Support NeoGAF

[Mammoth Jones]

Glad their constitutional rights to own a death machine trump everyone else's of living in peace and safety.

Your statement only makes sense if you believe each and every person that law would apply to is absolutely a threat to public safety that needs to have their firearm rights revoked.

Or if you're just glad to see people have their firearm rights restricted regardless of the circumstances or situation.

Either way why not just admit the way the law was written left too much room for law abiding (I know someone will flip for me saying that) citizens to have their gun rights restricted and the law should just be rewritten to be specific?

Seems like a fair compromise.

 

[Chichikov]

Insane.

Don't worry, you can buy a gun now.

 

[kmax]

The gun lobby truly are one of the Gods of America.

Utterly insane how they can buy influence in such a way. Despicable.

 

[Sub_Level]

So is there a reason they couldn't just modify the rule to be more specific/less broad or do I lack a good understanding of how legislation works?

 

[ReAxion]

Republicans: White ISIS

Spoiler

kidding but not that much

 

[rrs]

They conveniently didn't bold the two words preceding that part of the statement.

is an inability to not spend yourself broke on impulse alone and getting help for it worthy of having your state/federal right to bear a firearm revoked? I do lean that there should be a lot more control over guns, but this case only hurt those who can be responsible with weapons

 

[Mammoth Jones]

So is there a reason they couldn't just modify the rule to be more specific/less broad or do I lack a good understanding of how legislation works?

With Republicans in office it doesn't stand a chance. Should have written the law correctly and with input from disability rights groups from the beginning. They should still modify the law and pray Dems get shit back in '18

is an inability to not spend yourself broke on impulse alone and getting help for it worthy of having your state/federal right to bear a firearm revoked? I do lean that there should be a lot more control over guns, but this case only hurt those who can be responsible with weapons

Don't go making sense....

 

[Knuckle Sandwich]

Let's just make it easier for another Sandy Hook to happen. Yep, that's the ticket.

 

[Aurongel]

"We don't want to stigmatize the mentally unstable"

"But we definitely don't want to address mental health in exchange"

 

[Mammoth Jones]

"We don't want to stigmatize the mentally unstable"

"But we definitely don't want to address mental health in exchange"

Very valid point.

Let's just make it easier for another Sandy Hook to happen. Yep, that's the ticket.

Works better on the state level where they can adjust laws to suit their needs.

See: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/...put-34500-on-new-yorks-no-guns-list.html?_r=0

 

[Eye for an Eye]

Just about every mentally unstable person going on a shooting rampage has aquired guns from someone else or legally purchased at a store. I see it as a block of some one who is unstable using their ability to purchase guns in the name of the person they're caring for.

 

[onadesertedisland]

is an inability to not spend yourself broke on impulse alone and getting help for it worthy of having your state/federal right to bear a firearm revoked? I do lean that there should be a lot more control over guns, but this case only hurt those who can be responsible with weapons

An admission of impulse control combined with owning a firearm. Hmm... What could go wrong? At least their right to own a death machine is protected.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Blood is on there hands. School shootings going to skyrocket from this move.

The rule they're voting to undo has never been in effect in the United States, so it's a little silly to make a prediction like this.

So is there a reason they couldn't just modify the rule to be more specific/less broad or do I lack a good understanding of how legislation works?

They're using the Congressional Review Act, which can only be used to fully invalidate a rule. The advantage of using the act is a fast-track procedure in the Senate. Debate is limited to 10 hours, meaning a filibuster is impossible.

 

[onadesertedisland]

Your statement only makes sense if you believe each and every person that law would apply to is absolutely a threat to public safety that needs to have their firearm rights revoked.

Or if you're just glad to see people have their firearm rights restricted regardless of the circumstances or situation.

Either way why not just admit the way the law was written left too much room for law abiding (I know someone will flip for me saying that) citizens to have their gun rights restricted and the law should just be rewritten to be specific?

Seems like a fair compromise.

I believe that ownership of a firearm carries responsibility. If the potential owner cannot demonstrate absolute responsibility of their actions, I think it's better to deny them. You have no constitutional right to hunt animals, or to protect your home with firearms. Only a broadly interpreted concept that has to do with militias from the 1700s.

 

[ahoyhoy]

So Republicans are going to replace this with a more sensible policy and not just pretend it never existed and allow severely mentally disabled people to purchase guns freely, right?

... Right?

 

[Horns]

This law made sense. Are a small number of people who don't want to manage their money going to be affected? Sure, but my guess is more deaths and injuries would have been prevented by this rule. How about we commission a few federal studies on the fucking issue like what normally occurs. Let science help decision makers determine if this rule makes sense.

Also, keep in mind that Bush Sr passed a very similar law for Veterans.

 

[MetalGearZed]

57 to 43?
Who the fuck are these Dems?

 

[Glix]

Probably. Then I give them too much credit.

?

If I am not mistaken that is their mission, spelled out from day 1.

They are not a pro-disabled organization. They are an organization that protects any and all from having their rights trampled on.

Most of the time this lines up with things us liberals want, but sometimes it doesn't.

And they STILL stand up for these people, even knowing their donors are mostly lefties. If anything it makes me have MORE respect for them. A lot more. Its SO much easier to be partisan.

People, even my beloved fellow liberals, need to stop seeing everything so black and white and need to start reading A LOT MORE.

We are just as guilty (sometimes) as they are of feeling something and therefore deciding its fact.

57 to 43?
Who the fuck are these Dems?

The NRA does not lack for cash, or support, my friend. Its dems that don't think they could withstand a full assault from one of the most powerful entities in the entire country.

 

[DrROBschiz]

This isn't quite as black-and-white as people are making it out to be

http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/6/14522132/gun-control-disabilities-republicans-nra-obama

Ok i fugured there was more to this

The law should at least be rewritten and resubmitted then right?

 

[LakeEarth]

"This isn't a gun issue, it's a mental health issue. So lets arm those mental patients, YEE HAW!"

 

[Rush_Khan]

That's because they're all mentally impaired oooooooooooooh *sizzle*.

I'm just kidding, but this is really stupid. Surely if you want to legitimise your "mental health not guns" agenda you would be trying to take these kinds of steps.

Maybe I'm being unfair to those with mental disorders, but as someone in a country where it's illegal to buy firearms, the fewer people who can buy guns, the better.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Ok i fugured there was more to this

The law should at least be rewritten and resubmitted then right?

Exactly.

 

[sirap]

What's it going to take to make them to take gun problems seriously?

When innocent children die from bulle—oh wait.

Maybe they'll change their tunes when their own kids appear on the victims list. Then again, most reptiles don't care about their young do they?

 

[AndyD]

How can you look at this and think it is a good idea

You don't look at it too closely.

The reality is that the Obama administration tried to do something since Congress was doing nothing. It wasn't the best approach but it was something until Congress acted. Now the rule will be blocked and Congress is still highly unlikely to act.

 

[Ray Wonder]

What're ya'll doing???

*Looks at title, sees GOP did something, knee jerk.*

This isn't quite as black-and-white as people are making it out to be

http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/6/14522132/gun-control-disabilities-republicans-nra-obama

Thanks, they make some really good points regarding the political use of mentally challenged people.. This absolutely should be rewritten.

 

[TheRealTalker]

sigh.... what are you guys doing

 

[RedAssedApe]

 

[Angry Grimace]

I mean, there's some Constitutional issues with a blanket rule like that.

 

[Strike]

Freedom™

 

[CyclopsRock]

Let's just make it easier for another Sandy Hook to happen. Yep, that's the ticket.

Was Lanza's mother mentally ill?

 

[Knuckle Sandwich]

What's it going to take to make them to take gun problems seriously?

When innocent children die from bulle—oh wait.

Maybe they'll change their tunes when their own kids appear on the victims list. Then again, most reptiles don't care about their young do they?

Only thing that would change their tune is if the NRA stopped paying them.

If a high profile Republican's kid got gunned down that specific republican might change his or her tune but the party as a whole would just shrug their shoulders and go on.

 

[Ray Wonder]

I know right. We should indiscriminately ban people from their constitutional rights because they meet two conditions: That they're listed as recieving social security money for mental health problems, and someone else takes care of their money.

That doesn't set a dangerous precedent.

 

[Gnome Scat]

BUT
WHY

 

[Knuckle Sandwich]

Was Lanza's mother mentally ill?

No but she failed to keep dangerous weapons away from a mentally ill person who went on to murder her and a bunch of kids.

 

[sturgboski]

I know right. We should indiscriminately ban people from their constitutional rights because they meet two conditions: That they're listed as recieving social security money for mental health problems, and someone else takes care of their money.

That doesn't set a dangerous precedent.

So we should allow people who have mental health problems have guns?

That seems like the argument that it's not fair to ban people who are on the no fly list from getting guns. I mean they are deemed unfit to fly because they are under investigation but they should be able to buy a gun because why not.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

The GOP are not going to pass any gun legislation. It really does not matter whether it is reasonable or unreasonable. Which is why I don't see much point in getting super worked up about this.

 

[Ray Wonder]

So we should allow people who have mental health problems have guns?

That seems like the argument that it's not fair to ban people who are on the no fly list from getting guns. I mean they are deemed unfit to fly because they are under investigation but they should be able to buy a gun because why not.

You should screen people on a personal basis. Not blanket ban people that meet conditions that aren't really even that descriptive. Especially when the end product is that these people lose constitutional rights.

[x]
[x]

That's all it takes to lose your rights. Two check marks. That's not ok.

 

[thepotatoman]

The GOP are not going to pass any gun legislation. It really does not matter whether it is reasonable or unreasonable. Which is why I don't see much point in getting super worked up about this.

This is undoing a regulation that's already in place, not blocking proposed legislation.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

This is undoing a regulation that's already in place, not blocking proposed legislation.

So basically my point just becomes "The GOP are not going to allow any gun restriction laws, reasonable or unreasonable".

Not a huge difference really.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

I know I know, it seems stupid, but out of sheer curiosity I googled "Down Syndrome handgun" and to my surprise there were quite a few results.

Why this is a stock photo is beyond my knowledge.

 

[TheOfficeMut]

?

If I am not mistaken that is their mission, spelled out from day 1.

They are not a pro-disabled organization. They are an organization that protects any and all from having their rights trampled on.

Most of the time this lines up with things us liberals want, but sometimes it doesn't.

And they STILL stand up for these people, even knowing their donors are mostly lefties. If anything it makes me have MORE respect for them. A lot more. Its SO much easier to be partisan.

People, even my beloved fellow liberals, need to stop seeing everything so black and white and need to start reading A LOT MORE.

We are just as guilty (sometimes) as they are of feeling something and therefore deciding its fact.



The NRA does not lack for cash, or support, my friend. Its dems that don't think they could withstand a full assault from one of the most powerful entities in the entire country.

In that sense you're right. Not sure what I was thinking but thanks for the post.

 

[LiK]

Insane.

with guns

 

[sturgboski]

You should screen people on a personal basis. Not blanket ban people that meet conditions that aren't really even that descriptive. Especially when the end product is that these people lose constitutional rights.

[x]
[x]

That's all it takes to lose your rights. Two check marks. That's not ok.

OK so get back to me when a mentally handicapped person with a gun prevents the US military from creating martial law since that is what the constitutional right is protecting. The NRA and sadly conservative overreach especially in the SC has perveted it to every one can and should have as many guns as they want.

 

[tearsintherain]

I'm sorta indifferent to the law either way, I don't think it really does anything useful but I don't really have a problem with it either.

One issue though that I would think isn't great is that the law would have made people who are in the early stages of mental health issues and own guns (depression especially) NOT go seek out mental health care, since any formal filings by their care givers would trigger the social security rule. That seems counter productive to me.

There are already laws in place where a mental health professional can request the court to confiscate the guns of a person they believe to be dangerous, automating the process where anyone who has someone else manage their money is automatically considered unfit to own a gun if they also receive government benefits seems a bit weird. Should all elderly people who don't manage their own money own guns? Probably not. Is it really right for the government to take away their guns just on the basis of someone managing their money? Doesn't feel like it. Just feels like a bizarre linkage.

 

[Ray Wonder]

OK so get back to me when a mentally handicapped person with a gun prevents the US military from creating martial law since that is what the constitutional right is protecting. The NRA and sadly conservative overreach especially in the SC has perveted it to every one can and should have as many guns as they want.

You're completely 1000% missing the point. You can restrict a mentally ill person from having a gun. That's fine, and I support that. But, you don't lump them together like they're not people, and blanket ban them. The rule needs to be rewritten to protect peoples' constitutional rights. There needs to be personal screening that treats people like they're people.

 

[CyclopsRock]

No but she failed to keep dangerous weapons away from a mentally ill person who went on to murder her and a bunch of kids.

Right. So.... this legislation wouldn't affect that situation at all then?

 

[Metaphoreus]

OK so get back to me when a mentally handicapped person with a gun prevents the US military from creating martial law since that is what the constitutional right is protecting. The NRA and sadly conservative overreach especially in the SC has perveted it to every one can and should have as many guns as they want.

Your copy of the Constitution must read different from mine, like:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, so long as they will have prevented the military from creating martial law. Don't ask us how people are supposed to get the guns before the military comes after them. Also don't ask us how we're supposed to know when people are constitutionally entitled to keep and bear arms beforehand, when we won't know if they successfully fended off the military until after the conflict ends, but just, like, yeah, that's the only time this applies, so suck it, NRA.

 

[Glix]

You should screen people on a personal basis. Not blanket ban people that meet conditions that aren't really even that descriptive. Especially when the end product is that these people lose constitutional rights.

[x]
[x]

That's all it takes to lose your rights. Two check marks. That's not ok.

So... extreme vetting then?

Besides, isn't this ALL nonsense until the gun show loop is closed???

 

[Breads]

What two regulations did they take away?

 

[AndyD]

You should screen people on a personal basis. Not blanket ban people that meet conditions that aren't really even that descriptive. Especially when the end product is that these people lose constitutional rights.

[x]
[x]

That's all it takes to lose your rights. Two check marks. That's not ok.

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.