TOTALLY GEEKED!

Domestic Engineer · Guru

Obama’s Gun-Control Plan Includes Gun-Ban For Some Social Security Beneficiaries.

huskerbb · Guru

If they have been found incompetent by a court, then I have no problem disallowing them from buying a gun.

I would NOT, however, be in favor of confiscation based on that, especially if they are not alone in their home since their spouse should still be legally able to possess a firearm.

Plus, many people collect guns simply to collect them. I have two that have NEVER been fired since I owned them--and probably not for decades prior to that. People shouldn't have their collections taken away.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

I actually have no issue with this. If you are receiving government benefits because of a mental disability and are unable to handle your affairs - the government already has that information. I do, however, agree with Husker. If a person is incapable of handling their own affairs, they have a legal guardian - that legal guardian should have the right to deal with the person's personal belongings, not the government.

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

Lawyerlady wrote:
I actually have no issue with this. If you are receiving government benefits because of a mental disability and are unable to handle your affairs - the government already has that information. I do, however, agree with Husker. If a person is incapable of handling their own affairs, they have a legal guardian - that legal guardian should have the right to deal with the person's personal belongings, not the government.

I don't either. But what is O's point? This is already part of the back ground check. His new proposed "laws" are nothing more than what we have now. He was just politicking.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

But. This is a big step in disarming all citizens.

Next will be anyone receiving SS.

Domestic Engineer · Guru

But it's not just mental issues, it includes not being able to "manage their own affairs".

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Domestic Engineer wrote:
But it's not just mental issues, it includes not being able to "manage their own affairs".

To legally not be able to manage your affairs means being mentally disabled or a vegetable - neither of which need guns.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Lawyerlady wrote:
Domestic Engineer wrote:
But it's not just mental issues, it includes not being able to "manage their own affairs".
To legally not be able to manage your affairs means being mentally disabled or a vegetable - neither of which need guns.

For now, that's what it is.

WYSIWYG · Guru

I have no problem with this either, for the same reasons that huskerbb and Lawyerlady stated.

If you have mental problems and it's been diagnosed and it's so bad you need to be on disability - you sure as hell don't need a gun.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"A gem of wisdom"

Question: Is wisdom allowed on an Obama thread?

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

This could actually work in our favor. If you give all the suicidal people guns the rate of SSID will most likely go way down. Just sayin... (I'm kidding.)

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
But. This is a big step in disarming all citizens.

Next will be anyone receiving SS.

Riiiiiight....

flan

p.s. But if YOU think it's a GOOD thing for legally incompetent people to have firearms...that's messed up.

huskerbb · Guru

flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
But. This is a big step in disarming all citizens.

Next will be anyone receiving SS.

Riiiiiight....
flan
p.s. But if YOU think it's a GOOD thing for legally incompetent people to have firearms...that's messed up.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

This isn't about "good" or not.

This also isn't about "possession".

It's about being able to buy them. That is COMPLETELY different.

MANY, MANY people become legally incompetent as they age. Just because they have aged and a court has deemed them unfit to run their own affairs does NOT mean they are a danger or threat to anyone or that they should have their property stolen by the government.

It WOULD make it so that people not in their right mind cannot purchase a firearm.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Friday 8th of January 2016 09:29:55 AM

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Thanks for the clarification, husker.

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Taya Kyle, the widow of "American Sniper" Chris Kyle, asked President Barack Obama his first question on live national television Thursday night during the President's "Gun's in America" town hall on CNN.

Chris Kyle's wife told President Obama that gun control won't make us safer - as she penned earlier Thursday in an op-ed.

Mrs. Kyle focused on Obama's theme of hope.

"I think that your message of hope is something I agree with. I think it's great. And I think that by creating new laws you do give people hope," Kyle told Obama.

"The thing is that the laws we create don't stop these horrific things from happening, right? And that's a very tough pill to swallow," Kyle added.

"I want the hope that I have the right to protect myself," Kyle said in response to the rise in gun sales under Obama.

Mrs. Kyle further cast doubt on Obama's notion that background checks would prevent mass murders.

"I know background checks wouldn't stop me from getting a gun, but I also know that it wouldn't stop any of the people in this room from killing...it's a false sense of hope," she said.

"Why not celebrate that we're good people and that 99.9% of us are not going to kill anyone?" Kyle concluded.

Fox 5 reporter and gun rights activist, Emily Miller, tweeted, "Chris Kyle's widow is amazing to stand up to Pres. Obama on live national TV and make powerful argument. She's so impressive."

huskerbb · Guru

Even Obama acknowledges his recent actions would not have prevented sandy hook, or aurora, or San Bernadino, or any of the other incidents burned into our national conscience.

Domestic Engineer · Guru

Part of the issue I have is that social security is keeping track and reporting your medical issues. Do we rally want another government agency in our personal medical files?

huskerbb · Guru

Domestic Engineer wrote:
Part of the issue I have is that social security is keeping track and reporting your medical issues. Do we rally want another government agency in our personal medical files?

If they have actually been declared incompetent by a court, it is WAY beyond a medical file.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Domestic Engineer wrote:
Part of the issue I have is that social security is keeping track and reporting your medical issues. Do we rally want another government agency in our personal medical files?

In order to get social security disability - you already have to submit your medical records. That is nothing new.

weltschmerz · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
But. This is a big step in disarming all citizens.

Next will be anyone receiving SS.

Riiiiiight....
flan
p.s. But if YOU think it's a GOOD thing for legally incompetent people to have firearms...that's messed up.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.

This isn't about "good" or not.

This also isn't about "possession".

It's about being able to buy them. That is COMPLETELY different.

MANY, MANY people become legally incompetent as they age. Just because they have aged and a court has deemed them unfit to run their own affairs does NOT mean they are a danger or threat to anyone or that they should have their property stolen by the government.
It WOULD make it so that people not in their right mind cannot purchase a firearm.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Friday 8th of January 2016 09:29:55 AM

Someone who can't be trusted near a stove certainly shouln't be trusted with a gun.

huskerbb · Guru

weltschmerz wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
But. This is a big step in disarming all citizens.

Next will be anyone receiving SS.

Riiiiiight....
flan
p.s. But if YOU think it's a GOOD thing for legally incompetent people to have firearms...that's messed up.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.

This isn't about "good" or not.

This also isn't about "possession".

It's about being able to buy them. That is COMPLETELY different.

MANY, MANY people become legally incompetent as they age. Just because they have aged and a court has deemed them unfit to run their own affairs does NOT mean they are a danger or threat to anyone or that they should have their property stolen by the government.
It WOULD make it so that people not in their right mind cannot purchase a firearm.

-- Edited by huskerbb on Friday 8th of January 2016 09:29:55 AM
Someone who can't be trusted near a stove certainly shouln't be trusted with a gun.

???? Who said anything about a stove? That's not what legal competency even means. Where do you get that nonsense?

weltschmerz · Guru

You were talking about mental competency as people age.
Tell me, do YOU think someone who is going senile should have a gun?

huskerbb · Guru

weltschmerz wrote:
You were talking about mental competency as people age.
Tell me, do YOU think someone who is going senile should have a gun?

Don't really care er one way or another. Senility doesn't mean they are a danger to themselves or anyone else.

my grandfather and father both had guns and they had dementia.

That is wholly irrelevant to gun OWNERSHIP.

If if they have been declared legally incompetent by a court--which is a very high standard--then I don't have a problem disallowing them from purchasing a firearm.

huskerbb · Guru

There is a disabled vet in Idaho right now who can live on his own, but has trouble paying bills and balancing his checkbook. The VA sent him a letter saying they were going to confiscate his guns.

The county sheriff showed up to make sure that didn't happen, and the VA didn't show--but that is a good example. He has never been assessed as any type of threat to himself or anyone else. There is no reason on Gods green earth to illegally, or twist the law to make it seem legal, seize his property.