WH eyes Social Security to block millions from gun ownership

Post Reply New Topic

True, but I figure that if he was cogent enough to file a challenge, he's not really incompetent.

The mentally ill are more likely to be a victim of a violent crime than the perpetrator.If society won't protect you,then you have to depend on yourself,and yes,a gun is the great equalizer.Sorry to say so but its true.
http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/ ... f-violence
One can be fiscally irresponsible but not violent.

So you believe those who are completely out of touch with reality should be allowed to walk into a store and buy a gun and no gun law is ever needed in any circumstance, ever?

I do realize such folks often acquire guns by other methods but still...what if the guy who owns the place selling the gun even believes whoever shouldn't have a gun because they simply don't understand reality and might start shooting for no real reason yet there's not a thing they can do to prevent the purchase...unless they are able to go out on their own and deny business but then they could face a lawsuit.

I believe in some restrictions but they need to be for valid reasons. Take felons, for instance. They are not allowed guns in this state but some of them did their time and just want to live on the outside in peace. They have a job, a life, and aren't planning to commit a crime. Shouldn't they have their gun rights restored?

By constitutional law, any right enshrined in the US Constitution is subject to the strictest of scrutiny when challenged. That means the government's rationale for acting must be airtight and interpreted in such a way to infringe on the absolute minimum (or the most necessary) of cases. I don't think they have a snowball's chance in Hell of making this work unless the SCOTUS rubber-stamps it.

Yeah, heaven forbid what might happen if the terrorist found out how grandpa's 1930's vintage winchester model 12 shotgun operates. It could result in the end of civilization as we know it.

I seriously doubt anyone would take the time to raise a fuss over that kind of video. It's the military weaponry info they don't want broadcasted.

It's a solution to a non-problem, people on SSI aren't criminals or shooting places up. I can't think of a single situation where this changes anything, its just a gun grab. People shouldn't lose their rights without due process, just because someone can't manage their own finances doesn't mean they're a danger to others. It's a violation of their constitutional rights, a violation of their natural right to be able to defend themselves and as many SSI recipients live abject poverty in dangerous neighborhoods this might be very important. This might push some people to get off SSI rather than give up their guns. If they have a gun and no money what do you expect them to do? Don't force people to make that decision, this might also make some SSI recipients who can't manage their money on be hesitant to get a payee and could be taken advantage of as a result.

I was never adjudicated. you don't go to a court. a doctor and one doctor alone, in my case a medica doct not one who deals with mental health decides if you get a payee. i manage my income from my work and pay my bills. in my case i got ssi when I was in 9th grade so my mom was my payee, they extended it to 22 to be safe in fear that as a aspie minor turning to an adult I'd waste the money on candy and stuff. well with most things government they just never changed it and it always caused fights with my mom(she don't tell me how its spent, if I get it in my name like it should then she'll have to explain it. she sees it as her money) but now its not a choice to avoid I'm going to have to get it changed and deal with upsetting and possible ending my family relationship I was hoping to just get a full time job to where i would no longer get any ssi money and then she'd have to budge with me, but nope.

say guilty until proven innocent? take their rights and have them spend tons of money to prove they should have it rather then the gov having to determine and prove they shouldn't' have them. yeah that sounds logical. mean while the gov takes your property without giving you compensation and destroy it and if you can't afford a lawyer you're screwed.

so true. I'm non violent/aggressive. I am not physical strong. I am not able to defens myself physically, so I carry a gun and one day if legal a taser too.

but this isn't going to a court. it won't even go to anyone just a blanket ban on millions of people. if they/me can't have guns why let us drive? why let us have knifes, vote. if someone is dangerous with a gun they shoudlnt' drive either. but now they say well its different issues, managing ones funds doesn't mean one is a safe driver or not being able to doesn't mean they are a dangerous driver. same goes for gun. i willing to bet many are similar cases to me where families forced them into it. or older people who don't' know how to use tech so they get a payee who can. social security money is all electronic now. no more checks. could be all kinds of reasons for a payee. if they so bad then it should also be adjudicated. but these people aren't they aren't a danger. its just Obama throwing tantrum and doing whatever he can to hurt gun owners since congress would't pass his laws. as for people saying it won't happen , it already has for veterans. I'm deeply worried. so because my mom and a doctor when I was 14 decided I shouldn't control my money and haven't reviewed it since, I'm going to be put on a list with rapists, murders, gangsters and mentally insane. wtf





they have a legal right and responsibility to refuse to let anyone who appears to look dangerous or suicidal buy a gun. if later it turned out the person did something and the gun shop was concerned then they can get in trouble. part of the background check is the owner/ffl feeling the person out. narrastics are good at faking normal though.
imagine they'd only get sued if the person was gay or black and made a issue of it, imagine if later that person then used the guns in a shooting. would the left then be guilty for making the owner sell the gun?

certian felons should yes. it should be case by case. my friend had sex with his gf, he was 18 she was 17, its not even illegal in our state anymore theres a 2-3 year difference law now. it was consensual sex between a couple. he is a felon for this though and can not own guns. he gave all to his family. so he was a non violent felon for something that's not even a crime anymore. why shouldn't people like him get their guns back?

as some cops on youtube put it, if a person is safe enough to be released(deemed to have been punished and served) then why shouldn't' they get all their rights back. if they too dangerous to have guns then they shouldn't be released.
I agree. don't let murders out, legal to buy a gun or not they wont' care. some people should be in prison til they die. clearly by not allowing them guns they don't think they've changed their ways or been rehabilitated, so why let them out.

most personal injury lawyers will charge you nothing unless you win, where are you getting this 'tons of money' from?

sly279

I disagree with this ban. It's the Feds going after people they can get away with going after. I have never heard of this particular group in connection with guns until today. Adam Lanza didn't even buy his own guns.

HOWEVER, gun sellers need someone in their corner and there might be times a gun purchase should not be made for various reasons. Gun sellers do not have much power to deny someone a gun purchase and with them on the front lines, they are going to see an individual's behavior, not the federal government. These bans do not focus on individuals that should not be allowed access at certain times but could be alright later. It's about an individual's state of mind more than anything else. Such individuals would not be using the gun they purchase for protection.

Most people on SSI barely have enough money to live, if they have a payee then they're not even in control, they probably don't even have the money to spare to buy a gun and ammunition.

Alex jones probably made this up out of whole cloth anyway

This ban could be aimed at retirees who aren't in control of their own retirement funds for some reason. They would have enough money to buy guns.