Not that I wish RBG any ill...

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
Dude, she had nothing to do with the written decision. Please learn some history before making such statements. Do you think she's been on SCOTUS since the 1970's? Are you really that unaware?

She fought for Roe. She thought it was about population control. Therefore, whether it was because of that or in spite of that makes no difference.


Try rereading her statement a few times and see where she says SHE thought it was about population control.

She is saying many people thought that.

Why dont you understand anything?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
If you automatically added 75,000 mentally ill people to the list it stands to reason you have made 75,000 metal ill people ineligible to purchase a firearm

It would not have added 75,000 mentally ill people to the database. It might have added 75,000 people to the database, some of whom may (or may not) have had mental illnesses. Those mental illnesses may or may not have been worthy of denial of a basic unalienable right, thus making the rule unconstitutional. The rule that had not been put into place, and therefore could have have been "removed".

You are drastically mischaracterizing what happened, based on a misleading report that your are grossly overstating.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I don't believe that's true. That doesn't even sound like something she would promote, given what I do know about her.
It's what she said. :sshrug:

Even if it wasn't intentionally FOR that reason, she fought for it understanding that was the consequence of fighting for it. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
So every time the Trump admin proposes a rule they predict will have a desired effect you are going to call it into question now right?

I ABSO-FUKKING-LUTELY do that. I believe NOTHING out of ANY government, without serious reflection and outside study. Just because Trump says it, it's not automatically right. Just because Obama said it, it wasn't automatically wrong. I told you I strongly supported Obama's surge of troops, his signing of Bush-era tax rates into being "permanent", his change of dealing with Cuba, etc. EVERY action taken by ANY administration should be evaluated and their claims automatically suspect.

How is ANY of this news?

So the senate and the house just voted on a non existent piece of legislation for fun?

The legislation cancelled a rule that had not yet gone into effect. Obama didn't sign legislation, he was making up a rule because that's how he ran government - with a pen and a phone. Congress, subsequent to Obama, passed legislation to cancel an unconstitutional rule before it could take effect.

No wonder you don't understand how the government works.

:lmao: :roflmao: Your lack of self-awareness is scary.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Hopefully someone shows these posts to the police and she has her gun license taken away as a danger to others.

Well Froggy Go Ahead and Jump you Hypocrite

Unfortunately Trump lifted the ban on the mentally ill owning guns so psychos like these can wander freely among us

Liar ....

No, Trump Did Not Make It Easier for Mentally Ill People to Buy Guns

None of this is a remotely accurate description of what happened. A year ago, Congress and Trump eliminated a proposed rule that would have included in the federal government gun background database people who received disability payments from Social Security and received assistance to manage their benefits due to mental impairments.

This is a regulation that potentially deprived between 75,000 to 80,000 people of a right based not on what they had done but on the basis of being classified by the government in a certain way. The fact that these people may have these impairments did not inherently mean that they were dangerous to themselves or others and needed to be kept away from guns.

As I noted when the regulation was repealed last March, this rule violated not just the Second Amendment but the Fourth, because it deprived the affected people of a right without due process. The government does have the power to restrict and even deny gun ownership to people, but it has to show that these people have engaged in behavior that makes weapons dangerous in their hands.

That's why the regulation was opposed not just by National Rifle Association (NRA) but by several mental health and disability groups and by the American Civil Liberties Union. Pundits largely ignored the latter groups' opposition to the rule, preferring to play up the power of the NRA and their influence on Republicans to turn the issue into a partisan fight.





Just because some old folks require assistance with their Finances does NOT Make them a danger for owning a Firearm
 
Top