1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Senate Votes to Ax Obama-Era Gun Rule

Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Feb 15, 2017.

Top Posters
  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Republican-led Senate has voted to revoke an Obama-era regulation that nullifies the “Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007″.

    According to Click On Detroit,The Obama administration measure required the Social Security Administration to include the names of beneficiaries with mental health issues who also have a third party to manage their benefits.

    Critics called the rule “too broad” and claim it “unfairly stigmatized the disabled.” The vote scored 57 to 43 in favor of revoking the regulation, which is now on its way to President Trump’s desk, who is expected to sign it.

    http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2017/02/15/breaking-news-senate-votes-ax-obama-era-gun-rule/
     
    #1 Revmitchell, Feb 15, 2017
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. StefanM

    StefanM Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,333
    Likes Received:
    210
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I don't believe for one second that stigma was a deciding factor in considering this issue.

    I'm also not sure how much difference the regulation would have made, though. Those receiving disability benefits for mental disorders and also have a representative in their finances---that wouldn't seem to be a large group, but perhaps I'm wrong.

    I'm also writing from the perspective of someone who has a severe mental illness, so I'm not trying to blast the mentally ill.

    That being said, if you are getting paid by the government because your illness makes you unable to work, and you are unable to manage your finances, too....I really don't see why it's so important to ensure that someone like this should be able to buy a gun.
     
    #2 StefanM, Feb 15, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    1. The law was too broad
    2. There is no good reason to create this law.
    3. There is a huge risk of this law being used for more broadly than what is being purported by those supporting it. I, as many many Americans, have no reason to trust it to be just what it says.
     
    #3 Revmitchell, Feb 15, 2017
  4. Rolfe

    Rolfe Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Messages:
    6,898
    Likes Received:
    638
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Restrictions are easily imposed and difficult to remove.
     
    #4 Rolfe, Feb 15, 2017
  5. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    11,154
    Likes Received:
    242
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I was not going to dislike your comments, but the "funny" button didn't quite fit my feelings for what you said, in the paragraphs above.
     
    #5 righteousdude2, Feb 19, 2017
  6. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,852
    Likes Received:
    1,085
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I was not going to mark your comments funny, but the "dislike" button didn't come close to my feelings for what you said, in the paragraph above.
     
    #6 rsr, Feb 19, 2017
  7. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,852
    Likes Received:
    1,085
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Real news: Senate repeals law that affects few people because it looks good in the re-election campaign without any thought about why it might have been enacted in the first place.
     
    #7 rsr, Feb 19, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    See folks this is an example of liberals not getting what is actually going on but commenting on it anyway. It matters not how many people it effects, however, if the argument is to be followed then one should also agree that since it effects so few people it should never have been put into place to begin with.

    Anyway what matters not is that the 2nd amendment not be infringe on for dubious reasons. Further, it looks like it was a foot in the door for abuse to remove the rights of far more than need be.
     
    #8 Revmitchell, Feb 19, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,852
    Likes Received:
    1,085
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am not a liberal, but the Rev. insists that everyone who doesn't believe as he does is one of the hated L words. A tactic he and many others on the board have used with smug righteousness for many, many years.

    If it were true, I would hardly be the first. Besides, what is "actually going on:? The good Rev. didn't say, except to call names. But perhaps he will make it clear ...

    Ah, but it does politically.

    I see. murder statutes, after all, affect relatively few people. Guess we don't need them either.


    Let's see all the facts not in evidence: that this so-called infringement of the 2nd Amendment was for "dubious reasons" and it was a "foot in the door for abuse and to remove the right of far more than need be (whatever that means).

    No evidence to support any of these statements. Just typical knee-jerk name calling and reflexive acknowledgement of America's worship of the gun come hell or high water.[/QUOTE]
     
    #9 rsr, Feb 19, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2017
  10. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    25,823
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The rule wasn't aimed at those that were "receiving disability benefits for mental disorders". It applied to anyone collecting social security benefits, but are for one reason or another, unable to handle their affairs, whether it be dealing with insurance companies, keeping up with multiple prescriptions, or just unable to write checks because of arthritis or vision impairments. It would also be imposed on those that needed help with their affairs temporarily, but the ban would be permanent.

    I don't know if your mischaracterization was intentional or because you just didn't understand what the rule was all about. either way, as the rev stated, it was much too broad.
     
    #10 carpro, Feb 19, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 2
  11. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist
    [/QUOTE]

    Yes because saying people worship the gun is neither reflexive or knee jerk.:Rolleyes
     
    #11 Revmitchell, Feb 19, 2017
  12. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,852
    Likes Received:
    1,085
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Not in this case. You have a long track record here. Anyone can look it up.

    Tell me: Are there any limitations on the right to bear arms?
     
    #12 rsr, Feb 19, 2017
  13. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,852
    Likes Received:
    1,085
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Besides, I see no response that my charge that you are a liar. I guess it must be true.
     
    #13 rsr, Feb 19, 2017
  14. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,852
    Likes Received:
    1,085
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Any mischaracterization is based on the Rev's initial post, I guess. Still, does it appear likely that someone will try to fix it,or is it just a reflexive repeal? I'm saying no.
     
    #14 rsr, Feb 19, 2017
  15. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    25,823
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Of course.
     
    #15 carpro, Feb 19, 2017
  16. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    25,823
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Faith:
    Baptist
    As someone else said, it actually affected few people.

    Basically, it was unneeded in the first place. There are already restrictions on ownership of firearms for the mentally ill.
     
    #16 carpro, Feb 19, 2017
  17. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In my opinion, based on the wording of the 2nd amendment, there should be no limits on any law abiding citizen owning the firearm of his choice and carrying that firearm in any manner he sees fit as long as doing so does not harm another.
     
    #17 TCassidy, Feb 19, 2017
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. Shadowlands

    Shadowlands Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2016
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    14
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Improvement Amendment, my foot! The only "improvement" there would mean
    more Democrat rules over gun owners. I know where to get a gun, no questions
    asked, no paperwork, no background checks, for $50.00 so forth. So much for
    "improving public safety."

    But I'm a good guy. I purchased all my firearms legally from a gun store after filling
    out an ATF Form 4473.
     
    #18 Shadowlands, Feb 20, 2017
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...