Rule to keep severely mentally ill from buying guns gets nixed

>To undo the rule, the House Republicans turned to the Congressional Review Act, which allows lawmakers to overrule regulations they dislike. It can be passed with a simple majority and can’t be filibustered in the Senate before it’s sent to the President’s desk.

>>108552
> Congressional review act passed in 1996
Thanks Bill.

How can anyone take the US federal government seriously?

>Hey guys, maybe we should ban mentally ill people from owning guns
>RETARDS NEED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES WITH DEADLY FIREARMS, MUH 2ND AMENDMENT

the NRA's pull in congress must be tremendous

>>108582
> Hey guys, maybe we should ban mentally ill people from owning guns

Sure, as long as that American is legally adjudged by a court as crazy, and not by some secret star chamber of unaccountable faceless bureaucrats somewhere in the bowels of D.C., stripping away our inalienable human rights with the click of a mouse.

This is nothing but the latest propaganda from anti-gun fundies and their Dem co-conspirators, who propose legislation they know full well will never pass, then turn around and claim the Reps want Americans shot by crazy people.

The Dems tried to pull this shit before and the NRA quite rightly shut them down.

>>108551
If even the ACLU agrees with the NRA, I can't see anything wrong with it. I mean, come on.

>>108582
>muh cherrypicking
forget about the ACLU and other organizations, did you? stop dumbing it down. It's laws like these that put US Vets on these lists so they can't have guns, for example.

>>108582
what of they say your severely mentally ill?

you government loving cuck

>>108585
Where the fuck do you get the idea that the click of a mouse decides whether you can get a gun or not?

>>108588
Because of PTSD and Psychopathy? Yeah sure.

>>108582
You have to understand, some of the diagnosis are just arbitrary garbage. This stops vets and people that may have went through some shit in their 20's, from being able to defend themselves.

Hell, take it from me. When I was 21, I lost a lot of people close to me, fell out of love with my job, and thought about how everything was just soooo shit around me. Someone told me I should go talk to a doc or something.

They said i had severe bipolar depression, severe anxiety, and a bunch of other shit. Not only would this stop me from getting guns in this case, it hinders getting certain jobs, and makes the interview process awkward.

That being said, I went cold turkey on that bs medicine a year later, and 8 years later you would never know some fucking kook said I had a boatload of mental handicaps

I just hope we get some Obama 2nd term shootings again, it'll make watching the news entertaining.

>>108622
Dude, it's almost like... threatening mentally ill people with restrictions and threatening to take away their rights should their problems be discovered... doesn't make them want to seek treatment and makes them hide their condition...

Who... who woulda thought... you know?

>>108626
>I just hope we get some Obama 2nd term shootings again
This is why you people lost the election, you're disgusting human beings who wish death on innocent people for disagreeing with you.

>>108669
>Turning anon into a straw man when he never stated his political leanings or if he even is American

Wew lad

>>108621
> Where the fuck do you get the idea that the click of a mouse decides whether you can get a gun or not?

It’s right there in the article;

“The National Rifle Association, gun advocates, and civil rights advocates, including the ACLU, argued
that the rule would strip Second Amendment rights from beneficiaries WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.”

If you’re going to lose your constitutional and human rights, it must be done thru a court of law and not
on the whim of some random government employee.

>>108669
Where did he state he was leftist?

>>108669
>Anybody opposing the Cheeto is a liberal

**Wrong**

>>108676
This
This
This

>>108674
>>108703
>>108709
Pathetic lies.

>Trump allowing an hero once again
how can anyone on 4chan dislike this guy? he's literally >our boy

>>108558
You mean Newt & Dole.

>>108585
Good luck with your guns versus the governments' drones. Yep those guns will totally keep the King of England away. lol.

>>108739
>>108739
How a liberal argues

>step 1 misunderstand the issue
>step 2 insult the stupidity of your opponent
>repeat

>>108729
Pathetic deflection

>>108739
probably a low effort troll, but a bunch of goatherders in afghanistan, supplied with a bunch of WWI vintage rifles, numbering in the low thousands successfully beat the government's drones.

>>108740
Wow a conservative argues

>step 1: If only liberals were more red pilled, like me!
>step 2: Isn't it funny how the ignorant are always so blissfully unaware of just how little they know?

>>108739
Just like how our drones helped us steamroll the Taliban, Al Queda and IS right?

>>108739
Irregular infantry are still effective and likely will be until the end of time.

>>108734
word

>>108676
Shall not be infringed bitches

Kek

>>108551
>Rule to keep severely mentally ill from buying guns gets nixed by House
you can't just ban guns for all americans buddy

>>108676
Too many News threads end up this way. Its so hard to write a well thought out post when I know full well the response will be
>News source
Or
>Dumb libruls/conservaturds

Really need to get over the (You) addiction I suppose, but posts like this are going to be ignored because they arnt easy to fling shit at.

>>108999

Not sure what you’re saying here; are agreeing or disagreeing with me?

>>109021
I agree with you. Im just bothered that most threads with similar posts that are factually correct have a tendancy to be ignored in favor of nonsense thats mostly partisian shit flinging.

>>108922
kek

>>109028
>I agree with you.

Oh, ok.

> Im just bothered that most threads with similar posts that are factually correct have
> a tendancy to be ignored in favor of nonsense thats mostly partisian shit flinging.

In the case of this idiot >>108739 it's just standard Leftist debate tactics; when they can't
effectively counter an argument, they try to derail the conversation with irrelevancies.

>>108827
Except conservatives actually try to converse. I did it for years, but its useless.

You're a racist communist peice of garbage.

Civil devate is myth. The left has never allowed it.

>>108669
>implying kids getting shot is a bad thing

>>108582
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

>>109242
Wait, what about my feelings? It doesn't say anything about my feelings.

Every American should have their 2nd amendment rights, my family is extremely important to me and I should be able to defend them. This biased bill was rushed in after sandy hook and it makes no sense. 20 kids isn't a lot anyways...

>>108582

the government can't define mental illness and it can't select who is allowed to define it. there is no constitutional provision by which any supposed state of mind could be used to abey someones constitutional right to weaponry

>>109261
>the government can't define mental illness and it can't select who is allowed to define it.

Sure it can, people are committed to the nut house all the time but it's done thru a COURT, not some bureaucrat clicking a mouse.

>>109270
It's worse out here in Cali. They can take away your 2nd Amendment rights on hearsay alone. All it takes is a complaint from an anonymous source to get a "Gun Violence Restraining Order".

>>109242
>well regulated militia
>well regulated
This sentence doesn't mean you throw regulations down a well.

>>109314
I guess you also think militia does not mean the people.

>>109314
Some of the meaning got lost in time.

In the context of the 2nd Amendment, well regulated means well trained, equipped. A pool of potential militiamen with pre-existing experience with firearms.

The Founding Fathers were, naturally, very suspicious of standing armies, many believed that provincial militia raised and trained locally from people with an agrarian background (who naturally grew up with firearms) could deal with most, if not all, internal and external threats the nation faced.

>>108582
>the NRA's pull in congress must be tremendous
This board is dedicated to current news. This statement, however, is old news.

>>109288
> All it takes is a complaint from an anonymous source to get a "Gun Violence Restraining Order".

From what I read, a family member or a cop must make the request for a California "Gun Violence Restraining Order” (valid for 3 weeks) after which _due process_ must take place and the guy whose guns were seized, gets his day in court.

Which is what the legislation in the OP does NOT do, it allows the Social Security Administration to hand over your private medical records to functionaries at the FBI, who then strip away your 2nd Amendment rights with the click of a mouse and good luck ever trying to get it back….

The last time the anti-gun fundies and the Dems tried to pull this shit, the NRA and ACLU stuck it up their asses sideways, pointing out that for example, a new mother who talks to her doctor about postpartum depression, would automatically be convicted of being crazy and could never own a gun.

Also, as ALL military personnel returning from overseas deployments are required to attend group discussions moderated by psychiatrists, whereupon they ALL would immediately be deemed crazy and could never own a gun.

Want to quit smoking? Try Chantix and kick the habit! Then lose your 2nd Amendment rights, as those pills are considered a psychotropic drug and you’re now legally crazy…

The anti-gun argument is compleatly unsupportable, there is no data or statistics that supports their position and in fact, most of the data shows private gun ownership to be a benefit to society.

>>109335
Weren't the founding fathers afraid of the possibility of a civil war against them and their government?

>>109499
nah, they literally said (paraphrased) "if we fuck up and become complacent, shoot us"

there actually were rebellions fairly early, in the founders' lifetime, and they were fine with it. working as intended.

>>109505
Sooo, "We, the People" are supposed to shoot presidents if/when they abuse their powers? I may or may not change my opinion regarding gun rights.

>>109534
We the People /w firearms are supposed to be a deterrent to internal as well as external aggression, yes. It's one of the reasons.

>>109534
>>109505

This shit was challenged and clarified early in the country's history through USSC decisions, among other things. The Whiskey Rebellion was the first major armed uprising against the U.S. Gov't, against which Washington led a military contingent on horseback for a nonlethal standoff. But then there was shit like individual smugglers using guns to get guards out of the way to run the 1802 Embargo -- that was when you had calls for individual weapon control. The most sweeping gun control came with the slave rebellions and territory wars -- gun shipments to Kansas Terr. were banned during Bleeding Kansas, for example, and strict controls on gun trade and shipping occurred in the South when Northerners plotted to supply slave uprisings.

There's not much worse of government tyranny than slavery, but they made it very clear that interstate gun shipments to the South and some parts of the West during that time would be banned. Armed rebellion very quickly was not tolerated and given no sympathy by either state or national governments.
(On the other hand you have the Mormons, who legit had to fear other states or the feds just steamrolling over them if they didn't already own guns and heavily fortified their territory. That's one case where the 2nd Amendment really did help them... though it was mostly armed mobs of civilians also using their 2A rights to try to make war on the Mormons, and the military was just trying be peacekeepers, except the military was clearly biased against the Mormons -- point is they wouldn't have cracked down on the Mormons if armed fundamentalist civilians didn't start a war with them in the first place, but when they did, the Mormons themselves being armed protected their religious rights (even though polygamy technically violated state law at the time which was upheld by federal law, so no side had yet allowed the legal system to work).)

I understand what's trying to be accomplished with this bill but none of the mass shooters in recent memory even fall under this blanket rule. Sure many of them had depression, anxiety, and other mental illnesses but the bill wouldn't have altered anything even if it was enacted 20 years ago.

Am I missing something?

>>109661
Anon, you have rights. These rights aren't supposed to be taken away without a good reason. You determine if there's a good reason through a court of law, witnesses, evidence. This bill would cut out that court of law, witnesses, and evidence part, meaning you could lose your right to defend yourself on the whims of some higher power with no recourse.

>>109668
*The right to a firearm. my b

guys gals yall are making this something its not. they want restrictions on who can get firearms NOT taking away firearms. yes this will NOT stop bad guys from getting guns ALTOGETHER what it intends to do is take steps before getting a gun that has a chance of preventing the wrong person from receiving the gun. lets say that its 1/100000 that this works on preventing a mass shooting? well that is much better than shooting the "bad" guy after hes killed a classroom full of kids... unless you want the kids to have guns to protect themselves??? haha no.. or you want the teachers to have them in a safe or on them? well that runs the risk of teachers and lets admit some are stupid, leaving the gun in an unsafe spot where a kid fires it off unintentionally OR lets say a highschooler does that intentionally, yeah great plan. even you own a gun you would then be a murderer of a sick person or PTSD fella who just needed help planning before the attack to prevent is the best way. because when do you kill that guy? when he has yet to pull the gun? think he will give you a nice team rocket prepare for trouble yeah? no its after shots are fired and I can only hope you kill him BEFORE he empties his clip. but lets be honest you are not a navy seal most of the time

>>109686
> guys gals yall are making this something its not.
> they want restrictions on who can get firearms NOT taking away firearms.

The anti-gun fundies and their Dem supporters want to BOTH restrict who can get a firearm and take away firearms from those who already have them and this would be accomplished (in true Soviet style…) by labeling anyone and everyone as crazy, simply on the whim of some faceless government employee.

No court, no judge, no lawyers, no evidence, no nothing; just a click of a mouse by some bureaucrat and your Constitutional rights are stripped away.

>>108729
You have lost this round
Go and shit up the next thread

>>108551
if theyre talking about people who have like alzheimers, its not like they would know how to use it anyways. it should be under their care taker. this is pretty useless bill. if theyre talking about however people who have "evil thoughts" that just makes more transaction costs and wastes congress time trying to figure out if theyre allowed to have them or trying to arrest them.

>>108622
find it hard to believe a veteran is bipolar, what could you possibly be happy about

>>109750
*badumtss

gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaab

>>109719
You didn't realize how old that post was?

Protip: be smarter.

What if you have schizophrenia and start unloading at the 'devil' who was just some old lady?

>>109749
Schitzophrenia, paranoia, psychotic disorders, bipolar disorders... jesus christ, the list is longer than the day. The problem here is that mongoloids like yourself do not understand the scope and variety of mental illness and instead believe in "evil thoughts" and similar garbage.

This is the greatest problem of democratic institutions. Failures of education basing voting behavior on tribal tradition and banal superstitions.

>>109938
schizophrenic people are notoriously non-violent, that goes for the majority of mentally ill individuals.
none of them capable to function properly, much less buy a gun or act properly in public.
You should be more afraid of sociopaths

>>109938
Lmao

A perfect example liberal argument.

Why don't you finish a thought before sharing it?

>>109749
> if theyre talking about people who have like alzheimers

Except they’re also talking about everyday people with a prescription for Ambien sleeping pills, or anybody with kids who has gotten divorced and had to attend a state mandated psychiatric evaluation (i.e. pretty much everyone) or anybody who has gotten a drunk driving ticket and was required to attend some AA meetings, etc.

What constitutes “crazy” under the legislation the anti-gun fundies and Dems are pushing for, is completely open-ended and undefined; anything the government decides equals crazy, becomes so, without any court or lawyers or judges to restrain them.

was it ever approved?

Cool now I can kill people in a slightly more efficient way

>>113010
Test that out on yourself first. We don't need any government worshipping retards voting.

>>109242

>mentally retarded
>well regulated

hmmm

>>113018
Go back and read the thread Brady. A court determines whether you're mentally unfit, not some bureaucrat.

>>109120
>step 1: anecdotal fallacy
>step 2: hasty generalization with implied ad hominem pejorative
>step 3: whine and bitch about arguments not existing rather than actually arguing