Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for People With Mental Illnesses

[Gref]

Disgusting. And I am glad disgusting scumbags are banned here as well. not working well? dude even if it eliminates 1 single person, it is a success. It is worth every dollar spent into it. Unfuckingbelievably disgusting logic you have. it doesn't work well so let's revoke it. Are you kidding me? if it was ineffective %100 maybe ok but I know obama made it. Cannot have that.

and derailing it to vaccines and Germany gang rape bullshit... which is not even remotely connected. they dont have gun shootings they have gang rapes... what a wonderfully brilliant full of intelligence thing to say.

deflection and whataboutism. disgusting. 17 kids are dead still making these remarks. despicable.

[Breccia]

But merely receiving help managing your money is not indicative that you are a dangerous crazy person and to argue someone should have a right taken away from them for receiving that help is obtuse.

I'm sorry, "managing your money"? You want to take another shot at that? Dude was getting psychiatric treatment. Let alone his adopted parents and schoolmates thinking he was a danger to others, there was a licensed, relevant professional involved.

[I Push Buttons]

I'm sorry, "managing your money"? You want to take another shot at that? Dude was getting psychiatric treatment. Let alone his adopted parents and schoolmates thinking he was a danger to others, there was a licensed, relevant professional involved.

What does that have to do with the law this topic is about?

EDIT:
Just to clarify... Crazy people are already banned from owning guns... That was against the law before the law this topic is about existed and is still against the law now...

https://www.atf.gov/file/58791/download

Any person who has been "adjudicated as mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution" is prohibited under Federal law from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing any firearm or ammunition. Violation of this Federal offense is punishable by a fine of $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to ten years.

The law in the OP that was repealed added people who receive help from social security managing their money to the list of people not allowed to own guns...

[Breccia]

What does that have to do with the law this topic is about?

You mean, the context of someone so crazy they literally hear voices getting an assault rifle and firing it into a school, is somehow off topic in a thread about removing a law that makes it harder for crazy people to get guns?

And I find your "crazy people are banned from having guns" defense pretty damn hollow when you're damn near celebrating the removal of a law that makes it harder for crazy people to own guns. Claim "due process" all you want, you're using the cousin of the "criminals don't follow laws, so why have laws" argument, the "laws aren't applies correctly, so why have laws" approach. It's just as stupid, but admittedly, it's a tad more original.

[I Push Buttons]

You mean, the context of someone so crazy they literally hear voices getting an assault rifle and firing it into a school, is somehow off topic in a thread about removing a law that makes it harder for crazy people to get guns?

And I find your "crazy people are banned from having guns" defense pretty damn hollow when you're damn near celebrating the removal of a law that makes it harder for crazy people to own guns. Claim "due process" all you want, you're using the cousin of the "criminals don't follow laws, so why have laws" argument, the "laws aren't applies correctly, so why have laws" approach. It's just as stupid, but admittedly, it's a tad more original.

Can you not read?

Maybe if I type it in big letters it will help you, probably not.

THE LAW THAT WAS REPEALED DID ONE THING AND ONE THING ONLY. IT ADDED PEOPLE WHO RECEIVE ASSISTANCE IN THE FORM OF A REPRESENTATIVE PAYEE MANAGING THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS FOR THEM, TO THE NICS INDICES (criminal background checks) FOR RECEIVING THAT ASSISTANCE; THUS TAKING AWAY THEIR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT. WITH NO TRIAL, NO EVIDENCE, NO SPECIFIC ILLNESS/DEFECT IN MIND, NO APPEAL PROCESS, NO NOTHING OTHER THAN GETTING HELP MANAGING THEIR MONEY FROM SOCIAL SECURITY.

Its pretty fucking simple... Try not to hurt yourself reading it again.

And where am I celebrating the repeal of this law? I didn't celebrate anything... Merely pointed out the facts to you, but you seem hellbent on remaining as ignorant as possible about this.

[Mormolyce]

Or to put it another way, these people can't be trusted with a pen but Trump thinks they should be trusted with a gun.

[zorkuus]

Or to put it another way, these people can't be trusted with a pen but Trump thinks they should be trusted with a gun.

Pen makers don't have the politicians by the balls.

[draynay]

THE LAW THAT WAS REPEALED DID ONE THING AND ONE THING ONLY. IT ADDED PEOPLE WHO RECEIVE ASSISTANCE IN THE FORM OF A REPRESENTATIVE PAYEE MANAGING THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS FOR THEM, TO THE NICS INDICES (criminal background checks) FOR RECEIVING THAT ASSISTANCE; THUS TAKING AWAY THEIR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT. WITH NO TRIAL, NO EVIDENCE, NO SPECIFIC ILLNESS/DEFECT IN MIND, NO APPEAL PROCESS, NO NOTHING OTHER THAN GETTING HELP MANAGING THEIR MONEY FROM SOCIAL SECURITY.

On the grounds that they are NOT MENTALLY COMPETENT. I saw you like caps and I'm sure you meant to include that since otherwise it would seem really disingenuous.

[I Push Buttons]

Or to put it another way, these people can't be trusted with a pen but Trump thinks they should be trusted with a gun.

Guess its ok to arbitrarily take rights away from a minority as long as its the right minority.



- - - Updated - - -

On the grounds that they are NOT MENTALLY COMPETENT. I saw you like caps and I'm sure you meant to include that since otherwise it would seem really disingenuous.

Nope.

Indeed, the law and the SSA clearly state that representative payees are appointed for many individuals who are legally competent.

For example, many elderly people have a payee manage their benefits.

[draynay]

Nope.

At least I know not to waste any more time here.

[I Push Buttons]

At least I know not to waste any more time here.

Indeed, spending so much time on a forum filled with text when you can't read is probably not time well spent.

- - - Updated - - -

A few more tidbits from the ACLU:

The American Civil Liberties Union does not oppose gun control laws. As an organization dedicated to defending all constitutional rights, we believe the Second Amendment allows reasonable restrictions to promote public safety.

But gun control laws, like any law, should be fair, effective and not based on prejudice or stereotype. This rule met none of those criteria.

---

The thousands of Americans whose disability benefits are managed by someone else range from young people with depression and financial inexperience to older adults with Down syndrome needing help with a limited budget. But no data — none — show that these individuals have a propensity for violence in general or gun violence in particular.

---

The ACLU and 23 national disability groups did not oppose this rule because we want more guns in our community. This is about more than guns. Adding more innocent Americans to the National Instant Criminal Background database because of a mental disability is a disturbing trend — one that could be applied to voting, parenting or other rights dearer than gun ownership. We opposed it because it would do little to stem gun violence but do much to harm our civil rights.

[Trifle]

I can agree that "mental illness" covers a huge variety of conditions and the law might not have been very good. At the same time, it's particularly tone deaf to repeal it outright without any talk of better measures that could replace it in the current climate of fairly regularly mass shootings.

If he had said 'this law has been poorly defined and we want to replace it with something more fair that achieves better outcomes' I wouldn't find that nearly so objectionable, and I hate Trump. The trick would be to settle on a replacement first though, as I have trouble believing Republicans would pass anything to do with gun control given a choice.

[I Push Buttons]

I can agree that "mental illness" covers a huge variety of conditions and the law might not have been very good. At the same time, it's particularly tone deaf to repeal it outright without any talk of better measures that could replace it in the current climate of fairly regularly mass shootings.

If he had said 'this law has been poorly defined and we want to replace it with something more fair that achieves better outcomes' I wouldn't find that nearly so objectionable, and I hate Trump. The trick would be to settle on a replacement first though, as I have trouble believing Republicans would pass anything to do with gun control given a choice.

As mentioned before, we already have a law the bans the mentally ill who are a threat to themselves and others (who have been declared such through adjudication/due process) from owning guns.

This law was essentially intended to do the same thing, in that it was meant to prevent mentally ill people who are a threat to themselves and others from obtaining firearms, only it did so with no due process... And basically only affected people who weren't a threat to themselves and others because those who were found to be a threat were already banned from owning guns both before the law and still are after the law.

Now... Was it Trump and the GOP's intention to protect the rights of disabled people? Probably not (most definitely not)... That doesn't change the fact that it did and was the right thing to do.

[Mormolyce]

Guess its ok to arbitrarily take rights away from a minority as long as its the right minority.

The lack of the mental stability required to safely operate a pen is an "arbitrary" barrier to buying a gun?

- - - Updated - - -

I can agree that "mental illness" covers a huge variety of conditions and the law might not have been very good.

In this case it specifically targets people who have been judged incapable of managing their own affairs. It wasn't a broad stroke of mental illnesses.

[I Push Buttons]

The lack of the mental stability required to safely operate a pen is an "arbitrary" barrier to buying a gun?

No, taking away someone's rights based on what class of people they belong to, with no regard to their individual characteristics or capabilities, and no due process, is arbitrary.

In this case it specifically targets people who have been judged incapable of managing their own affairs. It wasn't a broad stroke of mental illnesses.

While the Social Security Administration can and does investigate and determine whether some people can handle their benefits or not, people can and do voluntarily request payees of their own accord, whether they need one or just want one; and they keep them until they go through the process of ending it. And there was no due process to examine the specific circumstances of individuals. Merely receiving disability with a mental impairment and having a payee was literally the only requirement for you to be reported to the NICS and stripped of your right.

[Breccia]

Can you not read?

Not only can I read, I can also apply context.

Which is why I'm talking about a crazy person getting their hand on a gun and murdering a lot of people, in a thread about making it easier for crazy people to get their hands on guns and murder a lot of people.

I mean, if they're so completely unrelated...where's that picture of Trump signing the bill?

Also, I can't help but point out that "they need help with SS" counts as evidence. More information here about the matter, including that it has to be due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease”. And there's an appeal process!

And there's a similar system the VA uses, it's been around even longer, and Trump didn't repeal shit about that.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh that kind of destroys your whole point, doesn't it?

[draynay]

Not only can I read, I can also apply context.

Which is why I'm talking about a crazy person getting their hand on a gun and murdering a lot of people, in a thread about making it easier for crazy people to get their hands on guns and murder a lot of people.

I mean, if they're so completely unrelated...where's that picture of Trump signing the bill?

Also, I can't help but point out that "they need help with SS" counts as evidence. More information here about the matter, including that it has to be due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease”. And there's an appeal process!

And there's a similar system the VA uses, it's been around even longer, and Trump didn't repeal shit about that.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh that kind of destroys your whole point, doesn't it?

I'm sure he'll get you with his killer comeback of "Nope".

[I Push Buttons]

Not only can I read, I can also apply context.

Which is why I'm talking about a crazy person getting their hand on a gun and murdering a lot of people, in a thread about making it easier for crazy people to get their hands on guns and murder a lot of people.

You are quite openly discriminatory towards this minority group. Kind of disgusting, actually. I don't know how you can pretend to be a leftist while stereotyping disabled people to such an extent, but alas, I guess its ok to discriminate when you guys do it.

I mean, if they're so completely unrelated...where's that picture of Trump signing the bill?

What the actual fuck are you even going on about?

Also, I can't help but point out that "they need help with SS" counts as evidence. More information here about the matter, including that it has to be due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease”.

Your opinion doesn't match the facts the ACLU has laid out... Most notably that plenty of mentally competent people who choose to have a payee are having their rights arbitrarily stripped away. For the umpteenth time, since you seem to have trouble comprehending this incredibly simple fact, no one is advocating that crazy people be given guns. Merely that, if the government wants to strip someone of their right to own a gun, they do so via due process.

And there's an appeal process!

Being able to appeal your right being taken away with no system of due process is not due process?

And there's a similar system the VA uses, it's been around even longer, and Trump didn't repeal shit about that.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh that kind of destroys your whole point, doesn't it?

But the GOP have tried to undue the system the VA uses...? It has received quite a bit more push back... You know, since veterans, especially mentally ill ones, are actually a risky group with regard to firearms, with tens of them committing suicide daily.

All the same, it is still stripping them of their right with no due process, which is just as bad.

[Breccia]

You are quite openly discriminatory towards this minority group.

...crazy people who murder? I'm actually pretty okay with that. You do know Cruz was literally hearing voices telling him to murder, right?

What the actual fuck are you even going on about?

Context.

If Trump was so proud that he was saving lives and civil liberties, you'd think he'd wave the bill he signed in front of the cameras like many of the others. It's been brought up in this very thread -- he didn't do that. Seriously, are you even reading the thread you're posting in?

Your opinion --

OH I'm sorry, I was quoting fact. Facts, about what Trump just repealed. The facts you didn't know, because you got them wrong. Turns out there's an appeal process, you said there wasn't. Turns out it had to be for mental illness or disease, that counts as evidence, you said there wasn't.

Dismissing the written part of a law as "opinion" is the icing on the cake of "you don't know what you're talking about". Three strikes, you're out. Ignored.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sure he'll get you with his killer comeback of "Nope".

Wow, you called that within seconds.

[draynay]

Wow, you called that within seconds.

It doesn't count as prescience when its literally the exact thing he did last night right before I put him on ignore.