Obama bans social security recipents from owning guns??

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Unfortunately, Kut(knows the way government really works) the guns would be confiscated immediately, and then likely it would be up to the citizen to prove his 'worthiness', at great personal expense in time and treasure, measured against shifting and oily gov't standards (variable by state probly)

Yes, this. Even if you win, you lose. Winning can be expensive and time consuming and those that use such laws irresponsibly or maybe even vindictively, know it.

 

[AA&E]

Couldn't the same argument be made for those on welfare not being proven as accountable and capable enough to own firearms? Not that I am suggesting this, and not that I suspect Obama would ever distance himself from his voting demographics... but it would seem the two lines of reasoning would go hand in hand.

 

[historian]

Well, if one ceases to accept payment from the government, then this becomes a moot point.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Is that listed in the criteria, or is it a pre-supposition scare tactic?
Those possibly affected, are those who cannot handle their affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease." Now, that gives a wide latitude, but generally speaking, the policy is sound. However, given the gravity of the penalty, could only support it, if an exhaustive battery of tests were conducted to prove a person incapable of responsibly having firearm. I think the bar should be very high.

You are making the standard error in trusting the fox to guard the henhouse on his own honor. First, the criterion is severely flawed. Finer details like managing money is often the one of the first skills lost in the process and can happen several years before you have to start worrying about things like leaving the stove on or the water running (which is where I am now with grandma) which comes before the need to worry about dangerous employment of weapons. Using the assignment of payment to a third party (generally a family member managing the old person's finances) to 'establish' that a person is unfit to own a gun, at least in terms of logic, is like arguing that we need to haul you to the undertaker today because you are going to die one of these days.

Like many things the Feds come up with, on the surface it doesn't sound bad, as BBI said the devil in in the details. BUT do you really want the Feds in charge of anything else?? Have they proven to you that they are competent to make that call. I would also add what's next.. Maybe drug testing, IMHO that should be prior to disarming someone that has worked all their life for the pittance they're getting from SS. For a great percentage Social Security has been EARNED. They worked all their lives and it's all they have in their old age so having some "official" of the government make a determination on what they choose to spend their money on it just wrong.

Agreed all the way around. It doesn't sound bad on the surface because it was deliberately engineered not to sound bad until you pay the close attention that most people seem unwilling to pay to much of anything not involving sex, food, or amusements.

How about a program to track naturalized Kuwaiti citizens first? Or clear out sanctuary cities? Priorities.

You're talking logic. Stop that!

What's scary is that this administration has shown itself to use the resources of the government to attack its political enemies. They use the offices of the Executive branch as a tool to push its agenda down the throats with no concern for the rights of citizens. That is a very scary proposition when these blanket policies are enacted.

Absolutely. My guess is that if this happens, it will be implemented in the same way that Obama's man operated the Chrysler bankruptcy in which dealerships were either expanded or cut from the rolls with no compensation based entirely on which presidential campaign they supported with no regard whatsoever for their profitability, market share, or jobs being destroyed. Similarly, my guess is that Rs will be hit much harder, but then again it is also true that there are far fewer anti-gun Rs. In any event, it will, just as you suggest, lead to a situation in which we would find ourselves begging for the faint to nonexistent hope that our rights would be voluntarily respected in spite ofthe fact that any rational thinker can see that they won't.

Unfortunately, Kut(knows the way government really works) the guns would be confiscated immediately, and then likely it would be up to the citizen to prove his 'worthiness', at great personal expense in time and treasure, measured against shifting and oily gov't standards (variable by state probly)

Exactly. This is the nature of converting official policy from a 'law' to a 'regulation'. Our founders would never have stood for such word games being used to eliminate the constitutional standard of due process and it is an embarrassment to our position as free citizens that we allow it. This is very similar in nature to the ObamaCare 'penalty' that isn't a tax until it is a tax long enough to pass a legal obstacle, and then it isn't a tax any more. Since most people don't deal directly with 'regulations', they don't understand that these are basically the product of congress writing bureaucrats blank checks with the 'regulations' being the filled out blank check which, for some strange reason, can be enforced on us with no legislative review, no due process, and no particular requirement to meet any constitutional standard--often leaving the accused guilty until proven innocent, but this too is 'acceptable' because it isn't a law and therefore isn't subject to the same standard. I believe our founders would tell us that anything mandated by the government is in fact a law no matter what word games one chooses to play, but what do they matter? After all, they are just a bunch of dead white guys, some of whom *gasp* owned slaves.

Couldn't the same argument be made for those on welfare not being proven as accountable and capable enough to own firearms? Not that I am suggesting this, and not that I suspect Obama would ever distance himself from his voting demographics... but it would seem the two lines of reasoning would go hand in hand.

Excellent point. I will not even seriously question the use of funds to acquire the gun given that I believe that no one should be consigned to living at the mercy of criminals. I would be irritated to find someone living on welfare packing a Colt Python, but I would not disparage a person's right to be armed even on account of these circumstances. One may recall that the now-forgotten 'saturday night special' legislation that the gun grabbers pushed for years was aimed at preventing poor folks from defending themselves--a most nefarious endeavor on its best day.

Well, if one ceases to accept payment from the government, then this becomes a moot point.

One problem with this. My grandparents would have been millionaires had they been able to invest the money taken from them at implied gunpoint for Social Security with success equal to the money they did invest. I will also account for the fact that their generation was asleep at the switch when Social Security was raided as a slush fund for the government rather than invested as it was supposed to have been, but that does not change the fact that a great many people were hijacked into participating involuntarily and in my reckoning need feel no shame for expecting a return on that 'investment' even if, in many cases, it is less than they actually paid in and not the repayment plus an increase promised by Frank the Weasel in the 1930s.

 

[gstanley102]

I know after Sandy Hook, the call went up by many that we need to do something about those with mental health issues being able to obtain and own guns. That call seems to be repeated often, especially when some deranged person commits some heinous crime. But I am nervous about what state and federal governments will do to address this mental health/gun ownership "problem". Many would agree mad men (and women) probably shouldn't own guns. Seriously, mentally retarded (not the pejorative but the old-timey definition) people probably shouldn't be left un-attended with firearms either. But all these tests the states and the feds might come up with that would authorize them to take action against those they deem "unfit" can easily become a undue burden on law abiding, "competant", citizens.

One huge problem with this is that the criteria seems to be based on an opinion of the person in question.
One problem with opinions are that they like certain parts of human anatomy.
Everyone has one.
Another problem is that opinions can be bought and used to advance an agenda, such as GLOBAL WARMING.

 

[AA&E]

Well, if one ceases to accept payment from the government, then this becomes a moot point.

But this is social security, not welfare. This is our money, not theirs.

 

[historian]

But this is social security, not welfare. This is our money, not theirs.

It is a tax. By definition, a tax isn't your money...

 

[Kutnupe14]

Couldn't the same argument be made for those on welfare not being proven as accountable and capable enough to own firearms? Not that I am suggesting this, and not that I suspect Obama would ever distance himself from his voting demographics... but it would seem the two lines of reasoning would go hand in hand.

Did welfare recipient overwhelming vote for Obama? I honestly doubt that.

 

[jamil]

Did welfare recipient overwhelming vote for Obama? I honestly doubt that.

Why?

But let's qualify it first, if welfare recipients overwhelmingly did anything regarding the election it was probably to stay home. But of the welfare recipients who did vote, why would you doubt that they would mostly support Obama?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

One huge problem with this is that the criteria seems to be based on an opinion of the person in question.
One problem with opinions are that they like certain parts of human anatomy.
Everyone has one.
Another problem is that opinions can be bought and used to advance an agenda, such as GLOBAL WARMING.

Precisely.

 

[stocks52]

Molon Labe

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Did welfare recipient overwhelming vote for Obama? I honestly doubt that.

Why?

But let's qualify it first, if welfare recipients overwhelmingly did anything regarding the election it was probably to stay home. But of the welfare recipients who did vote, why would you doubt that they would mostly support Obama?

Probably depends on what you're calling a welfare recipient. If you mean a single mom, drawing a WIC check or somebody gaming the SS system that is one thing. But if you're including in that the farmer getting incentives and subsidies or a business owner (or a college student) getting a guaranteed loan -- which many like to call welfare too -- then he has a point.

 

[david890]

And I would extend the 'older driver' analogy even further. Just as knowing when it's time for the older driver to give up the keys, can we not rely on family to help make the surrender decision for firearms too? Government has NO business getting involved in these matters.

The gov should get involved when the person in question, despite clear evidence of incapacity, refuses to give up the keys or the gun to anyone, family included.

I had a step-grandfather who was losing his eyesight due to diabetes, but he wouldn't stop driving. During a trip to a family reunion, he drove just 35MPH (I'm guessing that's as fast as he could go and still make out some of the blurs) yet still ran through several stop signs. He was a clear danger to himself and others, yet no one was willing to be the bad guy and take away the keys. The issue became moot after he died following the amputation of a leg above the knee not long after the family reunion. He was just lucky he didn't kill some kid or other innocent person.

 

[david890]

But of the welfare recipients who did vote, why would you doubt that they would mostly support Obama?

Perhaps you should take a look at Owlsey County, KY. 99.22% white, 95% Republican, and more SNAP recipients than any other place in America.

 

[BugI02]

The gov should get involved when the person in question, despite clear evidence of incapacity, refuses to give up the keys or the gun to anyone, family included.

I had a step-grandfather who was losing his eyesight due to diabetes, but he wouldn't stop driving. During a trip to a family reunion, he drove just 35MPH (I'm guessing that's as fast as he could go and still make out some of the blurs) yet still ran through several stop signs. He was a clear danger to himself and others, yet no one was willing to be the bad guy and take away the keys. The issue became moot after he died following the amputation of a leg above the knee not long after the family reunion. He was just lucky he didn't kill some kid or other innocent person.

I'm sorry for your loss, David. Hopefully it was a blessing that he made it to the reunion and he saw everybody/ everybody saw him one last time. We had to go the other route with my mother-in-law. She was on complicated medications which she couldn't keep straight and she was neglecting herself in other ways, such as eating nutritious food and drinking enough water. When we finally acted she had run off the road driving at night (she lived in rural Ohio) and sideswiped the whole right side of her car against a guardrail. If there had not been a guardrail in that particular place I'm certain she would have been killed. We took her keys and sold her car. We moved her to some very nice assisted living in the county seat where the accomodations are like free-standing two bedroom ranch houses and where she has public transport available. She's in much better shape now, although suffering from Alzheimer's but we still get the "I don't know why you kids put me here?' guilt trip at every opportunity. It wasn't pleasant but we put up a united front and insisted on changes. No government involvement was required. It can be done

 

[jamil]

Did welfare recipient overwhelming vote for Obama? I honestly doubt that.

Why?

But let's qualify it first, if welfare recipients overwhelmingly did anything regarding the election it was probably to stay home. But of the welfare recipients who did vote, why would you doubt that they would mostly support Obama?

Perhaps you should take a look at Owlsey County, KY. 99.22% white, 95% Republican, and more SNAP recipients than any other place in America.

I must say I'm disappointed. I didn't think you'd post smoke and mirrors from leftist websites. I dunno. Maybe you misunderstood the question. The question was not "which political party does the county with the highest *percentage* of SNAP recipients, overwhelmingly support"? It was, "did welfare recipients overwhelmingly vote for Obama"?

Does it say anything important if you find a community of 2 people in a population of 3 which are Republicans and are on SNAP? What about 5000? That is the population of Owlsey County. How many Owlsey's do you have to find to add up to the 46,000,000 people on SNAP. You're just not going to get those kind of numbers from the rural areas.

So can we try that again? And this time let's not try to assert that the 5000 residents of Owlsey County have more SNAP recipients than any other place in America. Saying that is misleading at best, probably intellectually dishonest, and at worst, deceptive.

I think it's very safe to say that Marion County, IN has more than 5000 SNAP recipients. And it's probably also safe to say more than half of them are democrats.

 

[LP1]

I must say I'm disappointed. I didn't think you'd post smoke and mirrors from leftist websites. I dunno. Maybe you misunderstood the question. The question was not "which political party does the county with the highest *percentage* of SNAP recipients, overwhelmingly support"? It was, "did welfare recipients overwhelmingly vote for Obama"?

Does it say anything important if you find a community of 2 people in a population of 3 which are Republicans and are on SNAP? What about 5000? That is the population of Owlsey County. How many Owlsey's do you have to find to add up to the 46,000,000 people on SNAP. You're just not going to get those kind of numbers from the rural areas.

So can we try that again? And this time let's not try to assert that the 5000 residents of Owlsey County have more SNAP recipients than any other place in America. Saying that is misleading at best, probably intellectually dishonest, and at worst, deceptive.

I think it's very safe to say that Marion County, IN has more than 5000 SNAP recipients. And it's probably also safe to say more than half of them are democrats.

5000 SNAP recipients in Marion county would be a small percentage of the population. Just keep re-framing the question until you get the answer that fits your bias.

 

[jamil]

5000 SNAP recipients in Marion county would be a small percentage of the population. Just keep re-framing the question until you get the answer that fits your bias.

I'm not sure if you're serious or maybe you skimmed a bit too much.

 

[g+16]

so I guess the next logical step is for the V.A. to release the list of everyone being treated for P.T.S.D. so they can no longer own firearms

 

[Grease]

so I guess the next logical step is for the V.A. to release the list of everyone being treated for P.T.S.D. so they can no longer own firearms

Step by step, nudge after nudge until you get where you want. We don't move mountains all at once, we move them by the dump truck load, a little at a time.