White House refuses to release picture of Trump signing that makes it possible for mentally ill folks to purchase a gun

[WTF]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...z&ocid=U221DHP

[grean]

I'm not certain that the bill it negated was good or even constitutional in the first place.

2A is a right. To say a group of people not given any due process, and who have not committed any felonious crimes should be stripped of that right, is wrong.

It must be with due process on a case by case basis.


Why is it everyone sees the need for every other ammendment except this one?

1A doesn't do much good if an army comes to town and says you can't have it anymore.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by grean

I'm not certain that the bill it negated was good or even constitutional in the first place.

2A is a right. To say a group of people not given any due process, and who have not committed any felonious crimes should be stripped of that right, is wrong.

It must be with due process on a case by case basis.


Why is it everyone sees the need for every other ammendment except this one?

1A doesn't do much good if an army comes to town and says you can't have it anymore.

Wonder why the White House will not release the picture then if it is such a great thing?

Do you agree with Trump....that people that are not competent to manage their business Affairs should be able to purchase a gun? Those two things seem to be at odds. Not mentally sharp enough to manage their own bank account but just fine to carry around a gun!

Are the courts taking away competent people's ability to access their own money?

[grean]

There are some who shouldn't. Most people the law affected however, while needing some assistance with some things, are just fine having guns.

[grean]

What's with the hard on about the picture?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

...... people that are not competent to manage their business Affairs should be able to purchase a gun? Those two things seem to be at odds. Not mentally sharp enough to manage their own bank account but just fine to carry around a gun!

White House refuses to release picture of Trump signing that makes it possible for mentally ill folks to purchase a gun.

"manage their own bank account" = "mentally ill"???????

If that's what you believe, your "gun privileges" need to be stripped!

[Guest123018-4]

You need to look at what was in the bill to understand what was removed.
It has to d with a person not being able to manage their finances as a mental illness.
Get you faces straight.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by WTF

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...z&ocid=U221DHP

First of all how do you define Mentally Ill, and who determines someone is Mentally Ill and can't purchase a Fire Arm? Do you think a Firearms Dealer is qualified to make such a diagnoses?

Jim

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

You need to look at what was in the bill to understand what was removed.

I was quoting what numbnuts was posting!

Another "hair brain" idea was prohibiting folks receiving social security benefits from possessing a firearm. I don't recall if it ever got on paper or not, but it was humorous.

If I recall that "age issue" came up in the original Texas Senate debates over the concealed handgun license legislation ... although most of what I heard was over some badge or pin that would let others know you were "packing"!

[SeekingFun69]

Even the ACLU was in favor of removing this restriction for these types of disabled people.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

First of all how do you define Mentally Ill, and who determines someone is Mentally Ill and can't purchase a Fire Arm? Do you think a Firearms Dealer is qualified to make such a diagnoses?

Jim

You are asking WTF a question like that?

Our "mental health" system is the least protected system we have in this country and has the least amount of personal rights and protections as any in this country. Juveniles have more rights (actually more than adults in the criminal system!).

Can you imagine the abuse? Once you get on "the list" you'd NEVER GET OFF ... and theoretically "mental illness" can be treated, controlled, and/or cured! In Texas it takes two physicians signing a paper and BAM! You're put in a facility and tattooed. Can you imagine a disgruntled wife, former wife, GF, or SO ... or the mother of your kids?

Do you know someone on a "no-fly" list? They get off?

WTF is "mentally ill" over Trump winning the 2016 election!

That's HIS PROBLEM! (One of them!)

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by grean

I'm not certain that the bill it negated was good or even constitutional in the first place.

2A is a right. To say a group of people not given any due process, and who have not committed any felonious crimes should be stripped of that right, is wrong.

It must be with due process on a case by case basis.


Why is it everyone sees the need for every other ammendment except this one?

1A doesn't do much good if an army comes to town and says you can't have it anymore.

Cause "WAA, guns are evil"!! WHAA... That's why libtards are ok with every damn law out there to restrict gun ownership.. but rail against any form of trying to ensure voting is done only by legally authorised personnel..

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

First of all how do you define Mentally Ill, and who determines someone is Mentally Ill and can't purchase a Fire Arm? Do you think a Firearms Dealer is qualified to make such a diagnoses?

Jim

Add to that, iirc on CNN last night (was scrolling through all the news channels), a doctor there, said CURRENTLY by the 5A book on mental illnesses, a large chunk of society (almost 70%) would qualify as being mental in some manner, way shape or form.. CAUSE OF HOW broad and easily it is to get someone 'considered mental'. That jumps to almost 85% for military..

So if we do make it 'if you are mental, no guns for you' that is in essence making it NO ONE can own a gun, cause most of society would be seen as mental and RULED as mental thus not allowed to own a gun...
In essence its an END-Run way, to remove everyone's guns.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I was quoting what numbnuts was posting!

Another "hair brain" idea was prohibiting folks receiving social security benefits from possessing a firearm. I don't recall if it ever got on paper or not, but it was humorous.

If I recall that "age issue" came up in the original Texas Senate debates over the concealed handgun license legislation ... although most of what I heard was over some badge or pin that would let others know you were "packing"!

Well, seeing the # of accidents caused by old folk, who are too brain addled to know where tehy are going (or have too porr eyesight to realize, HEY I am driving the wrong way!" i can see why some might say if one is too old, one shouldn't own a gun.

BUT Where i balk, is "OK, who then gets to decide who is too old?"?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by WTF

Wonder why the White House will not release the picture then if it is such a great thing?

Do you agree with Trump....that people that are not competent to manage their business Affairs should be able to purchase a gun? Those two things seem to be at odds. Not mentally sharp enough to manage their own bank account but just fine to carry around a gun!

Are the courts taking away competent people's ability to access their own money?

Reread what is written you right wing loons.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by garhkal

Well, seeing the # of accidents caused by old folk, who are too brain addled to know where tehy are going (or have too porr eyesight to realize, HEY I am driving the wrong way!" i can see why some might say if one is too old, one shouldn't own a gun.

BUT Where i balk, is "OK, who then gets to decide who is too old?"?

At least in Texas (and I suspect in most states) there is a system already in place to regulate the driver's license of persons who have conditions that make driving an automobile too challenging. It's conducted by the DPS, which also is tasked with "regulating" carry permits, and enforcing gun laws state wide.

It's a state decision and should not be made on an arbitrary basis of receiving social security or any other Federal benefits.

And having a firearm in the home is not equivalent to a disease! As such the Center for Disease Control (or medicaid/medicare employees) have no business doing "house calls" to investigate whether or not a firearm is in a recipient's home. That's all shit stirred by Obaminable and his ignorant supporters. While they were selling arms to the cartels and shipping them to the terrorists in Syria from Libya.

[WTF]

So Lexy thinks that folks mentally incompetent to handle their social security should be able to buy guns