Apparently the V.A. can't think of a better way to spend tax dollars to support Vets!

[Wyldekard]

Veterans Administration Overdoses on Anti-Gun Prescription

Posted on March 9, 2012

"The presence of firearms in households has been linked to increased risk of injury or death for everyone in or around the home" and "Firearms in the home can increase the possibility of completing suicide." Not only that, while locking up guns is a good idea, "The best way to reduce gun risks is to remove the gun from your home. . . . The safest action is to get rid of the guns."

Sounds familiar, of course. But this time, the anti-gun propaganda isn't from one of the handful of people in the medical field that the Joyce Foundation pays hundreds of thousands of dollars to write up "studies" characterizing guns as too dangerous for private individuals to possess. Instead, it's from a federal government entity whose employees apparently read such stuff and, through some combination of naïveté, ignorance and bias, fall for it.

In this instance, the anti-gun message comes from the Department of Veterans Affairs' Office of the Medical Inspector and Geriatrics and Extended Care Strategic Healthcare Group. The VA's statements appear in a pamphlet called "Firearms and Dementia," which, the name of the pamphlet notwithstanding, is directed at anyone who has a child, in addition to people who are responsible for individuals suffering from decreased mental acuity.

The VA's statements are derived from "studies" that have been discounted or discredited by so many researchers, for so many years, that it hardly bears repeating. Gary Kleck, for example, summed up serious researchers' opinions of the "studies," referring to them as "nonsense" and saying "there is virtually no credible research supporting the skeptical view" that keeping guns at home generally increases Americans' safety risks.

Further examination of the VA's pamphlet even suggests that if one of its pamphleteers isn't related to the Brady Campaign's Dennis Henigan, he or she ought to be. Henigan deserves to be in the Guinness Book of World Records as the most vociferous advocate of the greatest number of Second Amendment theories that have been rejected by the Supreme Court. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the court ignored Henigan's theory that the amendment protects a "right" of a state to have a militia, and rejected outright his alternate and contradictory theory, that the amendment protects a "right" to possess a gun while serving in a militia.

With greater subtlety than Henigan, but possibly with similar intent, the VA's pamphlet characterizes a gun (like a car) as nothing more than a "symbol" of independence. It continues by saying "it is not uncommon for family members to be reluctant to take away this symbol of independence from people they love."

All told, the VA's statements are what the taxpayers get when people who know nothing about firearms issues take their cues from people who lie about firearms issues, and then spend tax dollars to offer it up to people as gospel truth. Congress has already prohibited the CDC and NIH from spending your money to promote gun control. If it now turns its attention to the VA, perhaps America will edge a little closer to settling the national debt.

NRA-ILA | Veterans Administration Overdoses on Anti-Gun Prescription

[Phillip Gain]

What a bunch of governmental crap.

I mean, obviously if you have a loved one (veteran or not) suffering from dementia or various other sorts of mental illness that seriously impair cognitive function - then yes, you take away that person's guns, knives, heavy machinery, sharp objects, etc. That's common sense, and as you can see it's barely enough to fill up a pamphlet. (Maybe if you listed examples of what these dangerous items are..)

It's disgusting when government leftist agenda gets slipped into places it has no business being.

[S&W645]

Another reason to bring 0bama and company up on high crimes and misdemeanor charges. Congress wrote into the spending bill that anti-gun garbage could not be funded by the gov't.

[USN2Pulpit]

...I mean, obviously if you have a loved one (veteran or not) suffering from dementia or various other sorts of mental illness that seriously impair cognitive function - then yes, you take away that person's guns, knives, heavy machinery, sharp objects, etc. That's common sense, and as you can see it's barely enough to fill up a pamphlet. (Maybe if you listed examples of what these dangerous items are..)

Even though the language appears that it might have been written from an "anti" perspective, it looks as though this pamphlet was only addressed to those who are caring for someone that has dementia. There is no suggestion that firearms be removed from a fully cognizant person's possession.

I know I'm going to be in trouble for saying this, but in this case, I am not offended.