What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

aparch said:
Flaggy. I totally thought we were going to meet in the middle and reach some common ground. Then you go and dive back off the deep end again. *Sigh*

Also: "Obama's Seven Nations List"* caused hand cramps and paper cuts to anyone from/related/traveling through those nations. "Trump's Muslim Ban"** outright denies travel to those same handcramped and paper cut people.

*I want a nickle for every second this headline is used in a news broadcast chryon.
**I want $10 every second FOX News uses this in a broadcast chryon.
Click to expand...

You want cash from Fox Snooze, go talk to the globalist Rupert Murdoch.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

dxmnkd316 said:
Here are the list of people who are included:

Organic Mental Disorders: Psychological or behaviorial abnormalities associated with a dysfunction of the brain
Schizophrenic, Paranoid and Other Psychotic Disorders: Characterized by the onset of psychotic features with deterioration from a previous level of functioning.

Affective Disorders: Characterized by a disturbance of mood, accompanied by a full or partial manic or depressive syndrome. Mood refers to a prolonged emotion that colors the whole psychic life; it generally involves either depression or elation.

Intellectual disability: Intellectual disability refers to significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning with deficits in adaptive functioning initially manifested during the developmental period; i.e., the evidence demonstrates or supports onset of the impairment before age 22.

Anxiety Related Disorders: In these disorders anxiety is either the predominant disturbance or it is experienced if the individual attempts to master symptoms; for example, confronting the dreaded object or situation in a phobic disorder or resisting the obsessions or compulsions in obsessive compulsive disorders.

Somatoform Disorders: Physical symptoms for which there are no demonstrable organic findings or known physiological mechanisms.

Personality Disorders: A personality disorder exists when personality traits are inflexible and maladaptive and cause either significant impairment in social or occupational functioning or subjective distress. Characteristic features are typical of the individual’s long-term functioning and are not limited to discrete episodes of illness.

Substance Addiction Disorders: Behavioral changes or physical changes associated with the regular use of substances that affect the central nervous system.

Autistic disorder and other pervasive developmental disorders: Characterized by qualitative deficits in the development of reciprocal social interaction, in the development of verbal and nonverbal communication skills, and in imaginative activity. Often, there is a markedly restricted repertoire of activities and interests, which frequently are stereotyped and repetitive.


All of which have numerous inclusion criteria that must be met. For instance, on organic mental disorders, the text says:


So tell me, who on this list of people should have guns?
Click to expand...

Whoever prepared that list clearly did not want Republicans to have guns.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

The Sicatoka said:
Seems to me that someone wanting to claim a disability is setting themselves up for that mental evaluation to determine competency.

Besides keeping someone incompetent (as defined by medical evaluation) from buying a weapon, that seems like it would stop some fraud as well. ;)

"I'm disabled."
"OK, so let's try this little exam ... oh, gee, you passed. No benefits."*


*Yes, yes, yes, there is far more to a diagnosis that than. I am guardian and POA of a parent due to their medically declared incompetence (Alzheimer's).
Click to expand...

It's setting up a system that asks, "Is this person mentally fit? If not, report them to the NICS and do not let them have a gun."

If someone has Alzheimer's, I don't want them to have a gun.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
It's setting up a system that asks, "Is this person mentally fit? If not, report them to the NICS and do not let them have a gun."

If someone has Alzheimer's, I don't want them to have a gun.
Click to expand...

Neither do I. I don't have any problem banning people with mental issues from having guns. I don't think they should use finances as a backdoor to do so though.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Drew S. said:
Thank you so much! I think I might be wrong on part of it, but 90% of what I said is absolutely correct. What triggers this specific rule is more finances than mental health, but it seems that it might not apply to people without mental health issues. The VA rule encompasses everyone(or at least everything I have ever read about it says that.)
Click to expand...

No, literally most of what triggers this is mental disability. Again the five inclusion criteria:
(1) Filed a claim based on disability;
(2) been determined by us to be disabled based on a finding at step three of our sequential evaluation process that the individual’s impairment(s) meets or medically equals the requirements of one of the Mental Disorders Listings;
(3) a primary diagnosis code in our records that is based on a mental impairment;
(4) attained age 18, but have not yet attained full retirement age; and
(5) benefit payments made through a representative payee because we have found him or her incapable of managing benefit payments. We will not include any beneficiary who does not meet all of those criteria in our reporting to the NICS.

So they are:

1. Disability
2. Disability
3. Disability
4. Age
5. Can't manage finances due to 1-3

So three out of the five are directly related to disability. The next is an age requirement. The final is a classification based on disability.

Can you point to the exact text that says this doesn't apply to mental disabilities?
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Drew S. said:
Neither do I. I don't have any problem banning people with mental issues from having guns. I don't think they should use finances as a backdoor to do so though.
Click to expand...

Point to the EXACT place where it says those who have financial issues without mental disability are included.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

dxmnkd316 said:
It's setting up a system that asks, "Is this person mentally fit? If not, report them to the NICS and do not let them have a gun."

If someone has Alzheimer's, I don't want them to have a gun.
Click to expand...

Had my mother been permitted access to a weapon, more than once I'd have been shot. People with Alzheimer's become easily confused and provoked once the disease hits a certain stage that they become dangerous. There was a ECW wrestler from the 70s who was in a MN nursing home (I forget his name - not much of a wrestling fan) who would become violent, like many Alzheimer's patients. He made the news because he put a few of his attendants into the hospital one day, ended up having to transfer to a more secure location.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

This section should provide enough to show that this isn't about finances. It has to do with someone who meets ALL FIVE inclusion criteria:

Comment: One commenter stated,
‘‘Presumably, a current recipient who
can manage his/her own financial affairs
and is in fact receiving benefits directly
(e.g., direct deposit to bank account)
would not fall under the abovementioned
phrase, and would retain the
right to own, possess, etc., firearms. If
this is true, I would recommend making
that clearer in the [final] Rule.’’ Another
asked, ‘‘If disability benefits under Title
II or Title XVI of the Social Security Act
are NOT received through a
representative payee (i.e., a third party),
does the proposed rule to the NIAA still
apply?’’ Many commenters expressed
concern that an individual who assigns
a representative payee for a temporary
period or for convenience would be
unfairly reported for inclusion in the
NICS. A common scenario described by
commenters was that of retired
individuals who asked their children to
pay their bills during an extended
vacation. Another scenario described
was that of a mentally capable
individual with a physical disability
who, due to an inability to write checks
or drive, was assigned a representative
payee.


Response: We clearly state in section
421.110(b) of our rules that the
beneficiaries whose names we will
submit to the NICS must meet all five
well-defined criteria. We will not
include any beneficiary who does not
meet all of these criteria. We will not
report a person to the NICS simply
because the person has a representative
payee if he or she does not meet all of
the other criteria. Conversely, we will
not report information regarding an
individual who has a mental
impairment if we have not appointed a
representative payee for the individual,
because that individual would not meet
all of the criteria for NICS reporting in
our rules.
Beneficiaries cannot appoint a
representative payee, nor can we name
a representative payee without evidence
indicating that the individual is legally
incompetent or unable to manage or
direct management of his or her benefits
due to a physical or mental condition.31
We presume that a legally competent
adult beneficiary can manage or direct
the management of his benefits unless
there are indicators to the contrary.
Therefore, we do not appoint a
representative payee for beneficiaries
solely because they require assistance
with financial matters or as a matter of
convenience for the beneficiary.
Click to expand...
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Because, if it's this post:
Drew S. said:
Thank you so much! I think I might be wrong on part of it, but 90% of what I said is absolutely correct. What triggers this specific rule is more finances than mental health, but it seems that it might not apply to people without mental health issues. The VA rule encompasses everyone(or at least everything I have ever read about it says that.)
Click to expand...

Then you couldn't be more incorrect.

Not only does it not apply to people without mental health issues, it even cautions that not all of these people with mental health issues will be included on the list.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

I'm going to ask everyone a question...should someone with Alzheimer's be banned from owning guns because (A) they have Alzheimer's or (B) they have Alzheimer's and can't manage their finances?
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Drew S. said:
I'm going to ask everyone a question...should someone with Alzheimer's be banned from owning guns because (A) they have Alzheimer's or (B) they have Alzheimer's and can't manage their finances?
Click to expand...

Yes. They should not have a gun. In either circumstance.

ETA: In fact, I'll go a step further. In the case of B, I really don't want them to have a gun. If they are so incapacitated that they can't even manage their own finances, they are well beyond the time that their guns should have been taken away. Well beyond.

Case B is just an extreme example of case A.

ETA2: And if there is a database of A or B and a database of people who can't own guns, I want those databases linked. I don't want mentally ill people to have access to firearms.
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Drew S. said:
I'm going to ask everyone a question...should someone with Alzheimer's be banned from owning guns because (A) they have Alzheimer's or (B) they have Alzheimer's and can't manage their finances?
Click to expand...

with (A) you don't know how far it has progressed. with (B) you know it has progressed to the point where they are mentally incapable of managing their affairs. They could be a multi-millionaire and be unable to manage their finances. It has nothing to do with being poor.

I think you are confusing 'can't manage their finances' (as in does not spend money wisely or set a budget and live within it) with being mentally incapable of managing finances.
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Like I said before people don't just give away control to all their finances because they really want to do that. Not that that alone should imply mental incompetency or what have you but it's just not common a occurrence.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

BassAle said:
with (A) you don't know how far it has progressed. with (B) you know it has progressed to the point where they are mental incapable of managing their affairs. They could be a multi-millionaire and be unable to manage their finances. It has nothing to do with being poor.
Click to expand...

To your point, the page from GPO.gov linked on Snopes goes out of its way to say just that:
Conversely, we will not report information regarding an individual who has a mental impairment if we have not appointed a representative payee for the individual
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top