly honest I really dont care if someone kills themselves unless I know them personally.
If I did I'd be a mental wreck.

okay. but indifference doesn't change the facts.

I doubt your link and it's content.

A decent poster would say why. You have a bundle of tactics up your sleeve to avoid debate. Why do you come on here to just avoid debate? Surely it'd be easier to go on a site where no one debates.

Really it's common sense.
If you want to kill yourself not having a gun makes no difference,you will find a way.

 

[ogibillm]

had you read the article, or even my post, you would know that suicide by other methods remained constant.

To be perfectly honest I really dont care if someone kills themselves unless I know them personally.
If I did I'd be a mental wreck.

okay. but indifference doesn't change the facts.

I doubt your link and it's content.

A decent poster would say why. You have a bundle of tactics up your sleeve to avoid debate. Why do you come on here to just avoid debate? Surely it'd be easier to go on a site where no one debates.

Really it's common sense.
If you want to kill yourself not having a gun makes no difference,you will find a way.

like most of the time when people invoke 'common sense' you do so because you don't have data to back up your position.

the data does not support you. it says people with access to guns kill themselves more often than people that do not have access.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do you want to discuss this, or are you just going to pull all the tricks in the book to avoid talking about the topic?

You calling Christians terrorist pretty much ended any serious conversation regarding the subject.
And I dont even go to church.

Dylann Roof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You know Dylann Roof? He was a Christian. He killed 9 people.

A terrorist act? Almost certainly.

So, just because he was a Christian, does this mean all Christians are terrorists? No it does not.

So Muslims commit acts. Does this mean all Muslims are terrorists? No, it does not.


The point here being that you make some comment about Muslims. I reply saying this isn't so.

I make THE SAME POINT you make about Christians, and then you come, not with an argument, but you a way of avoiding discussing what I have said.

If a Muslim commits a terrorist act, should ALL MUSLIMS be considered guilty for this and suffer the repercussions?

If a Christian commits a terrorist act, should ALL MUSLIMS be considered guilty for this and suffer the repercussions?

So, let's see if you can reply sensibly to my comments, or if you're going to just attack something or other and avoid.

Isolated incidents hardly count as terrorism.
When Christians start calling for the mass murder of everyone who isnt a Christian you can talk.

Define "Isolated incidents"!!!

Terrorism does include isolated incidents. Terrorism is terrorism.

terrorism: definition of terrorism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims:"

So, when a White Supremacist goes and does an "Isolated incident", it might not be as isolated as you think.

Besides, it makes no different. Christians kill people. Therefore are all Christians a danger and need to have their rights removed?

Also, your last comment is just another tactic of many people to avoid talking about the subject. Again, are you going to talk properly or are you just going to play these silly games?

SOME Muslims, not most, not all, just some, call for the mass murder of all who aren't Muslims. Should ALL MUSLIMS be punished for this? Yes or no?

Show me where Christians have called for the death of all unbelievers.

Why?

What does this have to do with anything?

Stop fucking around and answer my question.

SOME Muslims, not most, not all, just some, call for the mass murder of all who aren't Muslims. Should ALL MUSLIMS be punished for this? Yes or no?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

To be perfectly honest I really dont care if someone kills themselves unless I know them personally.
If I did I'd be a mental wreck.

okay. but indifference doesn't change the facts.

I doubt your link and it's content.

A decent poster would say why. You have a bundle of tactics up your sleeve to avoid debate. Why do you come on here to just avoid debate? Surely it'd be easier to go on a site where no one debates.

Really it's common sense.
If you want to kill yourself not having a gun makes no difference,you will find a way.

like most of the time when people invoke 'common sense' you do so because you don't have data to back up your position.

the data does not support you. it says people with access to guns kill themselves more often than people that do not have access.

Dont believe it. Japan is a perfect example.

 

[frigidweirdo]

had you read the article, or even my post, you would know that suicide by other methods remained constant.

To be perfectly honest I really dont care if someone kills themselves unless I know them personally.
If I did I'd be a mental wreck.

okay. but indifference doesn't change the facts.

I doubt your link and it's content.

A decent poster would say why. You have a bundle of tactics up your sleeve to avoid debate. Why do you come on here to just avoid debate? Surely it'd be easier to go on a site where no one debates.

Really it's common sense.
If you want to kill yourself not having a gun makes no difference,you will find a way.

Common sense?

You mean, you believe something, and you can't be bothered to communicate properly, so you just say something simple, and then expect what?

Why do you come on here and talk to people, to then not do it properly?

Common sense = if a person hasn't committed a crime, they shouldn't be punished for the crimes other people have committed.