• House votes to rescind Obama gun background check rule
    46 replies, posted
[quote] The House voted Thursday to rescind an Obama administration rule that heightened scrutiny of mentally impaired seniors who seek to purchase a firearm — but that critics said would strip law abiding citizens of their constitutional rights. On a 235-180 vote, members voted to rescind the rule, adopted in December, that permits the Social Security Administration to send information about those who receive disability payments to the national system of background checks for gun purchasers if those seniors are determined to be mentally impaired. The move was hailed by the National Rifle Association as a victory for Second Amendment rights.[/quote] [url]http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/gun-background-checks-house-234564[/url]
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost" - Novangel))[/highlight]
america is such a shit hole. honestly.
Does this mean an increase in "lone gunman"s?
With the way they enforced the laws I doubt we'll see a difference. But with Trump as president the lone gunman attacks would probably go down anyways as their guy got voted president.
[QUOTE=Megadave;51768736]With the way they enforced the laws I doubt we'll see a difference. But with Trump as president the lone gunman attacks would probably go down anyways as their guy got voted president.[/QUOTE] there are nutters on all wavelengths of the political spectrum
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51768738]there are nutters on all wavelengths of the political spectrum[/QUOTE] Yup. Remember that fucker in Oregon last year? The dude who was specifically targeting Christians?
[QUOTE=sweetbro;51768719]america is such a shit hole. honestly.[/QUOTE] Yeah. I'd like decent affordable healthcare and education for all but honestly, we don't deserve it.
[QUOTE=ChicagoMobster;51768724]Does this mean an increase in "lone gunman"s?[/QUOTE] Not unless they're a pensioner.
How many old people have gone on homicidal rampages again? This is yet another classic example of onion layer legislation designed to appear 'reasonable' with the sole end goal of eliminating firearms. In a perfect world this legislation, or something like it would make sense. Nobody wants someone with both dementia and a shotgun. Unfortunately, we all know how gun legislation plays out, particularly legislation that has been touched by that dumb cunt Feinstein. Plus, there's the aforementioned lack of 60+ people going out and shooting people, which means the legislation doesn't even really accomplish anything in the first place. What else is it but a blatant step towards the end goal of banning all firearms? EDIT: I mean really. What the fuck do democrats expect? Do they really think republicans are going to believe them, even [i]if[/i] they start being sincere? I'm heavily left leaning and it's entirely transparent to [i]me[/i] what this legislation is really about. You think a bunch of right/alt-right people aren't going to be suspicious of everything, even the most well intentioned of legislation, when even people on the left can see the historical patterns? The deeper the lie, the more polarized the opinions, and the ongoing defense of legislation like this, as well as the ongoing association any gun legislation has with Feinstein has made the democratic party irredeemable in many eyes.
I get the idea, this seems like unfair discrimination towards elderly people. They like guns too. [QUOTE=sweetbro;51768719]america is such a shit hole. honestly.[/QUOTE] oh for sure, it's AWFUL that an elderly man with anxiety or depression be allowed to buy a gun!
[QUOTE=ChicagoMobster;51768724]Does this mean an increase in "lone gunman"s?[/QUOTE] Unlikely. How many mass-shootings have we heard of involving senior citizens? You might, however, see a very slight increase in that age-group's suicide rate.
[QUOTE=sweetbro;51768719]america is such a shit hole. honestly.[/QUOTE] There are thousands of reasons to think America is a shit hole. This is not one of them.
[QUOTE=Zombinie;51768811]I get the idea, this seems like unfair discrimination towards elderly people. They like guns too.[/QUOTE] If a person's been adjudicated as a mental defective, they're already not supposed to have guns. I'm having trouble finding the exact executive order, but I believe the purpose was data-sharing for background checks, nothing more.
[QUOTE=Dr.C;51768766]Yeah. I'd like decent affordable healthcare and education for all but honestly, we don't deserve it.[/QUOTE] nah fuck that, yeah we do
I'm pro-gun rights and I find this fucking stupid. You should be deemed as mentally capable of holding the responsibility of owning a firearm before actually owning one.
[QUOTE=Plate Phelps;51768871]I'm pro-gun rights and I find this fucking stupid. You should be deemed as mentally capable of holding the responsibility of owning a firearm before actually owning one.[/QUOTE] Thats really up to the gunstore owner. No gun store owner is going to sell a firearm to someone who clearly can't own one.
I can't see a reason to rescind this but at the same time I can't see a reason why this needed to be a rule in the first place so I guess the latter answers the former :v:
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51768922]Thats really up to the gunstore owner. No gun store owner is going to sell a firearm to someone who clearly can't own one.[/QUOTE] Gun store owners know both law enforcers and politicians have a very close eye on them, so they are very strict and careful with who they sell to.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51768959]Gun store owners know both law enforcers and politicians have a very close eye on them, so they are very strict and careful with who they sell to.[/QUOTE] Thats my point. If they sell a firearm thats used in a crime, especially mass-shootings by people the mentally disabled or dysfunctional, then they not only lose a shitload of business, but may go to jail or face fines.
[QUOTE]mentally impaired seniors[/QUOTE] Watch out guys, you're gonna get plinked by Greg Kinman. What a joke. The legally mentally unstable are already prohibited from owning a firearm by the '68 act, this was just a pointless bit of regulation that we're better off without.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51768965]Thats my point. If they sell a firearm thats used in a crime, especially mass-shootings by people the mentally disabled or dysfunctional, then they not only lose a shitload of business, but may go to jail or face fines.[/QUOTE] I like this libertarian idea they'll go to jail and face fines without having the regulation and laws to make sure it happens. I remember someone saying to "just sue" if you're denied service as an LGBT person. Like motherfucker you have to have legal precedent before you sue, that's the entire purpose behind it. That's how the legal system works. Regulation is some mythical bogeyman to libertarians even when the regulation they're hating on objectively does more good than harm. And then suddenly they decide the legal system and "invisible hand" will take care of everything else on its own. I don't get it.
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;51768988]I like this libertarian idea they'll go to jail and face fines without having the regulation and laws to make sure it happens. I remember someone saying to "just sue" if you're denied service as an LGBT person. Like motherfucker you have to have legal precedent before you sue, that's the entire purpose behind it. That's how the legal system works. Regulation is some mythical bogeyman to libertarians even when the regulation they're hating on objectively does more good than harm. And then suddenly they decide the legal system and "invisible hand" will take care of everything else on its own. I don't get it.[/QUOTE] Your argument would make sense if there were no regulations and laws and everything were completely up to an FFL holder. Everyone does the background check, and everyone has to pass to buy a firearm. FFL holders reserve the right to deny someone a sale, even if they pass the background check, for whatever reason. Could be that the FFL holder is just a straight up bigot and doesn't like trans people, could be because the FFL holder doesn't want to sell a gun to a person with a swastika tattoo. Its a system that works pretty well.
[QUOTE=Jarokwa;51769117]because the US didnt have a major gun problem already good job[/QUOTE] Yeah, I cower in fear of the senior citizen mafia. They rule my city with an iron fist, AKs and Uzis clutched in arthritic grips as mobility scooters with M240s prowl the streets. I'm not jumping for joy at this law being repealed but it didn't have any reason to exist in the first place so nothing of value was lost. You tell me, how is this going to contribute to the US's gun problem?
[QUOTE=Jarokwa;51769117]because the US didnt have a major gun problem already good job[/QUOTE] What portion of our gun problems come from retiree age mental patients? I'll clue you in. Practically none. It's borderline worthless feel good legislation in the [i]best[/i] case.
I think you fail to see how much of an issue that was. Basically people on social security could have their 2nd amendment right stripped from them for ANY mental issue, whether it be anxiety to OCD, with no due process. Normally you cannot have that happen unless you are forcefully institutionalized or deemed mentally deficient by a court. That's complete BS as you not only can't purchase a firearm but there's no legal recourse to try and get the ability to back. That's huge in that it sets a precedence that could potentially be applied to other rights, such as freedom of speech or illegal searches. Imagine being subjected to random searches simply because you suffer from OCD and receive social security from it. If that sort of thing was over any other right other than guns people would be flipping their shit. That's huge for me in that I do suffer from anxiety and depression, but firearms are also my passion and would never use them to harm myself. That's why I never applied for social security, because I could have potentially lost my right to own firearms even though I'm mentally competent and use my passion for firearms to relieve my issues through competition and collecting. And for the record I'm applicable for social security due to my physical disabilities from the military.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51768922]Thats really up to the gunstore owner. No gun store owner is going to sell a firearm to someone who clearly can't own one.[/QUOTE] I can personally attest to a gunstore selling 6 ar-15 rifles to a man who, while waiting for his background check to come back since they do it via the phone, told me he was getting his guns so that way when "Obama sends his nigger friends to kill the Christians and take our freedom" he can be there to "Shoot them faggots dead." Literally maybe 2 feet or so max from the store employee doing the check. I was there to buy bullets because a friend and I were going clay shooting for his birthday, and this guy struck up a conversation with us, it was both pretty funny and kinda sureal/creepy tbh. Granted this is purely anecdotal, but a gun store isn't the place to be claiming has 100% good judgement/whatever on this matter. Leaving it up to "the gunstore owner" is imo a pretty retarded policy. As to this specific policy, yeah maybe a blanket ban on ownership isn't smart but tbh there's a lot of mental issues like dementia, etc, that may put an elderly person in a place of being a significant threat to the public with a firearm, but again not all old people get these diseases, most of them end up in care facilities, and a blanket ban is obviously not the answer as such. Do I think we should give anyone a gun for whatever reason so long as they're not felons? Not really, I believe mental health should play some role in the process for obvious reason, but there's a lot of variables to look at tbh.
[QUOTE=catbarf;51769142]Yeah, I cower in fear of the senior citizen mafia. They rule my city with an iron fist, AKs and Uzis clutched in arthritic grips as mobility scooters with M240s prowl the streets. I'm not jumping for joy at this law being repealed but it didn't have any reason to exist in the first place so nothing of value was lost. You tell me, how is this going to contribute to the US's gun problem?[/QUOTE] It didn't have any reason to exist? No one with mental issues should be allowed to own firearms period. This is just common sense but because its a right in the US everyone goes full retard over it.
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;51769246]It didn't have any reason to exist? No one with mental issues should be allowed to own firearms period. This is just common sense but because its a right in the US everyone goes full retard over it.[/QUOTE] Do you realise what kind of implication you're making here? You're saying because I suffer from anxiety and depression, as millions do, and I should not be able to? Lets just say you decide to say "well thats different but...". Where do you draw the line? Who gets to draw the line? What legal recourse to you have to challenge the line? Once again if this was something like freedom of speech you and a lot of other people would be singing a different tune, but god forbid the 2nd amendment is a right on the same level as freedom of speech and religion.
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;51769246]It didn't have any reason to exist? No one with mental issues should be allowed to own firearms period. This is just common sense but because its a right in the US everyone goes full retard over it.[/QUOTE] shall not be infringed
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.