Why aren't military/veterans the first to advocate for mental health screenings for gun ownership?

Define mental health hazard. A paper review does not equal the facts. Many that are the greatest threat appear to be model AMCITs on paper and vice versa. That trend has almost reversed recently, with a few cases that begged for intervention.

It's a slippery slope, because we already have people that don't go to a mental health counselor because of the stigma that they must be "crazy" or something like that. If you make it so anybody with any kind of mental health issue and/or diagnosis isn't able to poses and/or firearms you are going to have even a bigger issue of people not getting the help they need. When I was having some issues and was trying to find the right medication to help I had a friend of mine who happened to be my pastor hold onto my personally owned firearm until I talked to my therapist about how I was doing and made sure my therapist was ok with me having it back before I asked my pastor for it back.

To quote a Psychology instructor in college, "To be perfectly normal is ABNORMAL" Once you give government the right to take one's weapons away, for some "mental issue" what is there to stop the government from doing the same thing for another issue or eccentricity that may be harmless but someone with the power deems to be a "Danger to society"
Our founding fathers in their wisdom gave us tremendous freedom in the ownership of arms. It is our duty to protect that right at all costs unless a competent DOCTOR rules that an individual is a danger to society BEFORE a Judge makes a ruling, after a hearing....not just a rubber stamp tie on to a court order.....think orders of protection claiming domestic violence when there is no evidence or history.

Most military have had weapons training and it is important for them throughout their career. If they had never had weapons training, it would not matter, because it was not an everyday or formal requirement for their job as civilians unless police or security of some type.
It has been my experience that you don't miss what you never trained for or never had and experience.
Since I have been through Marine Boot Camp, Marine AIT and after transferring to the Army, Special Forces Training, Weapons training, and multiple schools to advance my career; A lack of anyone of these skill sets would be missed and cause some concern among my peers and myself.
Why do military personnel come out strongly against restrictions on firearms is simple, it is a basic skill that they are taught to enable them to protect their fellow soldiers and themselves. Being restricted from it inhibits us mentally because we feel we are not part of the active force.
Restrictions also cause other problems such as confidence in our ability to support the mission.
We know that mental health is frowned upon today and we know that if it is in our records, it may be used against us to keep us from ever owning or using a weapon in the future. It is a stigma most of us don't want to take and try to avoid at all costs.
If seeking Mental Health counselling was considered an asset to help the soldier instead of an obstacle, we would be more open to Mental health counselling and psychological help with our fears and our daily emotions. I sure hope I expressed this right, because it is an issue that we have to make acceptable to continue to have healthy soldiers for the present and the future.

Is there a part of “shall not be infringed” that you don’t understand? I believe anyone that is a legal resident of this country should be able to purchase any weapon they want.

... and then there is HIPPA. Ok, now that you've created this "Database of Crazies"??? What "Documentation" is required to be removed, how many signatures, how many different "Gov't" bureaus need to be notified: Fed, State, County, City? How do you get removed due to: Identity Theft, "Revenge"[ex: Spouse/Partner, Family Member(s), Drinking Buddy(s), Practical Joke]? How do you tie it into a states Criminal Bureau of Investigation, NCIC? Will this database crossover into a employment background checks, Security Clearance background investigations? How do you prevent a GS-5/WG-5 or higher from pulling a "Lois Learner" because they're anti #2A?

As far as I'm concerned the current laws would be very effective if properly inforced. Personally I'd like to see a training requirment, but sadly it would have to be completely separated from any government control. If the govn was involved in any way the law would be misused at some point, used to regulate gun ownership. Back to the original question. I have ptsd, and am receiving treatment from the VA. Under the current system if I were to own a weapon it would be a non-issue. However the way vets are viewed these days ie... We are all one printer paper jam away from climbing a clocktower with a jdam, and leveling a city block. If you don't think I'm justified in being concerned that at some point some random idiot is going to change the law to prevent anyone with ptsd or depression from having a firearm. Then your not paying attention. Bump stocks aren't going to be around much longer because one idiot who by the way would have done far more damage with out it ( you lose too much accuratecy. In my opinion ) if he had a spent a few grand on a thermal, and trained up a bit it would have been twice as bad.

This is actually a great point. Those suffering from mental health issues should not be allowed to get their hands on firearms. Simple as that.

I advocated for mental health screenings before I became military.

Until society agrees upon a way to identify and assist/help/address people with mental health issues, gun violence will continue to happen. That is not to say that ALL gun violence is to be blamed on mental health.

Before all of that, we need to enforce existing laws because some of them concern mental health.

My answer will get me crap from both ends of the spectrum on this because God forbid someone should advocate a middle ground, but to hell with it.

Since this is addressed to a military crowd, let me ask this. Did you get your weapon the day you swore in? How about the day you arrived for boot camp/basic? You didn’t get assigned a weapon until you went to a range they showed you how to do all the things you needed to know (even if you had been born with a pistol in one tiny hand and a rifle in the other and raised to shoot from the day you could properly squeeze a trigger. And look at some of the guys and gals they gave a weapon to? Holy crap didn’t want to be within three firing positions of them.

Now, back to the good ol’ 2AM. The first clause of the amendment specifically states “A well-regulated...”. Wait, what? You know rules, laws and stuff to make sure you know what the hell you are doing.

Like any right, if the government wishes to impinge upon it, there must be a due process and the weight of proof is upon the one challenging the right of the individual. But if the government wants to set regulations upon the militia (read as any person who could serve in the military and has the full duties and responsibilities of citizenship) who wishes to be prepared for some such highly improbable but always possible need for the militia to serve should be able to own, carry, possess and use in all legal manner a firearm or firearms, that government can and by language in the amendment MUST propose, place and use regulations which ensure that those said same firearms are not going to be in possession of persons who are as much a threat to the safety and welfare of others or themselves as any potential enemy force could be.

End of point. Discuss amongst yourselves.