« on: December 05, 2012, 01:36:17 PM »
From David Codrea:
Military personnel gun rights surface in defense appropriations amendment debate
A measure backed by those claiming it will help stem military member suicides and removing guns from veterans deemed financially incompetent are both being debated in the Senate.
Miltary.com reported yesterday on an amendment to the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act sponsored by Sen. John Kerry that would “ … authorize … mental health professionals and commanding officers to ask servicemembers about firearms and ammunition when they believe them at risk for suicide.”
Also, The Washington Times reported yesterday on an argument by Sen. Tom Coburn over the same bill to ensure veterans who have a fiduciary appointed to handle their benefits “ … have their cases adjudicated by a judge -- rather than the Department of Veterans Affairs, as happens currently -- [when] veterans who simply cannot support themselves financially are needlessly given the label [mentally incompetent] and, as such, cannot buy or possess firearms.”
While some, like CNN founder Ted Turner, see an increase in military suicides as “good” because, as he told Pier Morgan (naturally), that will somehow pave the way for a more enlightened United Nations world policeman, people who are actually sane can debate on the effects of removing firearms from people committed to killing themselves, and the danger for abuse if government is allowed to essentially, by documenting such matters in its records, compile a list of active duty firearms owners, and in apparent contravention of funding proscriptions against such a database established by current law. That’s a discussion that needs to happen in the light, not behind closed doors.
But applicable in both current member and veteran situations is a concern articulated by Coburn that must not be ignored.
“We’re just saying that if you’re going to take away the Second Amendment rights … they ought to have it adjudicated, rather than mandated by someone who’s unqualified to state that they should lose their rights,” he asserted.
Arguing that due process already exists was Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign, who maintained “Gun possession is allowed if competency is restored.”
True. Provided anyone so “legally” disabled has the wherewithal to pursue matters, and remember what they're being singled out for, and with the understanding that until such time as he does, his rights are being denied whether he’s subjected to danger or not. And provided a “guilty until proven innocent” standard is really something people will be happy with when they find it results in their ox being gored, too, under other circumstances when those who would compel us to trade liberty for the illusion of security have succeeded in further eroding both.
That’s why some argued against such a state of affairs in the first place.
http://www.examiner.com/article/military-personnel-gun-rights-surface-defense-appropriations-amendment-debate
Logged
"I expect perdition, I always have. I keep this building at my back, and several guns handy, in case perdition arrives in a form that's susceptible to bullets. I expect it will come in the disease form, though. I'm susceptible to diseases, and you can't shoot a damned disease." ~ Judge Roy Bean, Streets of Laredo
For the Patriots of this country, the Constitution is second only to the Bible for most. For those who love this country, but do not share my personal beliefs, it is their Bible. To them nothing comes before the Constitution of these United States of America. For this we are all labeled potential terrorists. ~ Dean Garrison
"When it comes to the enemy, just because they ain't pullin' a trigger, doesn't mean they ain't totin' ammo for those that are."~PegLeg
MBTV
Forum Index
Help
Calendar
Contact Info
Register as a member
