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 08-10-2019, 10:04 AM
 
Location: Texas
35,493 posts, read 19,486,919 times
Reputation: 21101

Advertisements

Yeah, well...

No president has ever had as much first hand knowledge of mental illness as tRump.

Nome sane?

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-10-2019, 01:55 PM
Status: "but it depends on what the definition of "is" is." (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: Clyde Hill, WA
3,673 posts, read 649,758 times
Reputation: 1156
Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga View Post
kudos for shooting down this tired blather almost instantaneously.
It goes to show that what is really needed is a reform of the whole psychiatric industry.

We won't get anywhere with the background checks until we get that first. Look at all the people who were on psyche meds, and passed the background check anyway. The Aurora, CO, for example. He was under psyche care yet was able to buy a gun.

When I was young, homosexuality was listed as a disorder in the official psyche diagnostic manual (DSM). Now homophobia is listed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 04:54 PM
 
9,518 posts, read 4,355,455 times
Reputation: 11123
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.
A conservative lie?
Interesting.
Have you actually read the Obama EO to see whom could be designated not competent?

As to subnormal intelligence, WTH?
The only restrictions our society has put on not owning a gun legally is for violent felons and mentally deranged people who have been legally deemed that way. If you start applying an intelligence test to maintain a right, it is no longer a right, but a privilege the government can give or take away.



`
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 05:01 PM
 
9,518 posts, read 4,355,455 times
Reputation: 11123
Quote:
Originally Posted by crone View Post
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.
So who decides what class of group of people are no longer "entitled" to their God given rights, protected by our Constitution?

More to the point, why is computer usage important to being able to own a gun?

As to diminished hearing and eyesight, many people are still capable of using a firearm to defend themsleves. If anything those people are even more vulnerable to predators. So why shouldn't an elderly person be able to own a gun to protect himself/herself in their own home during an invasion?
Being an 80 year old, you should appreciate that, unless you have been a anti-gun zealot your whole life.


`
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 05:06 PM
 
Location: Austin
12,369 posts, read 7,043,170 times
Reputation: 13707
the premise of the thread is a lie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2019, 05:06 PM
 
7,453 posts, read 2,698,263 times
Reputation: 2948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1 View Post
A conservative lie?
Interesting.
Have you actually read the Obama EO to see whom could be designated not competent?

As to subnormal intelligence, WTH?
The only restrictions our society has put on not owning a gun legally is for violent felons and mentally deranged people who have been legally deemed that way. If you start applying an intelligence test to maintain a right, it is no longer a right, but a privilege the government can give or take away.



`
No. But I remember it being discuss by congress. Here is an excerpt from minutes on the House Floor. The person speaking is Goodlatte(R)

Under the rule, an individual's name will be sent to the NICS if they
receive disability insurance or supplemental security income benefits
based on having a mental disorder, the person is between age 18 and the
full retirement age, and the SSA determines that the person needs a
representative payee to manage their benefits. Individuals who meet
these criteria would be prohibited from exercising their Second
Amendment right to possess firearms.
This rule is a slap in the face of those in the disabled community
because it paints all those who suffer from mental disorders with the
same broad brush. It assumes that simply because an individual suffers
from a mental condition, that individual is unfit to exercise his or
her Second Amendment rights. No data exists to support such an
egregious assertion. In fact, studies show that those who suffer from
mental disorders are more likely to be victims of crime rather than
perpetrators of crime

Note it does not claim what you said which was if a person was on SSDI because of bad eyesight or could not use a computer so needed someone to handle their affairs and then could not own a gun. Did you read the executive order?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 12:30 PM
 
9,518 posts, read 4,355,455 times
Reputation: 11123
Quote:
Originally Posted by vacoder View Post
No. But I remember it being discuss by congress. Here is an excerpt from minutes on the House Floor. The person speaking is Goodlatte(R)

Under the rule, an individual's name will be sent to the NICS if they
receive disability insurance or supplemental security income benefits
based on having a mental disorder, the person is between age 18 and the
full retirement age, and the SSA determines that the person needs a
representative payee to manage their benefits. Individuals who meet
these criteria would be prohibited from exercising their Second
Amendment right to possess firearms.
This rule is a slap in the face of those in the disabled community
because it paints all those who suffer from mental disorders with the
same broad brush. It assumes that simply because an individual suffers
from a mental condition, that individual is unfit to exercise his or
her Second Amendment rights. No data exists to support such an
egregious assertion. In fact, studies show that those who suffer from
mental disorders are more likely to be victims of crime rather than
perpetrators of crime

Note it does not claim what you said which was if a person was on SSDI because of bad eyesight or could not use a computer so needed someone to handle their affairs and then could not own a gun. Did you read the executive order?
1) Ok, so you did not read the EO [Check]

2) You take an excerpt from a Congressional discussion and assume one persons view to accurately represent what you never read [Check]

3) You form a misinformed opinion based on the aforementioned [Check]

4) Because of your ideological beliefs you assume anything to the contrary is a "conservative lie" [Check]

Right there my fellow CD friend, we have encapsulated what is wrong with current political discourse in our country.

As to not understanding the trigger of the EO I will try to explain it, and hopefully you will see my primary point.
The EO did not classify an adjudicated case of mental illness as the criteria of restricting gun ownership. If it had, we would not be having this discussion. I and most other sane people do not think mentally ill people should have guns, until and unless they are deemed cured/safe.
Instead, the trigger was broad and enveloped anyone setting off a criteria of those unable or unwilling to handle their affairs within the system.
Thus I gave some, but not all the reasons such a restriction might be imposed on those otherwise being able to own a gun without fear of them being mentally ill.

Now one might think (as a previous poster did) that those people with physical maladies should not own firearms.
Presumably for some unfounded fear that they may accidentally harm themsleves or others due to a lack of vision and/or hearing. However many of these older people are veterans who know how to handle guns better than the general populace. Additionally elderly people need the equalizer of a firearm to prevent their physical frailty from become a rape or murder.
Also to allude to your posted congressional debate, why stigmatize and entire class of people like the disabled with mental insufficiency, if not accuse them of mental illness.
As with older citizens, the physically disabled need a firearm for protection more than most other citizens.


`
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 12:50 PM
 
7,453 posts, read 2,698,263 times
Reputation: 2948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1 View Post
1) Ok, so you did not read the EO [Check]

2) You take an excerpt from a Congressional discussion and assume one persons view to accurately represent what you never read [Check]

3) You form a misinformed opinion based on the aforementioned [Check]

4) Because of your ideological beliefs you assume anything to the contrary is a "conservative lie" [Check]

Right there my fellow CD friend, we have encapsulated what is wrong with current political discourse in our country.

As to not understanding the trigger of the EO I will try to explain it, and hopefully you will see my primary point.
The EO did not classify an adjudicated case of mental illness as the criteria of restricting gun ownership. If it had, we would not be having this discussion. I and most other sane people do not think mentally ill people should have guns, until and unless they are deemed cured/safe.
Instead, the trigger was broad and enveloped anyone setting off a criteria of those unable or unwilling to handle their affairs within the system.
Thus I gave some, but not all the reasons such a restriction might be imposed on those otherwise being able to own a gun without fear of them being mentally ill.

Now one might think (as a previous poster did) that those people with physical maladies should not own firearms.
Presumably for some unfounded fear that they may accidentally harm themsleves or others due to a lack of vision and/or hearing. However many of these older people are veterans who know how to handle guns better than the general populace. Additionally elderly people need the equalizer of a firearm to prevent their physical frailty from become a rape or murder.
Also to allude to your posted congressional debate, why stigmatize and entire class of people like the disabled with mental insufficiency, if not accuse them of mental illness.
As with older citizens, the physically disabled need a firearm for protection more than most other citizens.


`
Okay. I just read the executive action (thats right not order but action). It says what I posted not what you are claiming. That SSDI receipients due to physical maladies will be flagged. Unblike your post I will post a link to the public record. Also don't bring up adjudication as I never made any claims on that. Also, this proposed reporting by the SSA to NICS was exactly what the Dept Of Veteran Affairs was doing at the time. It has since been rescinded.





https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...e-and-make-our
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 01:05 PM
 
10,012 posts, read 4,706,337 times
Reputation: 5591
Then Obama's EO was illegal. It violated HIPAA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 01:07 PM
 
7,453 posts, read 2,698,263 times
Reputation: 2948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
Then Obama's EO was illegal. It violated HIPAA.
Action not order. It was also what the Dept of Veteran Affairs had been doing for decades.
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