260,000 Veterans Have Lost Their Gun Rights Since December

[HereWeGoAgain]

Because the ONLY way to kill yourself is with a gun. You are such an idiot.

Two out of three suicides in the U.S. Involve a firearm

Problem with a gun vs other forms of suicide is that it only takes a split second to kill and you can't change your mind

So jumping from a tall building is any different?

yep. climbing to the top of a tall building, finding a place to jump, and then diing so is a lot more difficult than getting drunk and sad with a loaded gun

So loading your weapon and shooting yourself in the head is any different?
If someone wants to off themselves they'll manage without a gun.
Which of course is why they have a suicide watch on the Golden Gate bridge.

i understand the sentiment, but the data that shows gun ownership correlates with a higher suicide rate doesn't support it.

gun availability makes suicide easier and more likely to succeed

Jumping off the Golden Gate bridge or a local parking garage is damn near one hundred percent effective.
Personally as a multiple gun owner if I was going to off myself I'd get snockered and park the truck in the garage.

 

[ogibillm]

then you have no issue with the va as they are doing just what they are required to do.

your issue is with the law and has nothing to do with the va.

Are you reading the conversation or just posting?

do you take issue with the va for reporting the mental incompetence to the fbi?

it's a simple question.

now you may think that i'm not paying attention but it's you that seems unable to follow.
the law says that it's illegal to sell guns or ammunition to someone that is mentally incompetent. that incompetence includes people that have had their decision making assigned to someone else because they are incompetent.

people deemed incompetent can appeal that decision. they can challenge the finding and the law in court. they have not lost their right to due process but the law says they can't be sold guns or ammo.

why do you want guns in the hands of the mentally incompetent?

So yes, you are posting without reading the conversation.

Again, I'm good with all that. You completely missed the issue. The issue is due process. The executive branch (in this case the military) cannot remove Constitutional rights without due process, which means going to the judicial branch to PROVE their case.
Nowhere did you address the actual point, yet again. Everything you say is fine, if they prove it in a court of law, then they can remove the right to have a firearm

if that's what you think fine, but that's not reality. reality says it's illegal to sell to them. reality says unless that law is challenged and ruled unconstitutional it stands.

so why hasn't it been challenged?

What law?

the gun control act of 1968

 

[ogibillm]

Two out of three suicides in the U.S. Involve a firearm

Problem with a gun vs other forms of suicide is that it only takes a split second to kill and you can't change your mind

So jumping from a tall building is any different?

yep. climbing to the top of a tall building, finding a place to jump, and then diing so is a lot more difficult than getting drunk and sad with a loaded gun

So loading your weapon and shooting yourself in the head is any different?
If someone wants to off themselves they'll manage without a gun.
Which of course is why they have a suicide watch on the Golden Gate bridge.

i understand the sentiment, but the data that shows gun ownership correlates with a higher suicide rate doesn't support it.

gun availability makes suicide easier and more likely to succeed

Jumping off the Golden Gate bridge or a local parking garage is damn near one hundred percent effective.

yep, but either required going to the destination, not getting caught and stopped, and then jumping.

getting drunk by yourself and pulling the trigger can be done in quiet isolation in your own home.

but again, this isn't my argument, it's a fact. gun availability means a higher rate of suicide.

 

[Rustic]

No vet is going to be denied firearms from my shop...

 

[Little-Acorn]

I'll agree, but that should be decided on a case-by-case basis.... NOT by a blanket denial of the very rights our vets fought to protect, based on some murky criteria.

Why not?

It's allowed by the 2nd amendment, which says:

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless some unnamed government official thinks the person isn't mentally capable of handling a gun properly.

Right?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Are you reading the conversation or just posting?

do you take issue with the va for reporting the mental incompetence to the fbi?

it's a simple question.

now you may think that i'm not paying attention but it's you that seems unable to follow.
the law says that it's illegal to sell guns or ammunition to someone that is mentally incompetent. that incompetence includes people that have had their decision making assigned to someone else because they are incompetent.

people deemed incompetent can appeal that decision. they can challenge the finding and the law in court. they have not lost their right to due process but the law says they can't be sold guns or ammo.

why do you want guns in the hands of the mentally incompetent?

So yes, you are posting without reading the conversation.

Again, I'm good with all that. You completely missed the issue. The issue is due process. The executive branch (in this case the military) cannot remove Constitutional rights without due process, which means going to the judicial branch to PROVE their case.
Nowhere did you address the actual point, yet again. Everything you say is fine, if they prove it in a court of law, then they can remove the right to have a firearm

if that's what you think fine, but that's not reality. reality says it's illegal to sell to them. reality says unless that law is challenged and ruled unconstitutional it stands.

so why hasn't it been challenged?

What law?

the gun control act of 1968

The gun control act of 1968 says that veterans forfeit their civil rights? Where does It say that?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So jumping from a tall building is any different?

yep. climbing to the top of a tall building, finding a place to jump, and then diing so is a lot more difficult than getting drunk and sad with a loaded gun

So loading your weapon and shooting yourself in the head is any different?
If someone wants to off themselves they'll manage without a gun.
Which of course is why they have a suicide watch on the Golden Gate bridge.

i understand the sentiment, but the data that shows gun ownership correlates with a higher suicide rate doesn't support it.

gun availability makes suicide easier and more likely to succeed

Jumping off the Golden Gate bridge or a local parking garage is damn near one hundred percent effective.

yep, but either required going to the destination, not getting caught and stopped, and then jumping.

getting drunk by yourself and pulling the trigger can be done in quiet isolation in your own home.

but again, this isn't my argument, it's a fact. gun availability means a higher rate of suicide.

Dont know about you but my garage is connected to my house.
And last time I checked I didnt have a group of suicide prevention associates living there.

 

[ogibillm]

do you take issue with the va for reporting the mental incompetence to the fbi?

it's a simple question.

now you may think that i'm not paying attention but it's you that seems unable to follow.
the law says that it's illegal to sell guns or ammunition to someone that is mentally incompetent. that incompetence includes people that have had their decision making assigned to someone else because they are incompetent.

people deemed incompetent can appeal that decision. they can challenge the finding and the law in court. they have not lost their right to due process but the law says they can't be sold guns or ammo.

why do you want guns in the hands of the mentally incompetent?

So yes, you are posting without reading the conversation.

Again, I'm good with all that. You completely missed the issue. The issue is due process. The executive branch (in this case the military) cannot remove Constitutional rights without due process, which means going to the judicial branch to PROVE their case.
Nowhere did you address the actual point, yet again. Everything you say is fine, if they prove it in a court of law, then they can remove the right to have a firearm

if that's what you think fine, but that's not reality. reality says it's illegal to sell to them. reality says unless that law is challenged and ruled unconstitutional it stands.

so why hasn't it been challenged?

What law?

the gun control act of 1968

The gun control act of 1968 says that veterans forfeit their civil rights? Where does It say that?

Don't be an idiot.

 

[ogibillm]

yep. climbing to the top of a tall building, finding a place to jump, and then diing so is a lot more difficult than getting drunk and sad with a loaded gun

So loading your weapon and shooting yourself in the head is any different?
If someone wants to off themselves they'll manage without a gun.
Which of course is why they have a suicide watch on the Golden Gate bridge.

i understand the sentiment, but the data that shows gun ownership correlates with a higher suicide rate doesn't support it.

gun availability makes suicide easier and more likely to succeed

Jumping off the Golden Gate bridge or a local parking garage is damn near one hundred percent effective.

yep, but either required going to the destination, not getting caught and stopped, and then jumping.

getting drunk by yourself and pulling the trigger can be done in quiet isolation in your own home.

but again, this isn't my argument, it's a fact. gun availability means a higher rate of suicide.

Dont know about you but my garage is connected to my house.
And last time I checked I didnt have a group of suicide prevention associates living there.

fine. kill yourself however you want. wont change the statistical reality.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So jumping from a tall building is any different?

yep. climbing to the top of a tall building, finding a place to jump, and then diing so is a lot more difficult than getting drunk and sad with a loaded gun

So loading your weapon and shooting yourself in the head is any different?
If someone wants to off themselves they'll manage without a gun.
Which of course is why they have a suicide watch on the Golden Gate bridge.

i understand the sentiment, but the data that shows gun ownership correlates with a higher suicide rate doesn't support it.

gun availability makes suicide easier and more likely to succeed

Jumping off the Golden Gate bridge or a local parking garage is damn near one hundred percent effective.

yep, but either required going to the destination, not getting caught and stopped, and then jumping.

getting drunk by yourself and pulling the trigger can be done in quiet isolation in your own home.

but again, this isn't my argument, it's a fact. gun availability means a higher rate of suicide.

So why did you leave the garage method out of your post?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Lack of a firearm isn't going to prevent a suicide.

Such a dumb weasle like claim

You think that gun confiscation is going to prevent all suicides? If you do, you have no room to insult someone.

Why does it have to be all?

"All", isn't my language. It's the language that the anti-gunners use.

Of course it is not "all"

That is the gun nuts standard. Unless a legislation can prevent all gun deaths, it is not worth doing

And your standard for voter fraud is unless it can stop all fraud it should not be done , tell us what the difference is? By the way we gun "nuts" support lots of laws we just don't support laws that do nothing but punish law abiding citizens while failing to address the real criminals.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Don't be an idiot.

TRANSLATION: You caught me. I was lying through my teeth, hoping nobody would challenge me.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

So much for being "innocent until proven guilty"

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So loading your weapon and shooting yourself in the head is any different?
If someone wants to off themselves they'll manage without a gun.
Which of course is why they have a suicide watch on the Golden Gate bridge.

i understand the sentiment, but the data that shows gun ownership correlates with a higher suicide rate doesn't support it.

gun availability makes suicide easier and more likely to succeed

Jumping off the Golden Gate bridge or a local parking garage is damn near one hundred percent effective.

yep, but either required going to the destination, not getting caught and stopped, and then jumping.

getting drunk by yourself and pulling the trigger can be done in quiet isolation in your own home.

but again, this isn't my argument, it's a fact. gun availability means a higher rate of suicide.

Dont know about you but my garage is connected to my house.
And last time I checked I didnt have a group of suicide prevention associates living there.

fine. kill yourself however you want. wont change the statistical reality.

Stop cherry picking from my posts.

Facts are most women dont want to mess their faces up when committing suicide and they go with drug overdoses or carbon monoxide poisoning.
And while men generally use a gun they also call ahead if they have spouse so they dont come home to brains splattered all over the garage,which is where most men kill themselves when using a firearm.
My mother was a paramedic and she saw the aftermath plenty of times.

 

[ogibillm]

yep. climbing to the top of a tall building, finding a place to jump, and then diing so is a lot more difficult than getting drunk and sad with a loaded gun

So loading your weapon and shooting yourself in the head is any different?
If someone wants to off themselves they'll manage without a gun.
Which of course is why they have a suicide watch on the Golden Gate bridge.

i understand the sentiment, but the data that shows gun ownership correlates with a higher suicide rate doesn't support it.

gun availability makes suicide easier and more likely to succeed

Jumping off the Golden Gate bridge or a local parking garage is damn near one hundred percent effective.

yep, but either required going to the destination, not getting caught and stopped, and then jumping.

getting drunk by yourself and pulling the trigger can be done in quiet isolation in your own home.

but again, this isn't my argument, it's a fact. gun availability means a higher rate of suicide.

So why did you leave the garage method out of your post?

because it's irrelevant and doesn't change the statistics. people with guns available to them commit suicide at a higher rate than the rest of the population. you can imagine any scenario you want, doesn't change that fact.

also you can change your mind once you've started the process with the car in the garage. not so much with a gunshot.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So loading your weapon and shooting yourself in the head is any different?
If someone wants to off themselves they'll manage without a gun.
Which of course is why they have a suicide watch on the Golden Gate bridge.

i understand the sentiment, but the data that shows gun ownership correlates with a higher suicide rate doesn't support it.

gun availability makes suicide easier and more likely to succeed

Jumping off the Golden Gate bridge or a local parking garage is damn near one hundred percent effective.

yep, but either required going to the destination, not getting caught and stopped, and then jumping.

getting drunk by yourself and pulling the trigger can be done in quiet isolation in your own home.

but again, this isn't my argument, it's a fact. gun availability means a higher rate of suicide.

So why did you leave the garage method out of your post?

because it's irrelevant and doesn't change the statistics. people with guns available to them commit suicide at a higher rate than the rest of the population. you can imagine any scenario you want, doesn't change that fact.

also you can change your mind once you've started the process with the car in the garage. not so much with a gunshot.

Not if you're passed out.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So loading your weapon and shooting yourself in the head is any different?
If someone wants to off themselves they'll manage without a gun.
Which of course is why they have a suicide watch on the Golden Gate bridge.

i understand the sentiment, but the data that shows gun ownership correlates with a higher suicide rate doesn't support it.

gun availability makes suicide easier and more likely to succeed

Jumping off the Golden Gate bridge or a local parking garage is damn near one hundred percent effective.

yep, but either required going to the destination, not getting caught and stopped, and then jumping.

getting drunk by yourself and pulling the trigger can be done in quiet isolation in your own home.

but again, this isn't my argument, it's a fact. gun availability means a higher rate of suicide.

So why did you leave the garage method out of your post?

because it's irrelevant and doesn't change the statistics. people with guns available to them commit suicide at a higher rate than the rest of the population. you can imagine any scenario you want, doesn't change that fact.

also you can change your mind once you've started the process with the car in the garage. not so much with a gunshot.

Real EXPLAIN Japan then?

 

[ogibillm]

Don't be an idiot.

TRANSLATION: You caught me. I was lying through my teeth, hoping nobody would challenge me.

are you joining the idiot brigade as well? looks like it

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person --



(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;



(2) is a fugitive from justice;



(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));



(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

The Gun Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-618

 

[ogibillm]

i understand the sentiment, but the data that shows gun ownership correlates with a higher suicide rate doesn't support it.

gun availability makes suicide easier and more likely to succeed

Jumping off the Golden Gate bridge or a local parking garage is damn near one hundred percent effective.

yep, but either required going to the destination, not getting caught and stopped, and then jumping.

getting drunk by yourself and pulling the trigger can be done in quiet isolation in your own home.

but again, this isn't my argument, it's a fact. gun availability means a higher rate of suicide.

So why did you leave the garage method out of your post?

because it's irrelevant and doesn't change the statistics. people with guns available to them commit suicide at a higher rate than the rest of the population. you can imagine any scenario you want, doesn't change that fact.

also you can change your mind once you've started the process with the car in the garage. not so much with a gunshot.

Real EXPLAIN Japan then?

okay. japan isn't the united states.

is that really your defense? that people can kill themselves without firearms so firearms are irrelevant?

in the united states the data shows that people with available firearms have a higher suicide rate. this cannot be disputed. it is a fact. bringing up another country doesn't change that.

 

[ogibillm]

i understand the sentiment, but the data that shows gun ownership correlates with a higher suicide rate doesn't support it.

gun availability makes suicide easier and more likely to succeed

Jumping off the Golden Gate bridge or a local parking garage is damn near one hundred percent effective.

yep, but either required going to the destination, not getting caught and stopped, and then jumping.

getting drunk by yourself and pulling the trigger can be done in quiet isolation in your own home.

but again, this isn't my argument, it's a fact. gun availability means a higher rate of suicide.

So why did you leave the garage method out of your post?

because it's irrelevant and doesn't change the statistics. people with guns available to them commit suicide at a higher rate than the rest of the population. you can imagine any scenario you want, doesn't change that fact.

also you can change your mind once you've started the process with the car in the garage. not so much with a gunshot.

Not if you're passed out.

again, fucking super. so you time your passing out to right after when you start the vehicle and then hope that nobody comes and finds you before it kills you.

i'm happy that you think you've found a way to commit suicide that's as effective as using a gun, but the fact remains

PEOPLE WITH ACCESS TO GUNS KILL THEMSELVES MORE OFTEN THAN PEOPLE WITHOUT