Check out that headline. If that’s not an excellent example of “alternative facts” — the BS artist formerly known as “spin” — I don’t know what is. MSNBC is decrying the Republican-controlled federal legislature’s decision to strike down the Obama administration’s regulation barring any Social Security recipient who’s surrendered their finances to a third party due to “mental impairment” from purchasing a new firearm. So a more accurate headline would be . . .

Senate Republican Vote to Restore Social Security Recipients’ Gun Rights. After all, just because an elderly citizen can’t manage their finances doesn’t mean they can’t defend their life — and the lives of their loved ones — by force of arms. Besides, what would the Obama “if you can’t balance you). r checkbook you can’t buy a gun” dictat do, really?

Preventing some 75k seniors with “severe mental illness” (MSNBC’s term) from buying a new gun via the FBI’s background check system would do nothing about their access to their existing guns. Nor should it. The right to keep and bear arms should only be restricted or removed om a case-by-case basis after due process, not by bureaucratic fiat.

For some strange reason, MSNBC doesn’t see it that way. Nor does The Chicago Tribune (Senate votes to block rule meant to prevent people with mental disorders from purchasing guns) or Vice (Mentally ill, and armed) or The San Francisco Chronicle (Congress blocks rule barring mentally impaired from guns). Not to mention The Washington Post (Republicans in Congress just made it easier for mentally ill people to get guns). 

The Chronicle’s article comes complete with a picture of the Sandy Hook massacre — as if addled seniors collecting Social Security are about to mow down school children after they go and purchase a new “assault rifle.” Dan Gross of the Brady Campaign to prevent Gun Violence used the same heated rhetoric to attack the bill.

This heartless resolution puts the most vulnerable Americans at risk. Make no mistake, this vote was really about deepening the gun industry’s customer pool, at the expense of those in danger of hurting themselves or others.

Any time the civilian disarmament complex and their mainstream media camp followers decry a piece of firearms-related legislation is a good day for The People of the Gun. No matter how old you are.

39 Responses to MSNBC: “Senate Republicans Vote to Expand Gun Access for Mentally Impaired”

  1. Oh, gee, a completely different topic than I thought. I figured the GOP was trying to increase access for Democrats!

  2. *smh

    The 2nd amendment is supposed to be for everyone not convicted of a crime (and arguably them as well)

    …thats why we call the 2nd amendment, and amendment

    *pats the little snowflakes on the head and sends him back out onto the schoolyard.

  3. “Deepening the customer pool.” What a hoot! You bet, those 75K senior or disable Americans, are going to demand that the custodian of their Social Security payments fork over the cash so they can wheel down to the local FFL and stock up on machine guns. Granny can finally get that ghost gun she always wanted with the .30 second clipazine and the shoulder thing that goes up.

  4. The local news brought up a valid point (though they only stated it once) this evening: the Obamacrat law, as written, would even deny people being treated for such “mental disabilities” as eating disorders from buying guns. Seriously, folks? So, someone with anorexia or bulemia is going to go apes**t and start shooting up fast food joints like the guy in “Falling Down”? This is one piece of commie legislation that HAD to go.

  5. Yup. More fake news from the left. It’s a wonder that Trump even invites these clowns to White House briefings anymore. Quite frankly, these treasonous EXPLETIVE DELETED have about as much business in the D.C. press pool as the Daily Stormer.

  6. Did anyone really expect any different?

    On a side note, the Chicago Tribune’s nickname of “The Trib” amuses me greatly. If you don’t understand why, go pull up some lesbian porn.

  7. Sad to say it , but, it really is time to split the Nation up into Big Blue Nannycities and Suburban/Rural Self-reliant States. Vote on it county-by-county and get it over with. The sooner, the better.

    Alternately, build Israeli-style concrete walls around all the Big Blue Cities and don’t let any of the inmates out into the Free World.

    • Only problem with splitting up the country along those lines is that since their policies are economically unsustainable, they would end up trying to forcibly annex the areas prospering under policies of economic freedom.

      In other words, “when socialism fails, its someone else fault for not being socialist too.”

      They don’t understand that wealth is created, not merely controlled.

      When their progressive utopia fails, they wage war on their evil, greedy neighbors who somehow “stole” all the wealth.

    • Too bad schools can’t take kids on field trips to places like Venezuela and North Korea to see how full of sh*t their commy teachers are.

  8. MSNBC is still a thing? Fake snooze…I saw pizzing and moaning after DJT only called on “conservative” news outlets ie Christian Broadcasting Network 1st? One wonders how much pull TTAG has. The left is having a collective beart attack?

  9. Ms. Pelosi, do you do your own taxes? No? You are not mentally able to manage your own finances? No guns for you, then, and perhaps your senile self should resign.

    • OOoo! Good point! A person can only do a tiny bit of damage with a heavy machine gun, compared to the vote of a Congressman or Senator. Lets forbid people who employ tax professionals from serving in Congress, or even being employed by fed government.

      • A liberal with a cause is more dangerous than a lunatic with a gun. The lunatic can only kill or injure just so many people before he either gets taken down or kills himself. Liberals and their “causes” are destroying our entire country and our society.

    • Let me guess, you were not born in FL, right? Parents were college professors?
      Parents told you that you have to move out of their basement?

  10. While reading through this article, I got into an argument with my FUDDer, in which he stated just like Rachel Madcow, “you shouldn’t have access to a gun if you are mentally impaired”. To whit I replied, “thankfully we are approaching a golden age of Republican’s soon denying access to 2nd Amendment rights for Democrats, as their hypocrisy in infringing 2A rights is perpetual”. No further comment from the peanut gallery.

  11. “This heartless resolution puts the most vulnerable Americans at risk.”

    If this comment is meant to refer to the children in government mandated “Gun Free Zones” then the reason they are at risk is that the adults who should be protecting them refuse to avail themselves of the tools and training necessary to do that job.

  12. That’s what is so insidious about these such attempts. They scream from the rooftops that Republicans want to give guns to the “severely mentally ill.” Who wouldn’t be against that? After all, every reader defines severely mentally ill for himself. He knows what he means by that term, so it’s easy to agree with the Democrats.

    The problem, among many problems, is that there is in the original regulation no firm and fixed definition, either. With only subjective and shifting standards, and no judicial review prior to acting, Social Security administrators, aka SS agents, can snatch guns from any recipient with the click of a mouse.

    That’s what idiot lemmings out there fail to realize. It’s the same with so-called universal background checks. You want to keep guns away from “bad guys”, don’t you? Well. The government gets to decide who qualifies as a bad guy. They’re free to move that goalpost whenever and wherever they want, eventually arbitrarily denying you or someone else their rights.

    • With no standard beyond “mentally ill”, no due process, and no specified agency to make such determinations, all that is needed is a single psychiatrist who states that anyone who wishes to own a gun is mentally ill, and the entire country just became legally a “gun free zone”, arrests and confiscations may begin immediately.

    • There really are only two kinds of mentally ill people worth being concerned about – 1. Those so disturbed that they cannot function in reality without help and supervision (or heavy doses of pyschotropic drugs) and 2. those that are a danger to society.

      Those who cannot function need to be looked after to the best of our ability. Those who pose a significant and imminent danger to others subject themselves to the application of an immediate projectile induced lobotomy.

      In either case there is no Constitutional grounds for denying their right to keep and bear arms under the protection of the Second Amendment unless and until they present with obvious symptoms of their problem in public. Any and all prior restraint by government intervention only denies the primary purpose of the Second Amendment which is to deny the government the authority and ability to infringe on the natural right of self defense.

  13. I can’t find a way to check this but, is “mental impairment” the only reason a Social Security recipient can use to surrender their finances to third party management? Wouldn’t surprise me at all if that was the only way the bastards let you get help with your finances…

    • I think you’re an optimist. I suspect a recipient can request assistance with no given reason whatsoever, only discovering after the fact that the request has landed him in the “mental impaired” mass killer category, identified for possible execution if he objects.

  14. You guys ignore the facts as fast as MSM.

    Don’t want to do your own domestic accounting? Fine, leave the checkbook where your spouse, kids, butler, or old family friend can get at it. Sign a power of attorney and have a trained professional do it. AND have all the guns you want.

    The folks addressed by these proposed rules are those with Representative Payees. SSA does not assign these casually. If you have one it’s because you have been deemed not to be able to make decisions responsibly and in your own best interests. That is carefully determined.

    Why is it carefully determined? Because it’s a lot of work for the SSA employees. They have to do regular reviews to insure the claimant is not being cheated, or otherwise fiscally abused. (Or is even still alive.) They are VERY conscious of the headline running, “Senior handcuffed to radiator while check is spent on meth.”

    So, if you need a Representative Payee, you’re not going to buy a gun honestly answering question 11f of the background check. And if you can’t buy a gun, it’s a fair question if you should have one.

    We’re talking delusional, on the high side, to bat-s**t crazy, on the low. If that describes someone your neighbor has in their care, how relaxed are you when the kids are just being kids in your yard? Would knowing they had a gun relax you any? Would those guys shouting and boxing the air in the subway station make any more sense armed?

    • Question 11f asks (my emphasis) :

      Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

      As those crazy gun nuts at the ACLU pointed out, the appointment of a representative payee is not an adjudication, and representative payees are often appointed for people who are not mentally incompetent. It’s a bureaucratic determination that can happen for any number of reasons.

      A possibly legitimate way to get this data in would be to have a review board to which cases could be referred that would, with full due process and right of appeal, determine whether a person assigned a representative payee should be added to NICS because of mental deficiency or incompetence. That would be an adjudication, and would satisfy Question 11f much more clearly.

    • I heard somewhere that about 40% of all Americans either has or has had some form of mental illness. It would suit the libtards’ totalitarian purposes well to declare everyone who is or has been “mentally ill”, no matter how mild or non-threatening the problem may be, to be a potential drooling, trigger-happy lunatic and therefore ineligible to own firearms.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *