Faux Follies

          Faux News is at it again. This time it's a Faux News website headline trumpeting    "Obama seeks to ban Social Security recipients from owning  guns"  Oh, the horror, the horror.  Well, it might be, if it were true in the context that Faux wants its ignorant readers to believe that it is.  As a Social Security recipient in his early 70s, I would be furious if the government or any other entity told me I couldn't have a gun for hunting. A handgun would be irrelevant in my case, since statistically, handguns in the home harm far more unintended or heat of anger victims than they do actual bad guys.

        Placed in context, the story is very different. Under an existing law (More about the law in a moment) the Veterans Administration is tasked with reporting anyone in their cognizance, meaning specifically, those receiving some sort of Veterans benefits; this was aimed primarily at PTSD.  Any veteran receiving "voluntary " treatment by the VA is not subject to said review. The purpose was to insure that those who were so profoundly mentally incapacitated such as to be a danger to themselves or others would not have access to guns. This might have kept James Holmes on the radar, had he been a vet. He wasn't and 12 died in Aurora. The same is true for the deranged VA Tech killer.

          “a veteran, surviving spouse, or child who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness shall not be considered adjudicated as a mental defective” for purposes of the Gun Control Act, “without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such veteran, surviving spouse, or child is a danger to him or herself or others.”   

        Discussion of this provision was carried on throughout the Bush administration but was largely little regarded by most Americans. The actual implementation was amended thus: The Veterans Medical Administration has not submitted any disqualifying records on VA beneficiaries to the FBI for inclusion in NICS for any medical/psychiatric reason (like PTSD), unless those veterans had been involuntarily committed under a state court order to a VA medical facility because they posed a danger to themselves or others. In those cases, the state in which the court resides would submit the disqualifying record to the FBI. In plainer English - people who are mentally incompetent and dangerous to themselves and others shouldn't have guns.  

        Now, the story I promised earlier. This law is not recent. it was passed 22 years ago, to a thunderous silence by a Republican controlled Congress and signed into law by a Democratic president, Bill Clinton. Again - a Republican Congress did this, a fact which Faux News will not mention. Jump ahead to the present. President Obama has made no proposal, none,  to bar Social Security recipients from gun ownership. Yeah, I know what the headline says, and like most Faux News drivel, it is aimed at inflaming that portion of the population which gets their news from only Faux News, ergo, never engages in critical analysis of multiple sources. It is skewed to enflame, not inform.

        Having mental incompetents armed is already a national crisis (see Colorado, Aurora) This Faux article in a typical sleight of information maneuver, cites one case, a veteran , not a senior, who was being investigated by the VA under a the 1997  law, and in true Faux News fashion extrapolates it to the entire population. If you truly think persons deemed mentally incompetent should be allowed guns, then you are right up there with the several shrinks, all of whom have known that their clients were mentally unstable, yet did nothing to bring it to the attention of those who needed to know. The results: 12 dead in Aurora, more dead at UVA, more dead at Sandy Hook.

        The actual Obama proposal was simply to extend the same rigor we use with veterans, to another group of federal funds recipients, those on Social Security. Taking emotion out of it and using simple logic (never Faux's strong suit) it is a common sense approach to keeping the mentally incompetent from needless accidental, or mistakenly purposeful,  gun tragedies. It is exactly the same principle as the 1997  law which has been around since 1997, passed by a Congress (the 105th) in which both houses were controlled by Republicans. I repeat, REPUBLICANS PASSED THIS LAW WHICH DISARMED ABOUT 88,000 VETERANS DEEMED MENTALLY INCOMPETENT. Was the Far Right angry then? Of course not, because Obama wasn't President. If Republicans thought disarming the mentally incompetent was a good idea then, why not now? If you're 85 and healthy, this law is of no consequence to you. If you're 65 and crazy as a bedbug, this proposal  protects you and your family.

        On a broader canvas, while I generally respect the doctrine of doctor patient privilege, I'm really tired of seeing deranged persons who should either be institutionalized or disarmed, killing innocent Americans. Reading after the fact, as in the case of James Holmes, Adam Lanza and the Virginia Tech shooter, that their  psychiatrist/counselors had ample concern regarding their states of mind and violent ideations, yet told no one and did nothing  sickens me. I'm even more tired of this obvious, no brainer idea, that the insane shouldn't have lethal weapons, being a political football instead of doctrine.