As a registered Democrat I DON'T support the President's proposal of 1/5/2016

The official party line states that Democrats want to "…keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole," http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Gun_Control.htm. This is the gun control we support.

But on 1/5/2016, by targeting those with mental illness President Obama has taken mental health backwards by presumably INCLUDING those with mental illness among the CRIMINALS AND TERRORISTS described in the Democrats' stated policy. As a registered Democrat I DON'T support the President's proposal.

Based on what he said, the President made a mistake in his language using the word DE-stigmatize rather than RE-stigmatize mental illness. In targeting those with mental illness through his proposal to remove confidentiality protections and expand opportunity for mental health providers to report to the federal government using the updated technology he also advocates, the new government staffing he also advocates and the new authority he envisions for the federal government the President decided to reframe gun control as an issue of suicide: "…a lot of our work is to prevent people from hurting themselves," Obama, 1/5/2016. NO SIR. As a registered Democrat I DON'T support the President's proposal.

Not only is this a red herring intended to distract us away from the President's push for federalizing gun control to a greater extent and gathering more information on individuals by trying to play on built-in prejudices and fears regarding those with mental illness much like we've been coaxed into less privacy because of terrorism, it's also completely UNTRUE that most people envision gun control as the best means of preventing suicide ESPECIALLY partnering that goal with violating patient confidentiality in order to re-stigmatizing the mentally ill with the additional threat of using that information to deny them second amendment rights.

WHO will be subject to denials based on mental illness assertions by mental health professional informants? After all, there is situational depression caused by tragedies in one's life--are those people ineligible for second amendment rights forever? There is anxiety--Are those people ineligible for second amendment rights forever? There are people involved in nasty divorces that are angry and say stupid things, are those people ineligible for second amendment rights forever? There are people who are ordered to go to parenting classes, are those people ineligible for second amendment rights forever?

The National Alliance on Mental Illness states that "Approximately 1 in 5 adults in the U.S.—43.8 million, or 18.5%—experiences mental illness in a given year." and that "Only 41% of adults in the U.S. with a mental health condition received mental health services in the past year," https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-By-the-Numbers#sthash.72NSiKAc.dpuf. Increasing federal oversight of those 41 percent is not going to solve anything significant and will likely reduce that number to even fewer people receiving mental health services because they'll know that the federal government is now information gathering on them--RE-stigmatizing mental illness.

De-stigmatizing? No, re-stigmatizing, further marginalizing those with mental health issues by making them the named target of legislation designed to invade privacy WHETHER OR NOT they even seek to purchase a gun legally. Such overkill in obtaining the mental health records of US citizens will forever change the eroding doctor-patient confidentiality and will reinforce one of the risk factors the CDC includes for suicide: "Stigma associated with mental illness and help-seeking," http://www.cdc.gov/features/preventingsuicide/.

Democrats should have their feet put to the fire. Are they changing their ideas for gun control to INCLUDE those with mental illness as part of the threat presented to the American public from "criminals and terrorists"? Many gun control laws are already viewed as too broad since individuals with non-violent records are also frequently denied permits, and denying a new broad group of non-violent citizens the right to bear arms can only EXPAND the black market for guns or encourage private sales rather than bolster the possibility of reducing the number of illegal or unknown guns in the US.

As a registered Democrat I DON'T support the President's proposal.