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

And why should we? Does our military association or status as veterans give us any kind of right to do so? Nope. We are not weapons handling experts except for combat arms and SF/SOF. Weapons handling amongst the majority is deplorable. No wonder the Marines laugh at us! And our mental evaluations are still lacking. We have the right to advocate to improve our Army and that is about it.

Why aren’t there restrictions for abortions? More people are killed through the abortionists knife than by guns by 100 fold.

SSG (Join to see) Most Military and Law Enforcement personnel wouldn't qualify if that happen...and there are some trying to prevent vets from being able to own one now ( PTSD, Anger Issues, Depression) They think more Combat Vets are "Broken" as it is now lol. The V.A. BHOST has some sign paperwork that will prevent them from owning a fire are in the future when they go inpatient. and besides look at the cities and states with the strongest Gun Laws, they have most of the Gun related incidents now how is that when they are so strict? lol I did think it would be a great Idea at one time for a mental health screening but the only thing that will tell you is at that time the person passed his or her evaluation.Two weeks later that same person loses their job goes out and buys a gun then goes back to where they worked and kills a few people... Look at that LAPD Cop that got fired a few years back that went on a shooting spree killing all those involved in his firing and a few innocent people as well. So a psych test or eval really wouldn't work...How about that Army Major That was a Shrink that got turned by ISIS and he went on a killing spree on Base...

I'm not against taking away a person's right to own a firearm IF it is determined so in a court of law, as is REQUIRED by the 5th amendment. As a refresher, one of the clauses of the 5th states that "(No person shall) be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Sure, keep background checks. Only one branch of the government should be inputting data in it: the judicial branch.
This is how it really should go: person sees mental health professional, MH determines subject is a threat to others and calls the DA. The DA gets a hearing scheduled and requests an emergency injunction through the court. Officers serve the subject with the order and takes any weapons into custody. Once the court holds the hearing and determines that person should have their 2nd rights suspended/revoked, the clerk enters it into the NICS and he can no longer legally purchase a weapon. But, because of fear mongering it doesn't happen this way at all.
I would also like to say one last thing on this subject: gun control is an act of war against the United States. If anyone thinks that abolishing the 2nd amendment won't trigger a civil war in this country you are absolutely lying to yourselves and others. And levying war against the United States, as well as providing aid and comfort to their enemies, is the very definition of treason under article 3, section 3, clause 1 of the Constitution. Thank you and have a nice weekend.

Veterans have been trained to use weapons properly, I was actually naïve enough for a while to believe that the government honors the service of veterans. I was wrong......ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, veterans, go to a private counselor if you are having mental health issues......why? Because the VA will begin looking for ways to remove your weapons the minute you seek out mental health services through the VA. OVER 250,000 VETERANS HAVE ALREADY HAD WEAPONS REMOVED BECAUSE OF THE VA.......Not because they deem you a danger to the public at large, but a danger to an overreaching, left leaning government. The government has been using the military as a social experiment for years in an attempt to weaken it......they have done a pretty good job.... as for veterans, most of us are still not brainwashed by the left and who is most likely do you think to say HELL NO to an overreaching government? Who is best trained to defend themselves, their homes, their communities from ANTIFA, BLM, or any other anarchists? Who is best trained to volunteer to protect communities from radical muslims on the attack, violent leftists, looters, keep shooters away from schools and recruiting stations that have disarmed critical places where innocent kids and people gather.....All you have to do is watch one hour of Fox News to understand that our government would love to disarm veterans......in answer to the question....VETERANS AREN'T THE FIRST TO "ADVOCATE" FOR MENTAL HEALTH SCREENINGS FOR GUN OWNERS BECAUSE THEY FOUGHT AND OFFERED UP THEIR BLOOD TO DEFEND THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS IN THIS NATION, THEY UNDERSTAND THAT SUCH A RIDICULOUS REQUIREMENT AS A PRECURSOR TO GUN OWNERSHIP WOULD ADD TO THE ALREADY COMPLEX (& UNCONSTITUTIONAL) PROCESS OF BUYING A GUN. CREATING SUCH A STUPID REQUIREMENT WOULD BE A GOOD JUMP DOWN THAT SLIPPERY SLOPE TO GUN CONFISCATION ACROSS THIS NATION. I SWEAR THIS QUESTION HAD TO HAVE BEEN PUT OUT BY A LIB.....

If you impose additional mental health screening, who do you task to enforce it? Does it become another government function? If it is a government function, does the government define the parameters that disqualify ownership? If the government determines the parameters, does the possibility exist that an administration will come to pawed that alters the parameters to include their opposition? The government does not need any more say in firearms ownership. If anything, it needs less.

I'm not against anyone with a disposition towards violent behavior being prohibited from possessing firearms. What I am against are left wing snowflakes at the VA being given the power to invoke their wishes by proclaiming someone a danger - particularly when some freshman care giver with a bachelors degree proclaims the expertise to make the calls on these issues.

I am also against a pack of Washington politicians attempting to define what is prohibited behavior or mental state given this same pack of rats classified hundreds of firearms as assault weapons in the 90s with glowing ignorance. I doubt anyone wants a dangerous wacko having access to firearms. I don't want ruthless wackos making the rules and that this what you get when a bunch of drama queen bureaucrats are given the power to invoke their will on citizens.

The short answer is that many of us don't trust "the system" to accurately and fairly determine "mental illness" and not use made-up "diagnoses" as a basis for depriving rights. The psychiatric community makes up a disease every time it gets confronted with some new human wierdness, and many of these trip off the BS detectors of people of ordinary intelligence and experience. And "the system" doesn't have the time to do its job right - press innocent people to accept a "guilty plea to a lesser charge" because we're too busy to have a proper trial. Or a person to outright lie and get a "restraining order" to have someone's weapons confiscated by the government.

Things are messed up, my friend.

Driving is not a right, it's a privilege, so is consuming Alcohol as long as it's done responsibly. The internet is not covered under the bill of rights. If homosexuality is not a problem, I guess that true pedophiles off the board too right. Or are you just going to cherry pick things. Dr Ben Carson is obviously far more qualified to make the call than you or I am. But just so I'm getting this right, if in born with the DNA of a male, and I have a penis yet I continually insist that I am a female, you are suggesting that there's nothing wrong with me mentally????
I say we don't let you have any guns. That's what I call common sense.

FOOL