14 ms·

> A guardian makes legal decisions for them, and their names go on an FBI list so they can't purchase guns. That about sums it up in my view. Gun ownership is

> A guardian makes legal decisions for them, and their names go on an FBI list so they can't purchase guns. That about sums it up in my view. Gun ownership is a serious responsibility and if the mental health challenges of an individual prevent them from being able to make their own legal decisions, it seems reasonable to limit their access to deadly weapons.

NinjaViking 10y ago
On the other hand, discouraging people who own guns from seeking help for mental health issues is not ideal either.
- stult 10y ago
  The law doesn't affect guns people already own, only the purchase of additional firearms. If your mental health is so poor that you require a legal guardian, acquiring additional firearms seems like it should be very low on the priority list. >Backers of the bill, such as Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., the chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, say it would help veterans avoid being caught up in a bureaucracy that can make it tough to remove a negative label. If this is the problem, then maybe they should be addressing the system which apparently is trapping otherwise competent veterans in a bureaucratic maze.
  - fapjacks 10y ago
    This isn't strictly true, because the VA can and will send police officers to your home to remove firearms if they deem it so appropriate.
hubert123 10y ago
I have just determined that you are mentally incapacitated by my very own definition and judgement. Sorry. Now extrapolate that to the general population.
simias 10y ago
Given how powerful the US military is, doesn't it mean that only a coup by the army could overthrow the government? And if that happens, well, they already have all the weapons they need, don't they? If the army remains loyal to the government I can't see how a bunch of civilians could overthrow anything, no matter how many guns they own. That being said I've never been to the USA in my life so I won't pretend I understand the culture over there.
- ctdonath 10y ago
  American deer hunters alone constitute the largest military on Earth (save perhaps just behind China). That's 18 million well-equipped snipers (never mind the other 50M armed citizens). ...and a very large fraction of the military would likely be on the side of the deer hunters (complex cultural explanation omitted), so the assumption of the army remaining loyal to the government under such circumstances is in grave doubt. BUT... The issue at hand isn't overthrowing the government, it's denying the weak their tools for defending themselves from violent assault. We have due process for doing so; the bill being disparaged in the lead article ensures doing so is in fact via due process, and not simply a faceless bureaucrat checking off a box on a form for some trivial reason (which is a serious problem).
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Chain of command and training and logistics are at least as important to a military as rifles. US hunters constitute a population armed with rifles, not a military.
    - ctdonath 10y ago
      Go look up the Swiss aphorism "shoot twice and go home".
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        Those words were uttered at a time when the Swiss militia had been called up and organized.
docdeek 10y ago
"Gun ownership is a serious responsibility…” In the US it is a civil right guaranteed in the Constitution, too. This makes limiting that right a serious step and, in this case, it’s the reasonable-ness of the rule that’s in question.
Afforess 10y ago
For the record, the ACLU supports the above House Bill, because the term _Guardian_ is overly broad. See the ACLU argument here: https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdf https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/AC... The ACLU core argument: All individuals have the right to be judged on the basis of their individual capabilities, not the characteristics and capabilities that are sometimes attributed (often mistakenly) to any group or class to which they belong. A disability should not constitute grounds for the automatic per se denial of any right or privilege, including gun ownership

NinjaViking 10y ago

On the other hand, discouraging people who own guns from seeking help for mental health issues is not ideal either.

stult 10y ago
The law doesn't affect guns people already own, only the purchase of additional firearms. If your mental health is so poor that you require a legal guardian, acquiring additional firearms seems like it should be very low on the priority list. >Backers of the bill, such as Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., the chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, say it would help veterans avoid being caught up in a bureaucracy that can make it tough to remove a negative label. If this is the problem, then maybe they should be addressing the system which apparently is trapping otherwise competent veterans in a bureaucratic maze.
- fapjacks 10y ago
  This isn't strictly true, because the VA can and will send police officers to your home to remove firearms if they deem it so appropriate.

hubert123 10y ago

I have just determined that you are mentally incapacitated by my very own definition and judgement. Sorry. Now extrapolate that to the general population.

simias 10y ago

Given how powerful the US military is, doesn't it mean that only a coup by the army could overthrow the government? And if that happens, well, they already have all the weapons they need, don't they? If the army remains loyal to the government I can't see how a bunch of civilians could overthrow anything, no matter how many guns they own. That being said I've never been to the USA in my life so I won't pretend I understand the culture over there.

ctdonath 10y ago
American deer hunters alone constitute the largest military on Earth (save perhaps just behind China). That's 18 million well-equipped snipers (never mind the other 50M armed citizens). ...and a very large fraction of the military would likely be on the side of the deer hunters (complex cultural explanation omitted), so the assumption of the army remaining loyal to the government under such circumstances is in grave doubt. BUT... The issue at hand isn't overthrowing the government, it's denying the weak their tools for defending themselves from violent assault. We have due process for doing so; the bill being disparaged in the lead article ensures doing so is in fact via due process, and not simply a faceless bureaucrat checking off a box on a form for some trivial reason (which is a serious problem).
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Chain of command and training and logistics are at least as important to a military as rifles. US hunters constitute a population armed with rifles, not a military.
  - ctdonath 10y ago
    Go look up the Swiss aphorism "shoot twice and go home".
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Those words were uttered at a time when the Swiss militia had been called up and organized.

docdeek 10y ago

"Gun ownership is a serious responsibility…” In the US it is a civil right guaranteed in the Constitution, too. This makes limiting that right a serious step and, in this case, it’s the reasonable-ness of the rule that’s in question.

Afforess 10y ago

For the record, the ACLU supports the above House Bill, because the term _Guardian_ is overly broad. See the ACLU argument here: https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdf https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/AC... The ACLU core argument: All individuals have the right to be judged on the basis of their individual capabilities, not the characteristics and capabilities that are sometimes attributed (often mistakenly) to any group or class to which they belong. A disability should not constitute grounds for the automatic per se denial of any right or privilege, including gun ownership