this trope needs to be dropped anyway. You never hear anyone who advocates for free speech called a 1A "nut" Its a constitutional right. Jeez.
I have to ask so I understand - Are you saying that a person with PTSD should not automatically be denied access to firearms? Because that's the one illness I personally would target. I have close family members that suffer from PTSD and one of them having a firearm would make me shit my pants.
Yes, a very broad determination that the law didn’t specifically specify other than those who are receiving SS payments. Receiving payment was the trigger mechanism, not the mental illness itself. Again, define mental illness. Dont make the determination based off of who is receiving SS payments - which is exactly what the law did.
It doesn't. That's the reason for the check. This is the reason there's no reasonable gun legislation. As soon as we have the conversation the narrative turns to "They taking our guns!"
I'm no detective, and I'm not trying to blow up your spot, BUT the very article that you linked in the intial post in this thread is OVER 2 YEARS OLD.
I think PTSD is one area where we absolutely need to limit firearm access. 20 servicemen and women kill themselves every day. Try to hang yourself and you have a few minutes to reconsider. Try to shoot yourself and there is no reconsidering.
Nah, the people doing it are good government workers, they're using all of their budget every year to make sure they get one next year so they'll produce some stuff along the way
Exactly my point. Since when is advocating citizens rights that are specifically protected by an amendment in the Constitution considered to be anything drastic and those individuals labeled as nuts. Over Reactor would be proud.
Because that's what they're doing. There should be zero gun legislation. It's illegal to hurt another person, regardless of the tool. Are you aware of why the 2nd Amendment exists?
Yep, all sorts of PTSD out there, some absolutely should keep the sufferer from being armed, some shouldn't. That's why I keep going back to it's too broad - it needs to separate out who is a risk and who is not rather than lump them all into the risky category. Your statement is a perfect example, you have multiple family members who suffer but only one shouldn't have weapons.
That's an entirely different issue overall though. VA estimates 12-15% of vets from just the Gulf and Iraqi wars have PTSD. Should they all be refused their rights? I don't think so.
