U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-09-2019, 10:36 PM
 
9,518 posts, read 4,355,455 times
Reputation: 11123

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230 View Post
To remind you, Trump removed this law requiring such checks. He has to get at least some of the blame for firearms getting into the mentally ill hands due to his own signing of the bill to remove such people.

This goes against even mainstream conservative positions on gun checks.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...mental-n727221
You'll keep repeating this lie and just hope people only read the headlines, or the way it was falsely framed by the liberal media.

Elderly people were being targeted as mentally ill just because they needed help dealing with financial matters. Some could not see well enough, others could not use computers and the internet to conduct affairs that went to online access only.
So if they needed assistance it didn't mean they were mentally ill, yet that request for assistance triggered the law Obama put into place.
My dad for example is mentally fit and can handle most of his affairs. However with the aforementioned in mind he wouldn't know how to turn on a computer, much less do online forms and the like. Yet most things now days require business to be conducted online, not with paperwork sent back and forth via snail mail.
He also suffers from poor hearing and diminished eye sight, so if he didn't have me to help him out, he would have been one of the ones targeted to have his mental fitness questioned, and lose his constitutional rights.

What Obama did was an end run to make it seem like he was doing something, anything to try and prevent mass shootings.
But as usual with most new "gun control", this effort would not have stopped Sandy Hook, and instead infringed on the rights of law abiding citizens who were not mentally ill.

It would not have stopped freaks like




`
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-09-2019, 10:41 PM
 
20,716 posts, read 8,919,507 times
Reputation: 7164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1 View Post
You'll keep repeating this lie and just hope people only read the headlines, or the way it was falsely framed by the liberal media.

Elderly people were being targeted as mentally ill just because they needed help dealing with financial matters. Some could not see well enough, others could not use computers and the internet to conduct affairs that went to online access only.
So if they needed assistance it didn't mean they were mentally ill, yet that request for assistance triggered the law Obama put into place.
My dad for example is mentally fit and can handle most of his affairs. However with the aforementioned mentioned in mind he wouldn't know how to turn on a computer, much less do online forms and the like. He also suffers from poor hearing and diminished eye sight, so if he didn't have me to help him out, he would be one of the ones targeted to have his mental fitness challenged and lose his constitutional rights.

What Obama did was an end run to make it seem like he was doing something, anything to try and prevent mass shootings.
But as usual with most new "gun control", this effort would not have stopped Sandy Hook, and instead infringed on the rights of law abiding citizens who were not mentally ill.

It would not have stopped freaks like




`
Iím sorry but peopleís rights not to be killed takes precedence over infringing on gun rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 08:16 AM
 
9,518 posts, read 4,355,455 times
Reputation: 11123
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469 View Post
Iím sorry but peopleís rights not to be killed takes precedence over infringing on gun rights.
I am sorry, but maybe you did not read my post well.

I like most other rational people do not want mentally ill people to have access to guns. However what Obama did was keep people with no mental illness from getting or keeping a gun.
Aside from that being unconstitutional, most people would not approve of such a restriction just because the person asks for assistance to help deal with their finances.
What is so hard to understand about that?

I'd also note that people are killed all the time in far greater numbers by things our society does not restrict, whether it be cars, knives, etc.
What is dangerous about your comment is to think our fundamental rights that are protected in the Constitution are subject to emotional whims of the day, by lumping everyone in the same boat.


`
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 08:26 AM
 
7,453 posts, read 2,698,263 times
Reputation: 2948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1 View Post
You'll keep repeating this lie and just hope people only read the headlines, or the way it was falsely framed by the liberal media.

Elderly people were being targeted as mentally ill just because they needed help dealing with financial matters. Some could not see well enough, others could not use computers and the internet to conduct affairs that went to online access only.
So if they needed assistance it didn't mean they were mentally ill, yet that request for assistance triggered the law Obama put into place.
My dad for example is mentally fit and can handle most of his affairs. However with the aforementioned in mind he wouldn't know how to turn on a computer, much less do online forms and the like. Yet most things now days require business to be conducted online, not with paperwork sent back and forth via snail mail.
He also suffers from poor hearing and diminished eye sight, so if he didn't have me to help him out, he would have been one of the ones targeted to have his mental fitness questioned, and lose his constitutional rights.

What Obama did was an end run to make it seem like he was doing something, anything to try and prevent mass shootings.
But as usual with most new "gun control", this effort would not have stopped Sandy Hook, and instead infringed on the rights of law abiding citizens who were not mentally ill.

It would not have stopped freaks like




`
Wrong. The executive order only included SSDI recipients, if they could not handle their affairs DUE to mental illness or subnormal intelligence. It DID NOT claim that not handling their affairs labeld them mentally ill.

Its a conservative lie that you are spreading that all SSDI receipients who do not handle their own affairs will be flagged. Not to mention there is an appeal process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 08:45 AM
 
66,935 posts, read 30,650,753 times
Reputation: 8756
Quote:
Originally Posted by stburr91 View Post
Very misleading.

What was removed was policies that would deny people that had someone managing their Social Security accounts from owning firearms.

There is no opposition from gun owners, or the NRA to include mental heath records in background checks.
While the NRA has no objection to including mental health records in background checks, the ACLU will fight it tooth and nail as it's a violation of HIPAA. Health care professionals have also asserted that such an inclusion would deter the mentally ill from seeking medical help, thereby rendering the inclusion ineffectual and detrimental to both the mentally ill and those they may harm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 08:52 AM
 
Location: United States
11,019 posts, read 5,123,499 times
Reputation: 5280
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
While the NRA has no objection to including mental health records in background checks, the ACLU will fight it tooth and nail as it's a violation of HIPPA. Health care professionals have also asserted that such an inclusion would deter the mentally ill from seeking medical help, thereby rendering the inclusion ineffectual and detrimental to both the mentally ill and those they may harm.
Yes, I'm well aware of the opposition to including mental health records in background checks, I was just pointing out that the opposition is not coming from the NRA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 08:54 AM
 
66,935 posts, read 30,650,753 times
Reputation: 8756
Quote:
Originally Posted by stburr91 View Post
Yes, I'm well aware of the opposition to including mental health records in background checks, I was just pointing out that the opposition is not coming from the NRA.
Yep, exactly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 08:59 AM
 
10,012 posts, read 4,706,337 times
Reputation: 5591
Quote:
Originally Posted by vacoder View Post
Wrong. The executive order only included SSDI recipients, if they could not handle their affairs DUE to mental illness or subnormal intelligence. It DID NOT claim that not handling their affairs labeld them mentally ill.

Its a conservative lie that you are spreading that all SSDI receipients who do not handle their own affairs will be flagged. Not to mention there is an appeal process.
So you are guilty until you can prove innocence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 09:00 AM
 
11,739 posts, read 8,551,329 times
Reputation: 7216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1 View Post
You'll keep repeating this lie and just hope people only read the headlines, or the way it was falsely framed by the liberal media.

Elderly people were being targeted as mentally ill just because they needed help dealing with financial matters. Some could not see well enough, others could not use computers and the internet to conduct affairs that went to online access only.
So if they needed assistance it didn't mean they were mentally ill, yet that request for assistance triggered the law Obama put into place.
My dad for example is mentally fit and can handle most of his affairs. However with the aforementioned in mind he wouldn't know how to turn on a computer, much less do online forms and the like. Yet most things now days require business to be conducted online, not with paperwork sent back and forth via snail mail.
He also suffers from poor hearing and diminished eye sight, so if he didn't have me to help him out, he would have been one of the ones targeted to have his mental fitness questioned, and lose his constitutional rights.

What Obama did was an end run to make it seem like he was doing something, anything to try and prevent mass shootings.
But as usual with most new "gun control", this effort would not have stopped Sandy Hook, and instead infringed on the rights of law abiding citizens who were not mentally ill.

It would not have stopped freaks like




`
I'm an 80 year old person who gets daily reports from my daughter who cares for her 95 yo in laws.

You speak of people who cannot turn on a computer, and having diminished hearing and eyesight. IMO, they also have no business with a gun.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 09:04 AM
 
7,453 posts, read 2,698,263 times
Reputation: 2948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
So you are guilty until you can prove innocence.
That is a different arguement now isn't it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top