For the record, the ACLU supports the above House Bill, because the term _Guardian_ is overly broad. See the ACLU argument here: https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/AC...

The ACLU core argument: All individuals have the right to be judged on the basis of their individual capabilities, not the characteristics and capabilities that are sometimes attributed (often mistakenly) to any group or class to which they belong. A disability should not constitute grounds for the automatic per se denial of any right or privilege, including gun ownership

Given how powerful the US military is, doesn't it mean that only a coup by the army could overthrow the government? And if that happens, well, they already have all the weapons they need, don't they? If the army remains loyal to the government I can't see how a bunch of civilians could overthrow anything, no matter how many guns they own.

That being said I've never been to the USA in my life so I won't pretend I understand the culture over there.

American deer hunters alone constitute the largest military on Earth (save perhaps just behind China). That's 18 million well-equipped snipers (never mind the other 50M armed citizens). ...and a very large fraction of the military would likely be on the side of the deer hunters (complex cultural explanation omitted), so the assumption of the army remaining loyal to the government under such circumstances is in grave doubt.

BUT...

The issue at hand isn't overthrowing the government, it's denying the weak their tools for defending themselves from violent assault. We have due process for doing so; the bill being disparaged in the lead article ensures doing so is in fact via due process, and not simply a faceless bureaucrat checking off a box on a form for some trivial reason (which is a serious problem).

Chain of command and training and logistics are at least as important to a military as rifles.

US hunters constitute a population armed with rifles, not a military.

Go look up the Swiss aphorism "shoot twice and go home".

Those words were uttered at a time when the Swiss militia had been called up and organized.

"Gun ownership is a serious responsibility…”

In the US it is a civil right guaranteed in the Constitution, too. This makes limiting that right a serious step and, in this case, it’s the reasonable-ness of the rule that’s in question.

On the other hand, discouraging people who own guns from seeking help for mental health issues is not ideal either.

The law doesn't affect guns people already own, only the purchase of additional firearms. If your mental health is so poor that you require a legal guardian, acquiring additional firearms seems like it should be very low on the priority list.

>Backers of the bill, such as Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., the chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, say it would help veterans avoid being caught up in a bureaucracy that can make it tough to remove a negative label.

If this is the problem, then maybe they should be addressing the system which apparently is trapping otherwise competent veterans in a bureaucratic maze.

This isn't strictly true, because the VA can and will send police officers to your home to remove firearms if they deem it so appropriate.

I have just determined that you are mentally incapacitated by my very own definition and judgement. Sorry. Now extrapolate that to the general population.