[noemon]

Lawmakers have struck down an Obama administration rule that attempts to keep guns out of the hands of people who suffer from mental illness.

gettyimages-guns.jpg (72.21 KiB) Viewed 1806 times

The Republican-controlled House voted 235-180 on Thursday in an apparent effort to improve gun ownership under President Trump. The rule affected nearly 75,000 Social Security recipients diagnosed with mental health conditions, such as extreme anxiety and schizophrenia, and are considered incapable of managing their own affairs.

The legislation will now head to the Senate.

In his final months in office, President Barack Obama issued the regulation that requires the Social Security Administration to relay names of individuals into a database of citizens who are ineligible to purchase a firearm.

Republicans and gun-rights activists have argued that the rule stigmatizes those with mental health issues and unfairly strips them of their Second Amendment rights.

"The Obama administration's rule is discriminatory and deprives law-abiding Americans of their constitutional rights," House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte said in a statement, echoing a similar statement from Chris Cox, the National Rifle Association’s top lobbyist.

Those in favor of the rule argue that it simply prevents a small group of people with severe mental illnesses from potentially causing harm to themselves and others.

“Plain and simple, today's move downgrades a system built to enforce existing laws that keep guns out of hands that shouldn't have them,” Erika Soto Lamb, the chief communications officer for Everytown for Gun Safety, tells The Independent.

“Our background check system is only as good as the records it contains and this vote re-opened the door for people prohibited from firearm ownership to illegally pass checks, buy and possess guns. Our public safety has been put at risk because of today's gun lobby-backed maneuver to advance their agenda of more guns for anyone, no questions asked. "

Independent

Cutting red-tape and "non-sense" regulations.

[Suntzu]

Crazy folks need guns, too.

[Heisenberg]

I'm generally far more pro-gun than most Britons my age, but this is just flat-out stupid. As for the Obama law being "discriminatory" - that's the whole point. It discriminates against people who clearly shouldn't have guns. It's like the Republicans are begging for more school shootings.

[Decky]

The second amendment does not say the right to carry weapons should be restricted only to the sane.

[One Degree]

The rule affected nearly 75,000 Social Security recipients diagnosed with mental health conditions, such as extreme anxiety and schizophrenia, and are considered incapable of managing their own affairs.

It seems like a stupid thing for them to do, but in reality how many of these people would buy guns? They are incapable of managing their own affairs. Do we really need a law that prohibits 90 year old people from buying guns? I would like to see some real statistics as what effect this law actually had and how many of these 75,000 owned guns. How many of them already have guns and have no need to buy one? It appears to be one of those laws that sounds good, but probably accomplishes nothing.

[Nonsense]

Perhaps they ought to define who, exactly, the people with 'mental illness' are?

Anyone who was alive during WW2 in Germany, would think that every little contribution towards the Holocaust was the 'right' thing to do, even after 6 million exterminations, many, many of them using guns of all sorts.

This was expected of them by the German State, for whom EVERYONE had sworn an oath to Hitler.

Those people thought that EVERY 'act', however sick, was 'normal'.

That's what 'political 'brainwashing' does to people, even in modern peacetime, in this country, politically, people that were once thought of as 'sick' have been absolved of all responsibility for those acts, which are now considered 'politically correct' by politicians & people that are devoid of any notion of what is 'right' or 'wrong', in particular, the younger generations.

In this country, 'normal' people feel no need to carry weapons of any kind.

In America, the Constitution gives people the 'right' to 'bear' arms, it DOES NOT GIVE THEM THE 'RIGHT' TO 'USE' THEM.

You see ^what 'ambiguity' does, people define for themselves, that it's alright to interpret language to fit the paradigm that they fit into, whether that's a social, political, or personal context.

Everyone is entitled to the same 'rights' as everyone else in society, the person that 'bears' arms, is entitled to the same protection, 'under' the law as any person that does not 'bear' arms.

On the other hand, people that do not 'bear' arms, are entitled to the full protection of the law, from people who, not only 'bear' arms, but 'use' them as an act of violence against other people including those 'bearing' arms with no intent to harm others.

When that principle is breached, the 'offender' must be punished to the degree that the public will always be free from the fear that the 'offender' generated, if that means incarceration for life, or forfeiting that 'right' to life, so be it, the 'offender' has effectively by their action, denied an innocent person of their 'right' to life & freedom from fear.

I have no truck with the nonsense that says one should 'forgive' a killer of ones family member's or a 'neighbour', an 'eye for an eye'.

Let the judges decide, who is 'bad' & who is 'mad', either way, a 'wrong' has been done, no matter what the motivation or state of mind of the person committing that act & the 'punishment must fit the crime', no 'absolution' whatsoever.

[Rich]

The rule meant that anyone who was having monetary difficulties and relied on an agent to manage their SSA benefits had to be reported to the NICS and banned form using weapons. We knew Obama held the White working class in contempt, but I do find this a bit shocking. What's also shocking is how the lame-stream media have lied about this.

[jimjam]

The NRA's bullshit campaign to protect the second amendment is nothing more than a pitch for gun manufactures to make more $$$.There are 300,000,000 guns in America. Believe me, the second amendment is not in danger. But, hey NRA, what the fuck does permitting teen agers to buy military grade weapons have to do with protecting the second amendment?? And, hey chicken shit congressmen these folks who you pretend to represent want something to be done to protect themselves and their kids from heavily armed wackos. And they are sick of lip service and "guns don't kill people, people do" crap.

[Hong Wu]

I like how high school students aren't responsible enough to own guns but are responsible enough to understand that they shouldn't be able to own a gun

[Godstud]

No, @Hong Wu, they are responsible enough to know that most young people should not have guns, and responsible enough to understand that they need to stop the guns from being available enough that they end up killing people in schools.

It doesn't take a genius to know that most teenagers are too immature for a variety of responsibilities. eg. The voting age is 18. Most drinking ages in the US are 21.

Them getting rid of this law is pure idiocy. A 90 year old man might not be able to run a marathon, but he can certainly pull a trigger of a gun.

[Patrickov]

It's like the Republicans are begging for more school shootings.

Of course they do. Republicans voting for this motion probably think many of the common people are threats to their dominance and they are probably very happy to see most of their threats die in the most gruesome way.

[maz]

Are the doctors who get to declare people to be mentally ill the same doctors who give boys hormone therapy treatments and help them cut their dicks off?

[Godstud]

Are you making a false and stupid comparison? Yep.

[maz]

Are you making a false and stupid comparison? Yep.

I think it is a fair question to ask if dick-chopping, pro- LGBT doctors are going to be some of the doctors who will get to declare Americans to be mentally ill and thus unable to own firearms.

Especially since, politically LGBT organizations and anti-2nd amendment extremists organizations have a lot of overlap in their agendas and affiliations.

The next LGBT cause: gun control

So yeah, I can understand Godstud's view that is a particular sensitive, possibly even a verboten issue.

And speaking of comparisons, here is another comparison that I have been thinking about recently.

I have heard anti-2nd amendment extremist propagandists in the media frequently saying something similar to lawmakers:

"The next mass shooting will be your fault and you will have blood on your hands because you did not enact our "common sense" gun control proposals x, y and z."

So if that is true, this similar statement that I have heard from anti-immigrant propagandists saying to lawmakers also has to be true:

"The next death of an American at the hands of an illegal immigrant will be your fault and you will have blood on your hands because you did not enact our proposals to immigration reform x, y and z."

Is this also a false and stupid comparison?

[Godstud]

"The next death of an American at the hands of an illegal immigrant will be your fault and you will have blood on your hands because you did not enact our proposals to immigration reform x, y and z."

Is this also a false and stupid comparison?

Yes. It's even stupider since legal immigrants aren't the problem in the USA. Immigrants have a lower crime rate than native-born people. The facts do not support your statement.

Also, circumcisions are the parent's choice. The doctor has no say in it, and you implying such has no basis in reality.

[Rancid]

We should not stop until every mentally ill person is armed!

[Crantag]

The gun restraining order is probably a better way to go.

Stigmatizing people who struggle with psychological issues probably isn't the answer. Does someone who had a bout of clinical depression, which is documented in their medical history, become ineligible to own firearms? (Say said person is an avid hunter.)

I'm not speaking from experience here. What I am saying is that the thing may not be as cut and dry as it looks.

I also don't have a lot of love for the psychiatric industry, much less trust.

A person who is depressed or irrational doesn't need to be around guns, but how many such cases are actually diagnosed? I would think few.

A person who is truly depressed, having their guns taken away from them via restraining order, until such a time as they get their mind right; may look upon it positively, if the stigmatization aspect is not present. There could be hotlines setup for such people to self-report, and have their guns taken; so long as it includes confidentiality, and the absence of being placed into a catch-all category. With a restraining order provision, people that know them could also report to a hotline; police could be dispatched, along with a mental health professional, who explains the process; and clear steps laid out for what was ahead.

These are just examples of potential design; I see some flaws in creating a catch-all category of 'the mentally ill'; but possibly among the biggest flaw is the stigmatization, which is likely to deter people from seeking legitimate assistance if they are in a condition of personal struggle. This itself might actually lead to suicides, in certain individual cases, for example.

[Godstud]

I see some flaws in creating a catch-all category of 'the mentally ill'

Yes. most Americans would fit into this category in some way or another, especially if they are 2nd Amendment nuts.

[SpecialOlympian]

[Zag Edit: Rule 2]

[Rancid]

This really does have to be about money and gun sales right? Other than "I want to make more money", why else would someone thing it's a good idea to give mentally ill people easier access to guns?