Hello, anybody home? If anyone is there, we have a message for you, do you know how to read?

Trump rescinded an Obama-era mental health regulation on firearms. This has been brought up before. Last November, former Air Force veteran David Patrick Kelley killed 26 people in a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. He should have been barred from owning firearms since he served a year in jail for domestic abuse, but the Air Force didn’t forward his criminal record to the FBI to update the National Instant Background Check Database. First, the regulation never went into effect. Second, various disability advocacy groups and the American Civil Liberties Union opposed it (via Stephen Gutowski)

The regulation in question was adopted in December 2016 and went into effect on January 18, 2017, after the election of President Trump but before his inauguration two days later. Compliance with the rule was scheduled to begin on December 19, 2017. Before compliance ever began, however, the rule was repealed by a law passed through the House of Representatives and Senate, then signed by President Trump in February 2017. The regulation never had any effect.

The regulation would have required the Social Security Administration to report recipients who have their benefits managed by a representative payee and who meet other criteria to the FBI's background check system, effectively barring them from legally owning firearms. It would have applied to recipients between the ages 18 and 65 who Social Security assigned a representative payee to after determining they were unable to manage their own finances due to a mental impairment. The Social Security Administration would then notify those affected over the phone and in writing. Those affected would have been able to challenge their designation but only after their records have been submitted to the FBI.

Groups from across the political spectrum fought against the regulation's implementation and urged its repeal. Gun-rights groups like the National Rifle Association said the rule was a "gun grab" and criticized it for lacking a determination that those affected are a threat to themselves or others.

The National Council on Disability, Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities, and National Coalition for Mental Health Recovery all submitted letters calling for the reversal of the rule during hearings conducted by the Ways and Means Committee.

"There is, simply put, no nexus between the inability to manage money and the ability to safely and responsibly own, possess or use a firearm," the National Council on Disability said, echoing what the other groups have said. "This arbitrary linkage not only unnecessarily and unreasonably deprives individuals with disabilities of a constitutional right, it increases the stigma for those who, due to their disabilities, may need a representative payee."

So, when you see stuff like “Trump signed a law making it easier for the mentally ill to buy guns,” it’s a lie.

Before Obama took office and for the eight years of his presidency we got a constant barrage by the NRA, Republican legislators, Conservative Media, and alt-Right conspiracy theorists that he was going to take away all guns (with "black helicopters" confiscating them in the middle of the night and taking the owners to "FEMA concentration camps"). He didn't do that. He did tighten gun control by executive order in January of 2015. Obviously, it was not enough.

The rate of murder or manslaughter in America by firearm is the highest by far in the developed world. We have had 18 school shootings in the first 45 days of 2018. Is it really right to do absolutely nothing to try and curtail this excessive violence? Or are more and more guns the answer? "Thoughts and prayers" are falling short and come always too late to save our children. And the nuclear argument that any control means the eventual end of Second Amendment rights to cease all discussions on the subject is wrong and irresponsible. The subject needs, demands, open and sincere dialogue for the sake of our nation's innocents and all citizens.

Debating the actual intent of the wording of the Second Amendment is useless; it no longer matters. You and I both know the Founding Fathers could not have possibly envisioned our present state and this is not 1776. What matters are American lives. We keep our guns, yet make sensible universal controls to try to insure greater safety for all. If there was a pandemic, and this rampant violence is a pandemic, Federal measures would be taken to protect the general public. Safeguards to help reduce this epidemic of murder and mayhem is simply just and wise. Help me see why we shouldn't act on better precautions. Or are we just to accept these tragic loses as "the cost of freedom," as O'Reilly said, willingly sacrificing our sons and daughter's for the "un-infringed" right to keep and bear arms?

Before Obama took office and for the eight years of his presidency we got a constant barrage by the NRA, Republican legislators, Conservative Media, and alt-Right conspiracy theorists that he was going to take away all guns (with "black helicopters" confiscating them in the middle of the night and taking the owners to "FEMA concentration camps"). He didn't do that. He did tighten gun control by executive order in January of 2015. Obviously, it was not enough.

The rate of murder or manslaughter in America by firearm is the highest by far in the developed world. We have had 18 school shootings in the first 45 days of 2018. Is it really right to do absolutely nothing to try and curtail this excessive violence? Or are more and more guns the answer? "Thoughts and prayers" are falling short and come always too late to save our children. And the nuclear argument that any control means the eventual end of Second Amendment rights to cease all discussions on the subject is wrong and irresponsible. The subject needs, demands, open and sincere dialogue for the sake of our nation's innocents and all citizens.

Debating the actual intent of the wording of the Second Amendment is useless; it no longer matters. You and I both know the Founding Fathers could not have possibly envisioned our present state and this is not 1776. What matters are American lives. We keep our guns, yet make sensible universal controls to try to insure greater safety for all. If there was a pandemic, and this rampant violence is a pandemic, Federal measures would be takenew to protect the general public. Safeguards to help reduce this epidemic of murder and mayhem is simply just and wise. Help me see why we shouldn't act on better precautions. Or are we just to accept these tragic loses as "the cost of freedom," as O'Reilly said, willingly sacrificing our sons and daughter's for the "un-infringed" right to keep and bear arms?

Before Obama took office and for the eight years of his presidency we got a constant barrage by the NRA, Republican legislators, Conservative Media, and alt-Right conspiracy theorists that he was going to take away all guns (with "black helicopters" confiscating them in the middle of the night and taking the owners to "FEMA concentration camps"). He didn't do that. He did tighten gun control by executive order in January of 2015. Obviously, it was not enough.

The rate of murder or manslaughter in America by firearm is the highest by far in the developed world. We have had 18 school shootings in the first 45 days of 2018. Is it really right to do absolutely nothing to try and curtail this excessive violence? Or are more and more guns the answer? "Thoughts and prayers" are falling short and come always too late to save our children. And the nuclear argument that any control means the eventual end of Second Amendment rights to cease all discussions on the subject is wrong and irresponsible. The subject needs, demands, open and sincere dialogue for the sake of our nation's innocents and all citizens.

Debating the actual intent of the wording of the Second Amendment is useless; it no longer matters. You and I both know the Founding Fathers could not have possibly envisioned our present state and this is not 1776. What matters are American lives. We keep our guns, yet make sensible universal controls to try to insure greater safety for all. If there was a pandemic, and this rampant violence is a pandemic, Federal measures would be taken to protect the general public. Safeguards to help reduce this epidemic of murder and mayhem is simply just and wise. Help me see why we shouldn't act on better precautions. Or are we just to accept these tragic loses as "the cost of freedom," as O'Reilly said, willingly sacrificing our sons and daughter's for the "un-infringed" right to keep and bear arms?

You posted some of your "sensible gun controls." The ones that are not outright illegal are impractical to implement and impossible to enforce. You are living in a dream world. Nothing you or any other Liberal has suggested so far has any chance of succeeding. Disarming honest people who would not commit crimes even if there were no laws does absolutely nothing to deter criminals. The laws we currently have are not enforced by the Federal Agency tasked with doing so, yet you cling to the notion that passing more laws that will not be enforced either will somehow magically solve every problem; (particularly if it involves the usual Liberal panacea of throwing large amounts of someone else's money at it.)
The usual Liberal solution involves stomping all over the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
You think that millions of gun owners will tamely submit to these egregious infringements of not only their Right to bear arms, but their rights to privacy, against unlawful search and seizure, incrimination, cruel and unusual punishment and the further usurpation of rights of the individual under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. You have no idea how to deal with the massive non-compliance sure to ensue. You would set sail in a leaky boat that is bound to sink without any lifeboats but it's okay; at least you're "doing something."

First, it is a societal problem. Those guns don't go off by themselves, somebody has to aim them and pull the trigger. Bullying and freezing oddball kids out of social interactions goes a long way towards reacting with force to years of aggregation and frustration. Identifying these kids and not allowing them to acquire or possess firearms would go a long way towards solving this problem, but most parents would say 'they're really a good kid, just misunderstood.' They would not admit that their kid had the capacity to do these kinds of things.

Second, this is a rural/urban divide mostly. Those of us that live outside city limits or way in the boonies like me, consider guns as tools. They are necessary for plinking ground squirrels, popping coyotes or wolves that are after a calf, or defending yourself when you run into the occasional hungry bear or cougar. We teach our kids from day one how to handle them and most rural kids take it to heart. And most know better than to shoot up the school, or settle disputes with firepower.

I believe two things here ... first that there is no place for handguns or assault weapons in urban areas, except inside the home for defense. I think that if you're caught on the street carrying a handgun or an assault rifle, it should send you straight to the hoosegow for a year or two. Second, that people with psycho-social traits (like anger management or impulse control problems) should be id'd and their weapons taken from them. The problem is to decide who makes the decision to legally prevent them from possessing weapons. Should it be a shrink? A judge? The local PD?

Problem is this ... there's over 300,000,000 guns in this country, and out here, there would be deputy sheriffs and US Marshals getting shot if they tried to confiscate some of the arsenals around here. So that's not a viable solution. The trick is to keep the firearms out of the hands of as many people as you can with anti-social behavior problems. That will require a culture shift for the general population. But it's the only way to get this under control. Good luck with that.

Before Obama took office and for the eight years of his presidency we got a constant barrage by the NRA, Republican legislators, Conservative Media, and alt-Right conspiracy theorists that he was going to take away all guns (with "black helicopters" confiscating them in the middle of the night and taking the owners to "FEMA concentration camps"). He didn't do that. He did tighten gun control by executive order in January of 2015. Obviously, it was not enough.

The rate of murder or manslaughter in America by firearm is the highest by far in the developed world. We have had 18 school shootings in the first 45 days of 2018. Is it really right to do absolutely nothing to try and curtail this excessive violence? Or are more and more guns the answer? "Thoughts and prayers" are falling short and come always too late to save our children. And the nuclear argument that any control means the eventual end of Second Amendment rights to cease all discussions on the subject is wrong and irresponsible. The subject needs, demands, open and sincere dialogue for the sake of our nation's innocents and all citizens.

Debating the actual intent of the wording of the Second Amendment is useless; it no longer matters. You and I both know the Founding Fathers could not have possibly envisioned our present state and this is not 1776. What matters are American lives. We keep our guns, yet make sensible universal controls to try to insure greater safety for all. If there was a pandemic, and this rampant violence is a pandemic, Federal measures would be taken to protect the general public. Safeguards to help reduce this epidemic of murder and mayhem is simply just and wise. Help me see why we shouldn't act on better precautions. Or are we just to accept these tragic loses as "the cost of freedom," as O'Reilly said, willingly sacrificing our sons and daughter's for the "un-infringed" right to keep and bear arms?

Before Obama took office and for the eight years of his presidency we got a constant barrage by the NRA, Republican legislators, Conservative Media, and alt-Right conspiracy theorists that he was going to take away all guns (with "black helicopters" confiscating them in the middle of the night and taking the owners to "FEMA concentration camps"). He didn't do that. He did tighten gun control by executive order in January of 2015. Obviously, it was not enough.

The rate of murder or manslaughter in America by firearm is the highest by far in the developed world. We have had 18 school shootings in the first 45 days of 2018. Is it really right to do absolutely nothing to try and curtail this excessive violence? Or are more and more guns the answer? "Thoughts and prayers" are falling short and come always too late to save our children. And the nuclear argument that any control means the eventual end of Second Amendment rights to cease all discussions on the subject is wrong and irresponsible. The subject needs, demands, open and sincere dialogue for the sake of our nation's innocents and all citizens.

Debating the actual intent of the wording of the Second Amendment is useless; it no longer matters. You and I both know the Founding Fathers could not have possibly envisioned our present state and this is not 1776. What matters are American lives. We keep our guns, yet make sensible universal controls to try to insure greater safety for all. If there was a pandemic, and this rampant violence is a pandemic, Federal measures would be taken to protect the general public. Safeguards to help reduce this epidemic of murder and mayhem is simply just and wise. Help me see why we shouldn't act on better precautions. Or are we just to accept these tragic loses as "the cost of freedom," as O'Reilly said, willingly sacrificing our sons and daughter's for the "un-infringed" right to keep and bear arms?