Google+ Followers

Blog Catalog

Friday, February 3, 2017

You Nearly Won't Believe What House Republicans Did Yesterday


Seriously, this is what they just did yesterday, my fellow Americans. They're voted to make it okay for clinically diagnosed mentally unstable people to have their own weapons because, you know, 2nd Amendment rights.




5 comments:

Sevesteen said...

We've got a tiny few terrorists who happen to be from Muslim countries. . We should take reasonable steps to keep the terrorists from harming people. If government tries to use the few terrorists to justify banning all Muslims or all Syrians, they should be stopped.

Mo Rage said...


We take more, far more than "reasonable steps to keep the terrorists from harming people." The vetting process for refugees takes 18 to 24 months per person.

Sevesteen said...

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdf

There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative
payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward
gun violence. The rule further demonstrates the damaging phenomenon of “spread,”
or the perception that a disabled individual with one area of impairment
automatically has additional, negative and unrelated attributes. Here, the rule
automatically conflates one disability-related characteristic, that is, difficulty
managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm.

The ACLU is famous for it's lack of support for the second amendment. This is the first time I can recall the ACLU supporting a gun right at the national level.

Mo Rage said...


Since there are more weapons in this nation than there are people and since the NRA and the weapons manufacturers are doing a fine, even huge, bang up job fighting for weapons in this nation, along with their Republican, Right Wing and, honestly, hillbilly supporters, why should or would the ACLU also spend time and/or money supporting the 2nd Amendment?

That makes no sense of any kind.

Sevesteen said...

The link I provided, and the paragraph under the link are from the ACLU.

My point is that you are on the opposite side of the ACLU on this. If even the notoriously liberal and anti-gun ACLU thinks this regulation was wrong enough for them to publicly support it's elimination, the regulation is probably wrong.