House votes to rescind Obama gun background check rule
46 replies, posted
[QUOTE=sweetbro;51768719]america is such a shit hole. honestly.[/QUOTE]
Is this a shitpost?
Also: shouldn't things like this be up to the gun store owner and not the Feds?
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;51769246]No one with mental issues should be allowed to own firearms period.[/QUOTE]
Anyone with sufficiently serious mental issues to be institutionalized or legally deemed incompetent is [i]already[/i] legally prohibited from owning firearms.
Anyone who hasn't met that criteria deserves all of their ordinary rights, and any process that would suspend a Constitutional right without due process is simply unjust.
This law had no reason to exist. All the people it covered were either already prohibited from owning firearms, or were being unfairly deprived of a legal right with no recourse. Even if you disagree with firearm ownership being a right, a law that allows the government to make arbitrary decisions about what a person is or is not allowed to own, without recourse or appeal, isn't fair. If the government can't demonstrate that an individual is unfit to own firearms, then there is no legitimate basis to prevent them from owning firearms.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;51769269]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?.[/QUOTE]
yes
i mean, nobody should
but yes.
clearly mentally unstable people should be allowed the option to buy guns.
holy fuck the corruption on display now
[editline]2nd February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=catbarf;51769330]Anyone with sufficiently serious mental issues to be institutionalized or legally deemed incompetent is [i]already[/i] legally prohibited from owning firearms.[/QUOTE]
i wouldn't be so certain of that seeing as how the NRA's only goal is to make sure everybody is both able to buy a gun and scared into buying one
i have no doubt that our meager limits on gun purchases are going to be quickly ripped up as soon as the checks clear
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;51769167]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]
Didn't realize it was that bad. Article didn't seem to get that into the law too much. Kind of assumed when they said background checks, they meant they'd look into history of violence due to mental disorder. A background check that checks if someone's dangerous solely based on a mental disorder isn't an effective one at all, because as you said, you can be diagnosed with depression, but not be suicidal, for example.
I feel like more should be done to actually look into the [I]individuals[/I] and how their mental illness [I]affects that individual and alters their behavior[/I] rather than simply their mental illness. Then a proper determination can be made as to if that individual is capable of being a responsible gun owner. Check-ins wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing either.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;51769435]yes
i mean, nobody should
but yes.[/QUOTE]
are you legit saying nobody should be able to own firearms
[QUOTE=Plate Phelps;51769469]Didn't realize it was that bad. Article didn't seem to get that into the law too much. Kind of assumed when they said background checks, they meant they'd look into history of violence due to mental disorder. A background check that checks if someone's dangerous solely based on a mental disorder isn't an effective one at all, because as you said, you can be diagnosed with depression, but not be suicidal, for example.
I feel like more should be done to actually look into the [I]individuals[/I] and how their mental illness [I]affects that individual and alters their behavior[/I] rather than simply their mental illness. Then a proper determination can be made as to if that individual is capable of being a responsible gun owner. Check-ins wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing either.[/QUOTE]
That's problematic in of itself, because now you have to draw a line somewhere in the sand to determine yes this person can or no they cannot. From that you are now placing a right, held to the same status as the first and fifth, in the hands of someone who is unelected and may or may not agree with said right. This all goes along with the huge violation of HIPA that would be in play in regards to your right to privacy on regards to your health. While all of that seems fine and dandy in this particular case the precidence it sets can be very bad for all other rights.
Imagine if you had to go through a mental health examination to determine if your fit to own a home, only to have them be able to search the premises whenever without a warrant because someone, who was not elected, deemed you unfit? Those are the kind of implications we're talking about here, and while that sounds like "oh that will never happen here" just take a look at Trump and American history in general.
[QUOTE=sweetbro;51768719]america is such a shit hole. honestly.[/QUOTE]
Well, when compared to the rest of the world I think we're ok. Certainly better living here than in Somalia. We got problems here sure, but we are far from being a shit hole.
I swear I read a clause in the Gun Control Act of 1968 that bars the mentally ill from purchasing firearms. If that's so, this law was effectively pointless and should've been repealed sooner.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;51769563]That's problematic in of itself, because now you have to draw a line somewhere in the sand to determine yes this person can or no they cannot. From that you are now placing a right, held to the same status as the first and fifth, in the hands of someone who is unelected and may or may not agree with said right. This all goes along with the huge violation of HIPA that would be in play in regards to your right to privacy on regards to your health. While all of that seems fine and dandy in this particular case the precidence it sets can be very bad for all other rights.
Imagine if you had to go through a mental health examination to determine if your fit to own a home, only to have them be able to search the premises whenever without warranty because someone, who was not elected, deemed you unfit? Those are the kind of implications we're talking about here, and while that sounds like "oh that will never happen here" just take a look at Trump and American history in general.[/QUOTE]
Well I was kind of thinking that rather than having just some random government worker check on you, you'd have appointments with whoever your psychologist/psychiatrist is and they'd make a determination, and you'd go to your police department or whoever issues licences with a note of approval signed and all by whoever it was.
And by check ups, I mean yearly meets with said psychologist/psychiatrist, not having them search your house. Also owning a home is a whole different responsibility from gun ownership.
But naturally this is all assuming you've been previously diagnosed with a mental disorder. And many disorders can be excluded. I'm talking the ones that would generally cause someone to want to harm themselves or another person.
[QUOTE=Plate Phelps;51769603]Well I was kind of thinking that rather than having just some random government worker check on you, you'd have appointments with whoever your psychologist/psychiatrist is and they'd make a determination, and you'd go to your police department or whoever issues licences with a note of approval signed and all by whoever it was.
And by check ups, I mean yearly meets with said psychologist/psychiatrist, not having them search your house. Also owning a home is a whole different responsibility from gun ownership.
But naturally this is all assuming you've been previously diagnosed with a mental disorder.[/QUOTE]
personally I dont think anyone should be stripped of their constitutional rights except when convicted in court of a violent felony
[QUOTE=Judas;51769607]personally I dont think anyone should be stripped of their constitutional rights except when convicted in court of a violent felony[/QUOTE]
But this is the problem. We're trying to prevent felonies that don't have to happen. I don't think someone with ASPD who shows signs of intent to harm others to a licensed medical/psychology professional should necessarily have the right to own a gun. As a gun owner, you have to acknowledge that it's a huge responsibility. You don't want your gun in the hands of someone unfit of properly handling it unless you're teaching them.
It should be a right for citizens that can operate a firearm without the intent of harming others with, it unless in a case of self defense or said firearm being needed for survival..
I'm not saying anyone with a mental disability should be stripped of their second ammendment rights, only when it's certain that it's for the well-being and security of other innocent people. I'm saying that someone with clear intent of harming someone or at a very high risk of having intent of harming someone shouldn't be able to purchase a firearm. If they show signs of improvement, sure. That's why I mentioned check-ins. A waiting period perhaps for a reevaluation.
I know most people wanting to commit a crime wouldn't go through the whole registration process, but there are exceptions and we can't pretend there aren't.
[QUOTE=Plate Phelps;51769633]But this is the problem. We're trying to prevent felonies that don't have to happen. I don't think someone with ASPD who shows signs of intent to harm others to a licensed medical/psychology professional should necessarily have the right to own a gun. As a gun owner, you have to acknowledge that it's a huge responsibility. You don't want your gun in the hands of someone unfit of properly handling it unless you're teaching them.[/QUOTE]
If they've been involuntarily committed, they already can't own a gun.
[QUOTE=Sableye;51769440]i wouldn't be so certain of that seeing as how the NRA's only goal is to make sure everybody is both able to buy a gun and scared into buying one
i have no doubt that our meager limits on gun purchases are going to be quickly ripped up as soon as the checks clear[/QUOTE]
Anyone who sees the current regulation on gun purchases as 'meager' has obviously never tried to buy one. I remember after the Pulse shooting, a reporter tried to buy an AR-15 to show the world how easy it is- and got denied, because they had a minor domestic violence conviction on their record from over a decade prior. Whoops.
Believe it or not, but most gun owners don't want to see all the laws repealed. I think background checks are great, and I honestly wish we had [I]more[/I] scrutiny of handguns because they're the weapons overwhelmingly used in crime. And I would really like to see the feds allocate funding to prosecuting straw purchases, which are overwhelmingly the main source of firearms used in crime but go unaddressed by common gun control measures.
What I don't want are feel-good laws that address no tangible issue, but are used as stepping-stones to further misguided regulation. Democrats use the repeal of redundant or overly broad legislation like this to craft the narrative that NRA-led gun nuts want everyone to be able to buy an assault rifle at the grocery store without any restrictions. That's totally nonsense.
Edit: Oh, and speaking of the NRA, back up until the 90s the NRA was the 'moderate' gun advocacy group that people sometimes hypothesize about, and they supported the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of '94 as a reasonable compromise. But when the AWB turned out to be both massively unpopular and completely ineffective (per the Justice Department, whose report on the ban in '04 is nothing short of scathing), angry NRA members ousted their leadership and replaced them with the aggressive hardliners you see today. The modern NRA is a direct product of backlash against ineffective, feel-good regulation. Laws like this one are exactly why such vocal opposition exists to even the most minor of gun control proposals. The Democrats brought this on themselves.
[QUOTE=Judas;51769553]are you legit saying nobody should be able to own firearms[/QUOTE]
Don't humor him. He's just shitposting.
[editline]3rd February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sableye;51769440]clearly mentally unstable people should be allowed the option to buy guns.
holy fuck the corruption on display now[/quote]
This does not make it so the mentally deficient can buy firearms, this makes it so the elderly who had their rights stripped because of [i]any[/i] mental illness, no matter how minor or severe, can now buy firearms as they have been doing since before this law. Clearly elderly firearm rampages are such a rampant issue in the US....
[QUOTE=Sableye;51769440]
i wouldn't be so certain of that seeing as how the NRA's only goal is to make sure everybody is both able to buy a gun and scared into buying one[/quote]
No, that is literally the law lol. You can not buy a firearm if you've been institutionalized.
[QUOTE=Sableye;51769440]
i have no doubt that our meager limits on gun purchases are going to be quickly ripped up as soon as the checks clear[/QUOTE]
You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about dood. Shit on the NRA all day, but the regulations on firearms is in no way "meager".
[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]
Then it's a good thing that people who are found to be mentally defunct are already barred from owning firearms. :downs:
Seriously, it's like one of the most clearly well defined rules of the entire firearms trade which isn't tied to bureaucratic garbage. How were you not aware of this?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.