Goldenroad
Member
Why can't you implement a law that mentally impaired people are not allowed to decide on gun laws either?
But why?
So... extreme vetting then?
Besides, isn't this ALL nonsense until the gun show loop is closed???
Why can't you implement a law that mentally impaired people are not allowed to decide on gun laws either?
U
Now we're just slinging insults at the expense of mentally ill people that're losing their rights, like wtf is this?
There is a difference between having a mental illness and being mentally unfit to own a gun (or hold public office). No one wants to strip rights away from people with mental illness, just to ensure that people who have the kinds of mental illness that might cause them to go shoot up shopping mall, (or allow people to do so), maybe do not have access to weapons that would enable them.
Indeed. The criticism of the no-fly list was that there is no real vetting or transparency or due process for who gets on there. So it's too easy to lose rights.
On the SSA rule, the idea was that at least a judge has deemed you to be disabled due to a mental health issue, thus determining you eligible for SSA to begin with. So there is some judicial review and oversight before getting on the list.
Your copy of the Constitution must read different from mine, like:
Yes, that's been my point this entire thread. And this rule is unfit to do that.
Eliminating the rule doesn't fix the root of the problem though. Maybe they could amend the rule, but to put lives in danger because FREEDOM does not seem like the right solution. I mean, we're not talking about denying people basic human rights here like food, water, clean air, education, health care etc. It's owning a consumer good. I'd be good with them stripping that "right" from every single person, police and military included.
On the SSA rule, the idea was that at least a judge has deemed you to be disabled due to a mental health issue, thus determining you eligible for SSA to begin with. So there is some judicial review and oversight before getting on the list.
Sure I mean if you and the rest of the gun supporters can read so much into that one sentence amendment to say everyone can get whatever weapons they want, regardless of capacity, safety, etc then yeah you can then take what I said and read whatever you want into it. I guess by that measure, do you know of a place to buy rocket launchers? They seem useful for hunting and family protection.
This is basically just a license now to kill/lock up yet more black people, this time black people with mental health issues that end up buying a gun to do something silly.
Don't worry, the mentally ill white people will be given several ultimatums and spoken to in a rational manner when dealing with police and their situations will be de-escalated. Black people will be shot and asked questions later. AMERICA.
Who were the fucking Democrats who voted for it?
Who were the fucking Democrats who voted for it?
Republicans.
This legit the only way gun control will ever come about. But then you remember that it has already happened several times before and nothing happened.Until someone who's mentally unstable lights up one of their asses.
All this hilarious overreaction to terrorism and yet they make it even easier to buy a gun inside their own country. How can they be this evil?
I'm gonna admit to here and now being in no way an expert on gun laws of your country, but is it true that any ex-felon can not legally own a firearm? Why would you restrict someone potentially rehabilitated, yet open the floodgates completely to the mentally impaired?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ntally-ill-gun-buying-ban-20170213-story.html
There's not really any data showing that people with mental illness that are unable to manage their money commit more violet gun crimes. I don't think a blanket ban on allowing the disabled to buy fire arms based on your gut that the mentally impaired shouldn't have guns make sense if there's not data supporting it. We know that people with mental illnesses don't commit a significant portion of gun violence, so whats everyone's evidence that this is a bad vote? Allowing the government to take away rights without substantial reason is a poor choice and I think they voted right on this one.
Obviously more strict gun laws need to be in place, but they need to be done more reasonably and responsibly than this.
But its unfair for you to assume that. Its not rooted in any evidence. Its an unbacked claim that's being used to take away the rights of people. The court ruled that they cannot manage their own money, but the judge didn't rule on to their competence to own fire arms and its wrong to correlate the two. Theres no ruling in these people cases that involved evidence of competence to handle firearms or weapons and there's no reason to think people with mental illness who are unable to work or manage their resources are more violent than the general populationIf you can't manage your own money, why do you think that same person would be able to manage owning a gun?
But critics say the rule was too broad and unfairly stigmatized the disabled.
If you can't manage your own money, why do you think that same person would be able to manage owning a gun?
Eat shit fuck faces, you don't care about disabled people.
I thought the bar for taking away the right of someone to manage their own finances was pretty high. I would think the overlap would be substantial, nearing total.
But the ability to own a gun was not being assessed when the right to manage their finances was. And I feel it sets a very bad precedent to strip people of rights based on baseless conclusions and stigma.I thought the bar for taking away the right of someone to manage their own finances was pretty high. I would think the overlap would be substantial, nearing total.
But its unfair for you to assume that. Its not rooted in any evidence. Its an unbacked claim that's being used to take away the rights of people. The court ruled that they cannot manage their own money, but the judge didn't rule on to their competence to own fire arms and its wrong to correlate the two. Theres no ruling in these people cases that involved evidence of competence to handle firearms or weapons and there's no reason to think people with mental illness who are unable to work or manage their resources are more violent than the general population
This rule would be fair if there was evidence, and there may be, but until the claims can be substantiated this blanket ban is a gut reaction and an over reach.
Yeah, I can see that being used to give legitimacy to the rule, but I don't have confidence that the vetting process to give you SSA benefits is good enough to strip away your gun rights.
Not true. SSA makes the determination. In doing so, they're only interested in whether the disability renders you unable to work, not whether it makes you incapable of safely handling a firearm, or renders you a threat to yourself or to others. ....
it's all part of the long-game
when medical science advances and the classification of mental impairment can expand to include more of the white-supremacist-rapture-is-coming nutjobs, they don't want their base to lose "gun rights"
Who were the fucking Democrats who voted for it?
Hooray for due process!
This is the right decision.
It's so obvious that people are not reading the thread, and not following the story closely at all, just coming in with "NRA bad...blah blah" knee jerk reactions.
Look at Mammoth's posts in the first page. Click a link. See why disability organizations and the ACLU support this move. At least give a thought to a nuanced issue that cannot be just based on "Obama good, Republicans bad."
You would be wrong, particularly in this case, where the SSA is only interested in whether the beneficiary is actually unable to work because of some mental health issue and whether it is in the interest of the beneficiary to appoint a representative payee. Neither of those inquiries answer the question of whether the person is incapable of safely handling a firearm, or whether the person is a threat to himself or to others.
I agree an SSA mental health/disability determination does not go into the safety/threat determination. Then again, neither does a felony conviction for non weapon related offense, or third strike laws for minor crimes.
I just meant that unlike the no fly approach, at least in this case there was some transparent legal determination, even if not directly on point.
My question is how do you have a safety evaluation related to weapon possession/ownership? Do we create a safety court? Where anyone can petition against an individual's ability to posess/buy? Can't make it voluntary as those with mental health issues can't quite volunteer for it.
This comparison is solely for the fact that a felony conviction makes you ineligible to buy guns. That there's no mechanism to take away old guns is a whole another debate (inventory/register and repossession mechanism).I dunno, I think you start inching into precarious territory once you start making comparisons between the mentally ill and felons/criminals.