House Votes To Overturn Obama Rule Restricting Gun Sales To the Severely Mentally Ill

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by samcraig, Feb 3, 2017.

  1. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #1
    http://www.npr.org/2017/02/02/51312...ma-rule-restricting-gun-sales-to-mentally-ill

    Also mentioned in the article is that the Senate also passed a resolution to undo the Stream Protection Rule. I don't know about you - but I love coal dust in my drinking water. It's acts as a filter, right? Apparently the law was deemed too burdensome and would kill jobs. Only - if there was a need for additional auditing/oversight - wouldn't that have created jobs?
     
  2. martint235 macrumors regular

    martint235

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2016
  3. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #3
    Can't wait to see the apologists defending the indefensible. Perhaps someone could explain how this makes America safer?
     
  4. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #4
    Where all my "guns don't kill people, people kill people, it's a mental health issue" homies at?
     
  5. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #5
    You mean Our Transatlantic Cousins?

    Yes, I worry about them too.

    However, I worry more about us, and their effect on us.
     
  6. 5684697, Feb 3, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2017
  7. samcraig thread starter macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #7
    Ok - what actually happened?

    As for the coal dust - I was being sarcastic. Coal dust isn't the only issue there
     
  8. martint235 macrumors regular

    martint235

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2016
    #8
    There is that I suppose.

    To me the worry is the primary focus on perceived freedoms. So it doesn't matter if you wake up every day thinking you are Caligula's horse and the little green man who lives in your shoe is telling you what to do, you HAVE THE RIGHT to carry an assault rifle.
     
  9. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #9
    Perceived Freedoms? You mean the Sanctified First and Sacred Second amendments?

    Reading this forum, and perusing these threads, as someone from a wet corner of northwest Europe, I think I could be forgiven for thinking Our Transatlantic Cousins lose what little reason is left to them whenever these amendments, - and the perceived freedoms that attach to them - are cited in conversation, debate or discussion.

    Mind you, I cannot see any reason to overturn a perfectly sensible precaution which serves as a brake on a "perceived freedom". Nor, for that matter, can I understand that the perceived freedom is considered absolute, rather than one that has a few conditions, or qualifications, attached.
     
  10. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #10
    You might want to work on expanding your SA.
     
  11. samcraig thread starter macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #11
    I think you're minimizing the scope. It's not just people that can't balance a checkbook. It's "beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. About 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs would have been affected.

    There's a difference between bouncing checks, etc and having severe mental disabilities that makes someone INCAPABLE (mentally) of managing their finances.
     
  12. martint235 macrumors regular

    martint235

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2016
    #12
    They do know that we know that it doesn't say "You have the right to bear arms" don't they?

    *to those stateside, only joshing.....
     
  13. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #13
    I think you misread it. It is not about debt. It is about bring incapable of managing your bills ND finances because of mental issues. But hey the NRA fighting for everyone to own a gun.
     
  14. Stella macrumors 604

    Stella

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Canada
  15. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #15
    I know.

    The same comforting thought is crawling across my cerebral cortex, too.
     
  16. webbuzz, Feb 3, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2017

    webbuzz macrumors 65816

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    #16
    Along with the ACLU, who was against the measure last year. But, hey believe everything you read.

    Their letter supporting the rollback as it is being called.
    https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdf
     
  17. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #17
    How can the gun industry possibly allow letting unstable people have possession of rapid fire weapons.
    That will only lead to more mass shootings and bad press.

    Lots of bad press...

    That cause hard core gun lovers run en mass to buy more guns....

    Oh.
     
  18. samcraig thread starter macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #18
    What do you mean believe everything you read? The information isn't false. It's also open to some interpretation.

    I like the ACLU. I think they do great things. But I don't agree with everything they propose.

    Weren't members of the right critical of the ACLU over the immigration ban?
     
  19. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #19
    This is literal insanity. And gun owners want to be taken seriously...
     
  20. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #20
    yes we should not believe everything we read. the NRA knows whats best for America and since they own the republican party :rolleyes: they get what they wish for.
     
  21. TonyC28 macrumors 65816

    TonyC28

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #21
    We definitely need to keep guns out of the hands of unstable people.

    The regulations states that only beneficiaries who met five criteria would be reported to the NICS: individuals who have filed a claim based on disability, are considered disabled, have a mental impairment, are between 18 years of age, and retirement age, and those considered incapable of managing their own benefit payments.
    -
    Reuters

    To me, you can ignore the first two criteria: disability and disabled. That seems far too vague. You can also ignore the 18 to retirement age part. Why is that even in there?? So you're left with mental impairment and someone incapable of managing their own payment benefits. Those two remaining criteria seem reasonable to me IF they have a very clear definition of "mental impairment."

     
  22. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #22
    To paraphrase the late Antonin Scalia: The Second Amendment is not unlimited.

    And in many, many very practical ways, including numerous state and federal statutes, we seem to accept this. You cannot bring firearms onto an airplane. You cannot take them into a courthouse. You cannot cook up sarin gas in your basement. You may not drop bombs from your airplane. You cannot mount a 0.50 cal on top of your pickup truck and drive around shooting up billboards that offend you.

    We also seem to have reached something of a consensus that those individuals who have been convicted of serious crimes may not own or possess firearms. We also have laws that ban the ownership of firearms by minors.

    We have all of these laws on the books, many of them having been enacted many years ago. And the Right to Bear Arms for ordinary - non-criminal - citizens seems to have endured pretty much intact well into the twenty-first century.

    So it strikes me that there is more than a small element of spite in the passage of this law. On a purely practical, public safety perspective, it seems utterly senseless. Recklessly dangerous to deliberately pass a law that makes it easier for individuals adjudged too incompetent to manage their own bank accounts, to sign a lease or take out a store credit card - to buy lethal firearms and ammunition. To pass a law that protects a mentally ill person from harming his finances and credit rating. But makes it easier for that person to kill or main totally innocent people.

    I don't know how some people live with themselves.
     
  23. TonyC28 macrumors 65816

    TonyC28

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #23
    I get what you're saying, I think. And even though I agree with the measure being taken, I am also wondering what this is meant to stop and/or prevent. I could probably do a quick Google search but I'd rather advance the discussion, so here goes:
    Has there been a rash of shootings, be they mass shootings or individual incidents, where the shooter was a person who was disabled, mentally impaired, and collecting social security?
     
  24. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #24
    It's important our Schizophrenics have access to quality firearms and ammunition. WTF? Don't let anyone tell you the republican party doesn't care about the nutso's out there.
     
  25. 5684697, Feb 3, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2017

Share This Page