Discussion»Questions»Current Events and News» If you lost someone you loved to gun violence, how would you feel about a condolence call from someone who revoked a regulation that helped
That rule was arbitrarily taking away people on Social Security gun rights only because they had a designated payee. Just because someone forgets to pay their bills on time etc does not mean they are a danger to themselves or others. Those who this effected were not notified or given a chance to defend themselves before being stripped of their rights. If we want a law like that fine but they must be given the opportunity to defend their rights.
I really wish we had 54 year old Trump in office. He was much less of a right-wing nutjob.
"I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s internet technology we should be able to tell within 72 hours if a potential gun owner has a record.”
You might be interested to know that the SSA takes the rights of disabled citizens pretty seriously. It takes quite a lot for a person to lose their right to be their own payee. Furthermore, mental illness has to be pretty significant in order to be determined disabling by the SSA. I think that most Americans would agree that if a mental condition is significant enough to prevent a person from being gainfully employed, it is significant enough to forfeit the right to own guns.
I find it interesting that the same people who want to take away health and nutrition benefits of the disabled are keen on preserving their right to own assault rifles.
It's infuriating how some people seem to think there's an explanation and easy answer for everything.
I honestly feel that it comes from a lack of empathy. The fact that this seems to usually come from those who see themselves as superior because of their belief in a God who preached how blessed the merciful are never ceases to blow my mind.
It's a tough world indeed. I just could never imagine being a young person with issues. Mix that with social media and his access to guns and you have a ticking time bomb.
If they are that mentally unstable they certainly should not have a gun. But it should not be automatically done. It should be done on a case by case basis and the person should have the chance to show that are not a danger. I only know one person with a payee and I have no worries about her having a firearm. She simply cannot keep up with her money. About lost her home because of it.
This person you know who has a payee; she's on SS for mental illness? Because, you understand, this regulation was designed to keep guns out of the hands of people who have significant MENTAL ILLNESS. Not people who received SS income for other disabilities.
Your case by case basis scenario sound like a LOT of government spending that could be better used to provide mental health care to the countless thousands who desperately need it.
Actually it is both. She has physical problems and was determined mentally she cannot perform a desk job. It would be simple to determine at the time of having a payee assigned, the judge could also evaluate if the person is a danger and/or not stable enough to have an firearm.
Mental illness and developmental disability are very different. It's my understanding that the regulation was specifically designed to prohibit people with mental illness that's serious enough to prevent them from not only being gainfully employed, but also from being about to manage their own finances, from purchasing guns.
Anyone with a mental ILLNESS that isn't stable enough to work or manage their money is most certainly not well suited to owning a firearm.
If it were up to me, anyone attempting to purchase a firearm should be subjected to a mental health screening, not just those who are receiving government benefits. Sadly, that will never happen.
The fact that you and those who think like you are unwilling to restrict even those who have a documented serious mental illness from owning guns shows exactly how much you value your guns compared to human lives. Maybe if guns posed more of a threat to potential human lives, you'd care more?
The only mental illness the gov was documenting was the fact that they had a payee. The government must demonstrate that the person is a danger. There are too many disability advacy groups and civil right groups who supported the repeal of the law for it to be that cut and dry.
There are specific diagnoses that must be made by physicians in order for a person to receive SS benefits for mental disorders.
I am certain that had the regulation been allowed to remain, there would have been an appeals process, as there was for people who were reported to NICS by the VA as being mentally unstable to the point of not being able to attend to their finances.
I stand firm on my belief that most reasonable and reasonably sane people would agree that keeping guns out of the hands of people who have been declared mentally unstable is more important than anyone's 2nd amendment rights. There are limits on our rights, when exercising them infringe upon the rights of others.
I don't think it's reasonable for people to claim that there don't need to be more safeguards in place to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill. Look at the VA Tech shooting, for example. People who have clearly demonstrated mental instability shouldn't be able to legally purchase firearms.
I was just reading that this morning. It's shameful and of course he will never address this directly.
We need so much for this to be a safer and better country. We can't be making cuts to mental health care and gun control at the same time. Believe me, it's not easy to get the care that is needed for a troubled loved one.
I would feel like the phone call was disingenuous. Just like Trump always doing anything to avoid talking about gun control legislation. It's the same speeches every time. "Let's come together to heal." "Law enforcement did an amazing job." "Anyone who's feeling alone out there, you're not alone."
Ok, we said what we were supposed to now let's change the subject quickly so we don't have to actually do anything about it.
I'd just start saying to this person -- "Gunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsgunsguns- - all good. Believe me."
"God Bless America - - and God bless the guns"
"They're gonna take our guns away!!"
"Despite the Second Amendment, SOMETHING is going wrong in the last decades! Yes, so many people pine and pine for the Good Old Days -- well, in the good ol' days school students and people anywhere were not being massacred by lone gun shooters. Something needs to be done."
"Something!"
If nothing is done, we just don't care.
- - oh, yeah, "enforce the gun laws we already have" -- I'm tired of hearing that -- it's been repeated over and over for decades. That's worked out really well.
After the tirade, I'd let that person figure out whatever they want to take from my purely angry reaction to recent events and the loss of a loved one to gun violence.
This post was edited by WelbyQuentin at February 17, 2018 4:03 PM MST
my2cents 