“SHOCK REPORT — Veterans Receive Letters From VA Prohibiting Ownership or Purchase of Firearms”
How would you feel if you received a letter from the U.S. Government informing you that because of a physical or mental condition that the government says you have it is proposing to rule that you are incompetent to handle your own financial affairs? Suppose that letter also stated that the government is going to appoint a stranger to handle your affairs for you at your expense? That would certainly be scary enough but it gets worse.
What if that letter also stated: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”?
That makes is sound like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world. Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me.
First, let me say this: I don’t find this shocking in the least. In fact, what this is is a kind of trial balloon / test run for what we can expect once “common sense” “universal background checks” tied to government-mandated databases from both the mental health professionals and, thanks to ObamaCare, the rest of your doctors, who will report your prescription drug use, are collated in order to find the “defectives”.
Having said that, there is little doubt that some vets will be mentally shattered and should probably be under psychiatric care until such time that they are ready to re-enter society safely. Even still, there will be workarounds.
The problem here, though, is one of conflation: any doubt that some bureaucratically-contrived matrix will be used to suggest that those private citizens on, say, anti-depressants, or anti-convulsives — because of the potential side-effects (like suicidal tendencies in some, mostly teens) — are to be prohibited from gun ownership as well? Or that those who’ve experienced bouts of anxiety be ruled dangers? Or that, per the NIH and DHS, those who have adopted such crazy, extremist ideas as a desire for limited government and individual autonomy aren’t deemed dangerous, fringe, and — as potential domestic terrorists — relieved of their natural rights? For the greater good?
Make no mistake: this is what unprincipled Republicans like McCain, Coburn, Cantor, and Kirk are agreeing to — regardless of what “safeguards” they pretend they’ll add to their push to give the New Left bi-partisan cover for a universal background check or magazine bans that serve to empower the police over law-abiding citizens who are, constitutionally-speaking, their equal in terms of the right to keep and bear arms — and the end game will be a winnowing down of those “permitted” by the government to exercise their natural rights.
Meaning “shall not be infringed” will have become, through legislative slight of hand and the slow erosion of the Second Amendment in the Courts, “shall not be infringed unless the government says it can and must be. For the children.”
This is who and what they are. And party doesn’t matter, clearly. The left is working through an ideological playbook that requires the citizens be at the mercy of the state’s power. And the “pragmatists” in the GOP so want to be liked and caressed by the Beltway liberal media that they are happy to surrender our rights for some positive press about how they were bravely willing to stand up to the gun lobby and vote against gun violence and for children.
They are shallow and unserious, and were it possible to recall them, that’s what I’d be working to do. As it stands, though, I’m content to simply turn their names to expletives, and stand back and allow them to help finish off the GOP establishment once and for all.