• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Please splain this to me.

Gina said:
House votes to strike rule banning guns for some deemed mentally impaired

Why would we want people who cannot manage their financial affairs to possess guns? I personally know someone like this. He needs a guardian to receive and hand out his money to him. He's drug addicted, diagnosed as schizophrenic and has been violent with his partner on more than one occasion. In no way should this person every be permitted to own a gun. Yes, that is an anecdote, but he represents the people we are talking about here.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...



Has he been arrested for drugs?

Confined to a mental facility?

Arrested for battering?

California already has very strict laws concerning all of the above.

Until you can back up your story with facts and proof, it's another gossipy tale.
 
Gina said:
Indeed, the NRA has not shown a fondness for laws restricting gun ownership. But this confuses me. The NRA came out in favor of a "mentally ill database", but is not in favor of letting this be a standard. It flummoxes me. If they cannot handle money. Have been diagnosed with a disabling mental illness, how can they manage a weapon?
Click to expand...

That is one big can of worms you are looking into. Because a person cannot do something else is no reason to assume they cannot protect themselves. How do you decide? Disabled, bed bound, blind, deaf, mute, obsessive compulsive, dyslexic, autism, depressed and a host of high functioning mental disorders including delusionary thinking guns can kill or they are God.
 
Gina said:
House votes to strike rule banning guns for some deemed mentally impaired

Why would we want people who cannot manage their financial affairs to possess guns? I personally know someone like this. He needs a guardian to receive and hand out his money to him. He's drug addicted, diagnosed as schizophrenic and has been violent with his partner on more than one occasion. In no way should this person every be permitted to own a gun. Yes, that is an anecdote, but he represents the people we are talking about here.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Because the law's definition of what "mentally impaired" is is so vague that a rabidly anti-gun therapist could tell the gov't that pretty much anyone who wants to own a gun is mentally impaired and should be banned from owning one. It's not that the idea that there are people who's mental condition is such that they should not own a firearm, it's matter of the law being so badly written that the potential for gross abuse is such that it needs to be tossed.
 
Gina said:
House votes to strike rule banning guns for some deemed mentally impaired

Why would we want people who cannot manage their financial affairs to possess guns? I personally know someone like this. He needs a guardian to receive and hand out his money to him. He's drug addicted, diagnosed as schizophrenic and has been violent with his partner on more than one occasion. In no way should this person every be permitted to own a gun. Yes, that is an anecdote, but he represents the people we are talking about here.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Your a liberal, obviously alot!

Society has yet to criminalize having a mental illness! There for the only way a mentally ill persons right to keep and bear arms (2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, an individual right affirmed by the US Supreme Court) can be "Temporarily" removed is by adjudication by a judge. Obama's EO banning firearms from mentally ill people who are on government benefits was nothing more than picking on a group of people who were neither inclined or determined to purchase a firearm. If society wants to criminalize people who are being treated for a mental illness then that law has to come through congress not through King Obama's decree! That is why it was repealed with the support of the ACLU!
 
Gina said:
Indeed, the NRA has not shown a fondness for laws restricting gun ownership. But this confuses me. The NRA came out in favor of a "mentally ill database", but is not in favor of letting this be a standard. It flummoxes me. If they cannot handle money. Have been diagnosed with a disabling mental illness, how can they manage a weapon?
Click to expand...


How does ANYONE feel about Trump having his hand on the nuclear button?

Now, you should feel much better knowing that some crazy with a firearm won't destroy the planet, like Trump has the ability to do.

I'm glad you feel better now :2razz:
 
cuban smokes said:
How does ANYONE feel about Trump having his hand on the nuclear button?

Now, you should feel much better knowing that some crazy with a firearm won't destroy the planet, like Trump has the ability to do.

I'm glad you feel better now :2razz:
Click to expand...

what does that have to do with this thread? we get the TURDS (Trump Unacceptance and Resistance Disorders)

it also shows that most of the complaining about legal gun ownership is really complaining about the voting patterns of those who make the second amendment a priority when they vote
 
TurtleDude said:
what does that have to do with this thread? we get the TURDS (Trump Unacceptance and Resistance Disorders)

it also shows that most of the complaining about legal gun ownership is really complaining about the voting patterns of those who make the second amendment a priority when they vote
Click to expand...



FIRST OF ALL jack***, I AM PERSONALLY COMPLETELY ON BOARD WITH EVERYTHING FIREARMS :mrgreen:
I am ANTI 1934 NFA ........... CLASS III? ............. YEP, I want everything Class III :mrgreen:

silencers? Yep, I'm all there ............. fully auto? yep, I'm all there .......... **** the man? yep, I'm all there .............


The OP is concerned with individuals that cannot manage their ‘affairs’ financially & having the ability to legally own firearms …………… BUT the concern does not need to be financial in nature, as the OP is demonstrating concern for.

We, The US, have a POTUS (TRUMP) that is obviously unable to manage his own affairs. He has been involved with multiple marriages, has been involved with multiple law suits claiming he has failed to abide by contractual agreements, Trump has been involved with enumerable lawsuits that demonstrate he (TRUMP) has himself claimed without reservation to be a sexual preditor that can have his way with ANY woman & grab ANY woman by the *****, ………………… I mean, by God ****ing man, where do you want this to end??????????????? R U ****ing stupid??????????

If you don’t get the correlation between a NUT CASE with a gun, and a WHACKED out POTUS WITH HIS FINGER ON THE NUCLEAR BUTTON ……………… then I guess you will NEVER GET ANY****ING THING IN YOUR ****ING LIFE, PERIOD ……………… WILL U????????

No, U won't ...................
 
The rule, when implemented, would affect about 75,000 recipients of disability insurance and supplemental insurance income who require a representative to manage their benefits because of a disabling mental disorder, ranging from anxiety to schizophrenia. It applies to those between age 18 and full retirement age.
Click to expand...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/02/02/house-votes-strike-rule-banning-guns-some-deemed-mentally-impaired/97299756/

I agree with the fact that everyone should have the opportunity to exercise their Second Amendment right. However, specific to the Second Amendment is the firearm. It would be ignorant to disregard the fact that a firearm is a weapon, and a weapon has the nasty potential to infringe on another's rights--the right to live. It is dangerous to allow people with schizophrenia, BPD, and bipolar disorder to own a weapon. In a perfect world, people with these disorders would receive the psychiatric help they need and would become stable enough to be in the possession of a firearm. Sadly, not everyone that is plagued by those disorders has access or the means to obtain that help, and because of that, in order to prevent as many accidents as possible, those who suffer from violent symptoms such as those I have listed should not be given ownership of a firearm. That's not to say I support the original gun ban on those who are assigned a money manager because of a mental disorder. Nor do I support the repeal of said ban. I believe that a revised ban would be the best option.

To deny ownership of guns only to those with disorders who require a money manager is irrational. There are far too many that fit in that category but are still stable enough to handle a gun, and there are still those who don't need a money manager but can be prone to fits of violence due to mental disorders, and should not be allowed ownership of a firearm. What the House should have done was revise the rule to sharpen the definition of the group that is not allowed to own a firearm, thus making it more accurate.

The question still stands: "What about the rights of those who suffer from mental disorders? It infringes on their rights to deny them ownership of guns!" To that, I say that the House should make a statement encouraging the families of those impacted by this ban to own guns on their behalf and to protect them in dangerous situations. They should call upon the local governments to identify which of their civilians are denied ownership of firearms and take the steps necessary to ensure that they are well protected and feel safe even without access to guns. Thus, people with disorders are protected while still ensuring safety for the community.
 
I agree with the fact that everyone should have the opportunity to exercise their Second Amendment right. However, specific to the Second Amendment is the firearm. It would be ignorant to disregard the fact that a firearm is a weapon, and a weapon has the nasty potential to infringe on another's rights--the right to live. It is dangerous to allow people with schizophrenia, BPD, and bipolar disorder to own a weapon. In a perfect world, people with these disorders would receive the psychiatric help they need and would become stable enough to be in the possession of a firearm. Sadly, not everyone that is plagued by those disorders has access or the means to obtain that help, and because of that, in order to prevent as many accidents as possible, those who suffer from violent symptoms such as those I have listed should not be given ownership of a firearm. That's not to say I support the original gun ban on those who are assigned a money manager because of a mental disorder. Nor do I support the repeal of said ban. I believe that a revised ban would be the best option.

To deny ownership of guns only to those with disorders who require a money manager is irrational. There are far too many that fit in that category but are still stable enough to handle a gun, and there are still those who don't need a money manager but can be prone to fits of violence due to mental disorders, and should not be allowed ownership of a firearm. What the House should have done was revise the rule to sharpen the definition of the group that is not allowed to own a firearm, thus making it more accurate.

The question still stands: "What about the rights of those who suffer from mental disorders? It infringes on their rights to deny them ownership of guns!" To that, I say that the House should make a statement encouraging the families of those impacted by this ban to own guns on their behalf and to protect them in dangerous situations. They should call upon the local governments to identify which of their civilians are denied ownership of firearms and take the steps necessary to ensure that they are well protected and feel safe even without access to guns. Thus, people with disorders are protected while still ensuring safety for the community.
 
Montesquieu said:
I agree with the fact that everyone should have the opportunity to exercise their Second Amendment right. However, specific to the Second Amendment is the firearm. It would be ignorant to disregard the fact that a firearm is a weapon, and a weapon has the nasty potential to infringe on another's rights--the right to live. It is dangerous to allow people with schizophrenia, BPD, and bipolar disorder to own a weapon. In a perfect world, people with these disorders would receive the psychiatric help they need and would become stable enough to be in the possession of a firearm. Sadly, not everyone that is plagued by those disorders has access or the means to obtain that help, and because of that, in order to prevent as many accidents as possible, those who suffer from violent symptoms such as those I have listed should not be given ownership of a firearm. That's not to say I support the original gun ban on those who are assigned a money manager because of a mental disorder. Nor do I support the repeal of said ban. I believe that a revised ban would be the best option.

To deny ownership of guns only to those with disorders who require a money manager is irrational. There are far too many that fit in that category but are still stable enough to handle a gun, and there are still those who don't need a money manager but can be prone to fits of violence due to mental disorders, and should not be allowed ownership of a firearm. What the House should have done was revise the rule to sharpen the definition of the group that is not allowed to own a firearm, thus making it more accurate.

The question still stands: "What about the rights of those who suffer from mental disorders? It infringes on their rights to deny them ownership of guns!" To that, I say that the House should make a statement encouraging the families of those impacted by this ban to own guns on their behalf and to protect them in dangerous situations. They should call upon the local governments to identify which of their civilians are denied ownership of firearms and take the steps necessary to ensure that they are well protected and feel safe even without access to guns. Thus, people with disorders are protected while still ensuring safety for the community.
Click to expand...

what standards must a government meet to deny someone a constitutional right?
 
Jefferson to Madison: We got to stick in this 2nd amendment schtick. It'll keep all the idiots arguing forever and they'll never cotton on to what criminals we are, what a gigantic scam we have pulled off"
 
TurtleDude said:
what standards must a government meet to deny someone a constitutional right?
Click to expand...

Arbitrary authority.
If you're dishonourably discharged, your right is forfeit. Right? Sounds arbitrary to me. And there's a list...
It's not like your 2nd rights are virgo intacta, needing to be protected from that first assault. More like that punch line, "We've already decided what you are, we're just negotiating the price now."
 
Grand Mal said:
Arbitrary authority.
If you're dishonourably discharged, your right is forfeit. Right? Sounds arbitrary to me. And there's a list...
It's not like your 2nd rights are virgo intacta, needing to be protected from that first assault. More like that punch line, "We've already decided what you are, we're just negotiating the price now."
Click to expand...

that's really non responsive and has nothing to do with why I was asking the question.
 
camlok said:
Jefferson to Madison: We got to stick in this 2nd amendment schtick. It'll keep all the idiots arguing forever and they'll never cotton on to what criminals we are, what a gigantic scam we have pulled off"
Click to expand...

cool story bro :roll:
 
camlok said:
A story indeed, with an element of truth.
Click to expand...

Not really. the founders, I am sure, didn't think this would be controversial. They never intended the new government they founded to have any power to tell a private citizen what sort of arms that person could own or use within their own sovereign states. Indeed, there were almost no powers given to the federal government to exercise over private citizens and for the first 140 or so years, the commerce clause was never held to allow such a power
 
cuban smokes said:
FIRST OF ALL jack***, I AM PERSONALLY COMPLETELY ON BOARD WITH EVERYTHING FIREARMS :mrgreen:
I am ANTI 1934 NFA ........... CLASS III? ............. YEP, I want everything Class III :mrgreen:

silencers? Yep, I'm all there ............. fully auto? yep, I'm all there .......... **** the man? yep, I'm all there .............


The OP is concerned with individuals that cannot manage their ‘affairs’ financially & having the ability to legally own firearms …………… BUT the concern does not need to be financial in nature, as the OP is demonstrating concern for.

We, The US, have a POTUS (TRUMP) that is obviously unable to manage his own affairs. He has been involved with multiple marriages, has been involved with multiple law suits claiming he has failed to abide by contractual agreements, Trump has been involved with enumerable lawsuits that demonstrate he (TRUMP) has himself claimed without reservation to be a sexual preditor that can have his way with ANY woman & grab ANY woman by the *****, ………………… I mean, by God ****ing man, where do you want this to end??????????????? R U ****ing stupid??????????

If you don’t get the correlation between a NUT CASE with a gun, and a WHACKED out POTUS WITH HIS FINGER ON THE NUCLEAR BUTTON ……………… then I guess you will NEVER GET ANY****ING THING IN YOUR ****ING LIFE, PERIOD ……………… WILL U????????

No, U won't ...................
Click to expand...

I don't get the correlation, either. I think you were just making a lame, rather hysterical attempt to insult President Trump, while trying to make it sound like it was somehow relevant to the topic of this thread.

I hope you will keep up the peevish tone, which I've seen you take elsewhere, with the name-calling and caps and asterisks. I can't think of a better way to show everyone reading that you don't have enough confidence in your knowledge and reasoning ability to rely on them alone to make your points.

I am glad to see this result. The right protected by the Second Amendment is fundamental, and government may not deprive people of fundamental rights without very carefully respecting due process of law. Barack Obama often seemed to imagine he was an emperor rather than a president.
 
Last edited:
matchlight said:
I don't get the correlation, either. I think you were just making a lame, rather hysterical attempt to insult President Trump, while trying to make it sound like it was somehow relevant to the topic of this thread.

I hope you will keep up the peevish tone, which I've seen you take elsewhere, with the name-calling and caps and asterisks. I can't think of a better way to show everyone reading that you don't have enough confidence in your knowledge and reasoning ability to rely on them alone to make your points.

I am glad to see this result. The right protected by the Second Amendment is fundamental, and government may not deprive people of fundamental rights without very carefully respecting due process of law. Barack Obama often seemed to imagine he was an emperor rather than a president.
Click to expand...

The only reason any president or government will abide by the constitution is because the people insist they do by objecting and making their voice head when they do not. The only time government can get away with it is because the people allow it. Duped by government or others makes no difference. We are expected to counter that as well. Citizens do have a duty those rights come at the price of vigilance and protection. They are not "free".

I sincerely hope we are not expecting government to protect us from government.
 
Crimefree said:
The only reason any president or government will abide by the constitution is because the people insist they do by objecting and making their voice head when they do not. The only time government can get away with it is because the people allow it. Duped by government or others makes no difference. We are expected to counter that as well. Citizens do have a duty those rights come at the price of vigilance and protection. They are not "free".

I sincerely hope we are not expecting government to protect us from government.
Click to expand...

Back when America was better folks were known to do the right thing because they wanted to do the right thing, they did not need to be coerced.
 
TurtleDude said:
what standards must a government meet to deny someone a constitutional right?
Click to expand...

One would think with due process at the very least giving anyone at least the opportunity to challenge it. In the first place denial of a firearm is based on the false belief

1 that the person will be reformed.
2 that the person will be denied the further use of a firearm.

The reality is that government is claiming this person is so dangerous they need further restriction but releasing this dangerous person into society on the false premise they are now harmless by denial of a firearm. Quite honestly it is government which should be in court for endangering the public under false pretences

In any event no court should allow government to do so based on false claims but remember they are governments courts accepted by the people.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Back when America was better folks were known to do the right thing because they wanted to do the right thing, they did not need to be coerced.
Click to expand...

Coerced????

People cared because they got reminded how valuable those rights were and organisations cared enough to let hem know what government was doing. Then organised and lead the charge and objection. If gays can do it WTF is wrong with firearm owners? No citizen today can track all governments legislation so they belong to interest organisations who should be tacking what impacts their reason for existence. What we have is organisations with a fiduciary duty to protect what allows them to exist sitting on their bums more worried about fees and membership than members rights that allow them to exist in the first place. When an organisations fails to protect the very reason for its existence there is something seriously wrong. Clubs management needs a serious kick in the pants.

It is really simple if firearm owners are willing to lose their rights or foolishly think somebody else will protect their rights all they need do is nothing as they currently do. Nobody promises us rights, if we want them we protect them.
 
Last edited:
Would it be safe to say most of those working in mental health are anti gun progressive types? I think it's a pretty substantial majority. And you expect gun owners to enable those mental health experts a prospective gun owner fairly. Sorry no safeguards no law.
 
Wheelgun said:
Would it be safe to say most of those working in mental health are anti gun progressive types? I think it's a pretty substantial majority. And you expect gun owners to enable those mental health experts a prospective gun owner fairly. Sorry no safeguards no law.
Click to expand...

Safeguards???? They want a law without due process they can apply with a paint brush to anything they like now or in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom