Obama to remove rights of people on social security making

Post Reply New Topic

Them same as violent felons. Including aspies and other asd people.

Why can he and the left just leave us alone.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... d-make-our

Because he's an idiot.

If the democrats could wean themselves off of gun control and stay off of it they'd get a lot more voters on thier side.

Indeed

I didn't watch, but in the comments of others I noted two nasty things:

The first is the scheme he obviously cooked up with the insurance companies: As I understand it if you loose your job when the company you work for moves overseas (thanks to Obama) to save money and now you find yourself washing dishes to pay the bills, the new insurance will pay the difference between your old wage and your new one. So not only are foreign companies and workers happy (?) but the government's friend, the insurance companies, get to make an additional gigantic profit like the illegal giving of profits to the pharmaceutical companies on the last go-around.

The second item that made my gorge rise was his pushing his "Trans-Pacific Partnership." Another giveaway that puts American workers out of jobs and enriches his friends and associates, just like every trade deal he's promoted (maybe he's trying to copy his friend and liar Bill ("I did not have sex with that woman.") Clinton). It looks like this is meant to go hand-in-hand with the above proposal. First they kick you out then make you pay for the privilege.

He's a real "oinker."

Here in Arizona they will not be stealing our rights away by illegal executive order, this state will stand up to federal tyranny if need be. Unconstitutional acts by the federal government are null and void.

I look forward to retiring John McCain and sending Kelli Ward to the senate, she is a champion for state's rights as well as gun rights.

Last edited by Jacoby on 13 Jan 2016, 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

^ Shhhh.....
Remember, "states rights" is a dog whistle term for slavery and segregation.
Just ask a progressive.

Is Arizona going stop doing background checks for gun purchases? If not then they won't be putting a stop to this gun grab.

I dislike that traitor John McCain.

I don't know what they intend to do but this state takes it's gun rights seriously

this was proposed in the State Legislature the other day

HB2024
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/52leg/2r/bills/hb2024p.pdf

this was passed by the state senate the other year

What Obama did has no effect, it has no authority

They'll going put people who get social security into NICS.
it'll be instantaneous and require no action by your state, only way to prevent it would be to remove background checks completely.

Ironically, Barack Obama's presidency has created windfall profits for the gun industry since taking office in 2009. There was a huge long lasting buying surge in '09 with the expectation of imminent anti gun legislation following his inauguration. Another one after Sandy Hook in '12 when he promised to do something.

You could not find and AR or AK in any gun shop for months. Ammo in common calibers was being sold by the cases (typically 500 or 1000 rounds) until the supply was depleted. I couldn't even find reloading components (i.e. powder, primers, bullets). I don't think that has ever happened before with any other president.

Looks like nobody here has actually read the relevant passage:

There's nothing in there about stopping people on Social Security from owning firearms simply because they are on social security. They are just going to share information.

The first sentence is about those beneficiaries who are incidentally prevented from owning a firearm, not saying that anyone on Social Security is prohibited from owning a firearm.

It is demonising people with poor mental health, but not people who are on social security.

"The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year perhaps you just skimmed over this

And this

"who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment,"

Having aspergers, autism, add, adhd, and tons of other disorders do not make people more violent. Why should people with a social disorder be barred from owning guns and have their guns tsken away? Because they'll different?

Why should old ww2 vets lose their guns because they get help managing their finances?

The only people prevented from owning ins are those who a court of law designated as a threat to others or themselves via this thing called due process. You know innocent until proven guilty.

The ssa isn't a court of law. Some administrator siting in a office with s degree in finance isn't allowed to remove people's rights. That is why ssa recorders shouldn't be used to remove rights. That is why all past presidents and all past congress fought to stop this.

Social security is suppose to help people not hurt them.

This is worse then the va being like"thanks for serving and getting wounded for you nation, now give us all your guns"

You being from the uk and all I'd not expect you to understand rights and how hard a process must be to remove said rights.

Well, quite. It's demonising people who have disabilities that stop them managing their finances, but it isn't removing the rights of people on Social Security to own a gun. It's just about better detecting people who already aren't allowed to own a gun.

Now, we don't know how well they're going to actually use that data, but it's not anything like what was being proposed in this thread earlier.

It is one of many various attempts to legislate "pre-crime" prohibition and prosecution. Such a pursuit is, itself, very much unconstitutional and worthy of the impeachment of the public officials who support it.

I restate my long-asked question: If anti-Second Amendment individuals want to ban firearms from this group or that, why don't they do it lawfully by pursuing a constitutional amendment to repeal the Second Amendment? Answer: Because they know they would lose. This fact was proved by a CNN/ORC poll in October ( http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/image ... ontrol.pdf page 7) which showed that 52 percent of U.S. citizens opposed "stricter gun control laws[.]"

So, instead, they slink around nibbling at the edges (and largely failing at that, too).

Even the Autism Self Advocacy Network is supporting the adoption of H.R. 3516 which would prohibit this specific brand of "pre-crime" ( http://www.autisticadvocacy.org/2016/01 ... -h-r-3516/ ).

Oh so it's ok then who cares if they lose their guns and rights.

Well as one of them I do. And depending how you read it it could mean anyone with what they consider s mental impairment. And the actually proposal is t out yet.

They are one ssa so it is removing the rights of people on ssa.

If I'm only racist to black people in the south does that make me not racist?

If you remove just one person rights because he's on ssa then you're removing people's rights who's on ssa

Likewise if you take some of a persons guns you're taking their guns.

That's like saying if I only take some of your things I didn't steal from you because I left one or two of your things, I bet you'd call it stealing and call the cops though.

75,000 people a year will lose their rights. There's not 75,000 people getting on ssa a year. So where are they getting the 75,000 a year unless they plan to slowly remove all ssa gun rights.

As someone with aspergers who gets ssi and ssdi I'm on the chopping list. You over in uk have nothing to lose cause you already lost your basic human rights long ago.

I am not s threat to anyone. I'm not the same as a violent felon or s rapist. They have no right to punish me for crimes I never committed in the name of their agenda to ban all guns and control the masses.