-The Administration is attempting to repeal a rule put in place just before Obama left office, which put heavy restriction on gun ownership for citizens with mental disabilities. While there has been a severe uptick in shootings perpetrated by (white, male) citizens with mental instability/illness, statistics on causality tell a different tale. Scientific research shows that mental illness does NOT make you more likely to commit gun violence against others. They are, however, slightly more prone to committing suicide via gunshot; but with the higher risk of suicide in the mentally ill population, while the raw numbers are higher, the percentage is about the same.
According to the Washington Post: “Under the rule…Social Security beneficiaries with psychiatric disabilities who are assigned a money manager for their disability benefits would be reported to the FBI’s background check database as people ineligible to purchase firearms.”
Why Isn’t This Normal?
- An administration besides 45’s put forth a hasty rule as a band-aid against a much MUCH bigger problem in America.
- Restricting gun ownership for a particular group of people is unconstitutional, as all Americans have the right to bear arms (Cornell). The amendment itself is vague and has come under scrutiny many times in the last century, so the fact that it’s coming up again isn’t the irregular part.
- We lost 20 children to a Mass Shooting at an elementary school five years ago, and yet the Repubs continue to protect gun ownership. THIS SHOULD BE A BIPARTISAN ISSUE ON WHICH WE ALL AGREE–HUMAN LIVES CONTINUE TO BE SNUFFED OUT BY GUN VIOLENCE AT AN ALARMING RATE.
- The same party that frequently argues against abortion, on the grounds that every life is sacred, is also actively fighting to keep guns in the hands of U.S. citizens, when our mass shooting rates are among the highest in the world.
- Several prominent republicans refuse to admit that the school shooting referenced above ever actually happened. This, above all else, is not normal.
-Kerry Ant Cornrows encouraged citizens to support Irritation’s failing product lines, live on television.
Why Isn’t This Normal?
- Using a government position to affect buying trends is in direct violation of federal ethics rules. Cornrow’s comments on TV were a cut and dry case (she even used the words “free advertisement”) of endorsement, made more offensive by the fact that she was supporting 45’s daughter’s business, creating a direct conflict of interest for him (NPR).
- A week later, 45 continues to tweet about how unfairly Irritation is being treated by the press and her distributors. He or someone else with access to the official P.O.T.U.S. twitter account then retweeted his complaints.
- Spritzer refused to comment on the issue when asked about it directly by press.
- Cornrow was apparently ‘counseled’ on her actions, but she continues to act with full authority. She also stated that 45 supports her “100%”.
- SHE CONTINUES TO ACT WITH FULL AUTHORITY.