Can you really deny someone a socal security
- Thread starter EERs 3:16
- Start date
OK, I found what you were talking about. Seems pretty common sense to me, but I assume it will be seen as end of days.
"Seeking tighter controls over firearm purchases, the Obama administration is pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, a move that could affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others.
The push is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws regulating who gets reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, which is used to prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the country illegally and others."
You have problems beyond this message board starting with reading comprehension. The article is about denying weapons not social security benefits.
Let's say you have a gun, you're on Social Security, but, because you're old, you don't meet Obama's standards for gun ownership. So, not only could you stand to have your C Rights Violated, but, it'll also make it harder for old people to off themselves. But you could tell the Obama admin, to screw off, but, if you do that then you're going to loose your social security benefit - and that's a benefit we've all paid into.... Does he have the right to deny people their money?
The language of federal gun laws restricts ownership to people who are unable to manage their own affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease” – which could potentially affect a large group within Social Security, the LA Times reported.
So if you're old you can't own a gun.........
No, if you're old and incompetent you're not supposed to own a gun. So yes, it could affect a large group within Social Security, especially as dementia and Alzheimer's is on the rise nationwide. And seriously, you're pissing and moaning about the possibility that someone who can't manage their day-to-day affairs being unable to buy a gun??
I think it makes some sense on the surface. I would like to see it cross-referenced with the number of people over 70 who commit gun violence. I would also like to see that cross referenced against the number of home invasions against people over 70, the number of gun related defenses of people over 70. Do they also lose the right to vote if they are impaired? This would also potentially put guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them as the owners have the discretion to do with them as they will with regard to disposal. I.E they can begin selling them online, they can sale them at a gun show, or they could give them as gifts to family members. At which point there is no requirement to have the fire-arm re-registered in the new owners name. Creating more problems than what they are trying to solve.
Could still be a potential slippery slope. What's "incompetent"? What happens to those existing firearms? Some on the left would say you shouldn't be allowed to leave them to your heirs, if someone is old and deemed incompetent then would they be allowed to pass those firearms to family?
Hence another reason why people should establish an NFA Gun Trust.
Basically same thing I said in the post above yours. I'm not sure how you could regulate who you are allowed to leave your firearm to.
Kill them @ 75 and be done with it.
I should have known better than to think this was a common sense step.
Hey wait. Maybe this IS all about the death squads? Who are the crazy whackos now @RichardPeterJohnson??
Can we ban people who "lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs" from voting?
This the loop they need to close IMO. Not necessarily related to SS recipients, but anybody. What is the point of having the background checks if you can legally get a gun anyplace without one?
I could look in the bulletin board or craigs list or whatever and have a gun in 1/2 hour with no background check at all.
That reminds me of a good episode of Star Trek: TNG where they were at a planet where it was custom for the inhabitants to kill themselves at a certain age, I think 60. The same guy that played Charles Winchester play a key role in the episode. Those were good shows. Any on like that now, I wonder? I don't see as much now. But ST: TNG was really good.
I've bought quite a bit of stuff off of GunsAmerica. How do you close it and have it make sense? You really think a father shouldn't be able to leave his son a firearm? Or were you talking the internet/gun show purchasing? Should I be able to sale a gun to a friend of mine? What about buy my groomsmen firearms for a groomsmen gift?
In theory, a lot of stuff makes sense on face value but when you start thinking about it logically, you run the risk of unwittingly violating someone's 2nd amendment rights.
Just because I enjoy reading your opinions, what are your thoughts being charged a fee to exercise your 2nd amendment right for a CCW which should already be covered by State and County Taxes?
How about the fact that most gun crimes don't involved guns purchased in such a manner.
Meanehile, back at the Chicago "killing fields", it's have all the guns you want. No problem, Obama will do NOTHING. Yes. lets get those murdering "old folks".
July To Date
Shot & Killed: 36
Shot & Wounded: 172
Total Shot: 208
Total Homicides: 38
Last Week’s Totals (7/12 -7/18)
Shot & Killed: 12
Shot & Wounded: 50
Total Shot: 62
Total Homicides: 12
Shot & Killed: 225
Shot & Wounded: 1262
Total Shot: 1487
Total Homicides: 259
July To Date
Shot & Killed: 36
Shot & Wounded: 172
Total Shot: 208
Total Homicides: 38
Last Week’s Totals (7/12 -7/18)
Shot & Killed: 12
Shot & Wounded: 50
Total Shot: 62
Total Homicides: 12
Shot & Killed: 225
Shot & Wounded: 1262
Total Shot: 1487
Total Homicides: 259
When you post these, can you also add Baltimore? I have an obvious interest in that one. I'm surprised there hasn't been a civil suit in Chicago by the victims families for denying them the right to protect themselves AND violating their 2nd amendment rights.
The first point in bold ... I really have no idea. I was mostly talking about internet and gun show purchasing (and of course the local sell by owner rags). It's a difficult problem for all of the reasons you mentioned. So, here's the thing, should YOU be able to sell a gun to a friend and buy groomsmen gifts? You, I'd have no issues with. However, it opens it up for others. So a James Holmes type is identified and then just has a friend of his go buy the guns for him.
As far as inheritance is concerned, I don't have an issue with that and don't see why that should be an issue.
On your last point ... is CCW really a second amendment right? Does the right to keep and bear arms mean that any Tom Dick and Harry can get a CCW? I'm not being facetious, that's just not how I understand the 2nd amendment, but I could be wrong. As far as the fee is concerned, I don't agree with that, but I do think there should be some training and a bit of screening.
To be perfectly honest, I'm a little all over the place on this issue. Clearly there are some people that just shouldn't have guns, so is that in itself a 2nd amendment violation? It doesn't say "you have the right, as long as you meet certain criteria", does it? But you have the mass shootings and the guy shooting the guy in the theater for throwing popcorn at him and the other guy whose gun went off in a church and all of that. I'm not saying it's a mass epidemic, but some people are just way too hot headed and irrational and poorly trained.
I hate to seem all wishy washy but I see all sides on this issue and there isn't enough of an absolute anyplace that I can see to take a firm stance.
I grew up with guns. It was something I didn't ever even really think about. Started shooting a 4-10 and a .22 when I was a wee lad. I lost interest in hunting early in college and haven't had any guns as an adult. I've also lived in low crime areas so I've never felt the need to have one for protection.
You wanted an opinion but I'm not sure I have one. I do have a lot of thoughts.
Yes, but only with a court order: there has to be a determination in court that a person is incompetent and no longer understands the objective of the elective process. I imagine the standard would be the same for denying such people a gun purchase.
This link may help. I just pull the data from the web.
http://data.baltimoresun.com/bing-m...e=all&age=all&gender=all&race=all&article=all
I'm 100% with you. I'm all over the board as well. I don't want to come off as some nutcase NRA loon doomsday prepper. I've just yet to see anything that makes sense and won't violate someone's 2nd amendment. I fully understand the arguments on both sides and both sides make cogent points. The fact that you are all over the board on this one is good. You wouldn't be rationale if you weren't.
I feel like everyone should own a gun, but on the flip side, I don't think everyone is responsible enough to own a gun. I wish the same thought was given to voting and even the press. It sadly isn't.
Why? The purpose is not to find out who owns a gun and may have become incompetent, but to keep those who have been declared incompetent from buying a gun by adding documentation of that to the pre-purchase background check database. Do you really not get that, or are you being deliberately obtuse?
Absolutely. I just lectured a friend this past weekend about her plans to carry conceal in the future. She most definitely has that right, but she needs to take it upon herself to know the firearm and know how to use it and when to use it.
I watch these street interviews, that shows like The Tonight Show do, where average American's are not even able to answer basic questions like "Who is the Vice President" and just cringe, thinking that these people go out and vote and don't have a clue as to what they are voting on or who they are voting for.
I think, if anything, where I ultimate fall on this issue is that there is risk in everything and you'll never get rid of it. The right to keep and bear arms comes with a risk, but attached with that risk is the fact that we have so many freedoms here. Even as I type that though, I have a bunch of "well what about this" types of thoughts. LOL
What if you've been declared to be in a wvubud state of kind and already own a gun? How would the govt know to withhold your benefit if they don't know you're a current gun owner?