What do you think of the gun control Obama is proposing?

These are mentally disabled people, not all disabled veterans.

It's a tricky issue (one aspect is that it can discourage people from coming forward) but not what you make it out to be.

I for one see no problem with denying guns to people legally declared mentally unfit to manage their own legal affairs.

If they aren't declared mentally capable of being responsible for their own affairs I don't think they should be entrusted with the responsibility of carrying a firearm.

McGentrix wrote:

I've not seen this, where can I read more?

Here is an article from 2011 about the Obama Administration blocking disabled veterans:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/18/senators-va-has-denied-gun-rights-to-more-than-100000-veterans/

Here is an article from 2015 about the new move to expand this to disabled people in general:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-gun-law-20150718-story.html

In various forms, the bill has languished in Congress for several years now, but the House passed one version last Tuesday. The legislation has the support of the National Rifle Association.

...
Speaking to a national television audience, Torrey, a psychiatrist, claimed that “about half of . . . mass killings are being done by people with severe mental illness, mostly schizophrenia, and if they were being treated they would have been preventable.”23 Similar themes appear in legal dialogues as well. Even the US Supreme Court, which in 2008 strongly affirmed a broad right to bear arms, endorsed prohibitions on gun ownership “by felons and the mentally ill” because of their special potential for violence.24

Yet surprisingly little population-level evidence supports the notion that individuals diagnosed with mental illness are more likely than anyone else to commit gun crimes. According to Appelbaum,25 less than 3% to 5% of US crimes involve people with mental illness, and the percentages of crimes that involve guns are lower than the national average for persons not diagnosed with mental illness. Databases that track gun homicides, such as the National Center for Health Statistics, similarly show that fewer than 5% of the 120 000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness.26

We don't need people with serious mental disabilities carrying guns.

People with such disabilities are responsible for a lot of shootings.

Furthermore, basic firearm safety requires mindfulness at all times. A lapse of awareness easily leads to accidental deaths and injuries.

Did I say anything about people's ability to keep track of bills? No?

Instant strawman.

Try again. Or better yet, don't.

So you are saying that your post about mental disabilities had absolutely nothing to do with what anyone else was talking about in the thread?

If you jump into a discussion about disabled people and start an entirely unrelated conversation about disabled people (and without clarifying that you are talking about something entirely different), people are going to reasonably assume that you are posting in context of the existing conversation, and people making that reasonable assumption will not be engaging in a strawman.

At the moment I am satisfied with my first response given the overall context of the thread.

I will consider the possibility that you are talking about an entirely different subject when responding to further posts however.

oralloy wrote:

So you are saying that your post about mental disabilities had absolutely nothing to do with what anyone else was talking about in the thread?

How do you logically conclude that from what I've posted?

...from what I've posted?

Robert Gentel wrote:

These are mentally disabled people, not all disabled veterans.

So?

It is exactly what I am making it out to be. They are adding large swaths of law abiding citizens to the list of people who are prohibited from owning guns.

Robert Gentel wrote:

I for one see no problem with denying guns to people legally declared mentally unfit to manage their own legal affairs.

Financial affairs I believe.

And the fact that it is a grave violation of their Constitutional rights is a sizable problem.

The government was allowed to prevent criminals or the dangerously insane from having guns because there is reason to believe that they would use those guns to harm people.

There is no reason to believe that people who can't keep track of their bills are likely to use their guns to harm anyone.

Unless you can demonstrate that they are likely to use their guns criminally, the Constitution prevents you from restricting their rights.

Many people would want these people to not have access to guns but when you describe it as "disabled veterans" these people don't come to mind and it sounds like taking weapons away from wounded warriors etc.

So? That you are describing it accurately doesn't mean your position on the matter is the ideal one.

And given that most people don't want these people to have weapons they will likely be restricted from them.

most people mentally unfit to manage their finances are mentally unfit to be wielding a weapon.

I'm sure that there are some people unjustifiably on such lists and yada yada yada but there is not a better, more accurate list upon which to base such gun regulation.

I am not big on constitutional arguments because I am more interested in arguing what things ought to be, not what things are.

But even then I think your statement is yet another minority opinion and that both legal courts and the court of public opinion will not interpret the constitution this way.

The notion that any restriction at all to the second amendment right to guns is unconstitutional is not one that is going to prevail in courts or in public opinion no matter how strongly you hold it and advocate for it.

If they can't keep track of their bills and lack the mental capacity to represent themselves then they likely lack the ability to be responsible for a firearm, both in securing it and in its reasonable use.

Sez you,

Agree with that agreement.

FBM wrote:

Agree with that agreement.

Since you are agreeing with a post that openly advocates violating the civil rights of disabled people who can't keep track of their bills, is it safe for me to assume that you are now referring to that issue?

This shows why the background check system needs to be opposed. It is no longer being used to protect the public from dangerous people. The Democrats are using background checks as a weapon to violate the civil rights of the American people in general.