Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Do we really want the insane to own guns?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    lived in 5 states traveled extensively in Europe middle East and Asia.
    Posts
    14,864
    Thanks
    1,991
    Thanked 2,041 Times in 1,658 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Do we really want the insane to own guns?

    Seems congress has repealed the recent regulations about those incapable to handling themselves outside of mental institutions. But they can buy and own guns,, what's up with that, do we really want them to buy and own guns?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,643
    Thanks
    402
    Thanked 283 Times in 236 Posts

    Default

    Of course! What, do you want to trample on their 2nd amendment rights?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    lived in 5 states traveled extensively in Europe middle East and Asia.
    Posts
    14,864
    Thanks
    1,991
    Thanked 2,041 Times in 1,658 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Do we really want them to kill more innocents?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    6,334
    Thanks
    873
    Thanked 1,023 Times in 869 Posts

    Default

    False. The rule about to be repealed was overly broad. It included anyone who for any reason had their SSDI check being sent to someone else. It authorized the Social Security Administration to add entire groups of people to the "no buy" list without any system of redress or appeal.

    Opponents of the regulation included a wide variety of groups such as the National Rifle Association, the nonpartisan National Council on Disability and the American Civil Liberties Union,
    Link
    Link 2

    This is what the Left does....Orwellian language....
    “You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Ronald Reagan
    "This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves." Ronald Reagan (1964)

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Pondering For This Useful Post:

    smoky (02-18-2017)

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    lived in 5 states traveled extensively in Europe middle East and Asia.
    Posts
    14,864
    Thanks
    1,991
    Thanked 2,041 Times in 1,658 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    That the NRA opposed this law is no surprize. They have opposed any such legislation since they became the defacto lobbying group for the gun manufacturers.

    The real question is this how competent is the Social security department in making decisions regarding sending payments. Under what conditions would they do such a thing, frankly at this time I don't know for sure. What proofs do they require when diverting their payments to a third party? And more importantly why would such people want guns in the first place? If they are so sick that they cannot sign their own checks what business do they have buying guns? We're not discussing strong mentally healthy people here, mostly these folks are "on their way out" of life in general. Or they are so confused they cannot even maintain their normal lives much less handle the responsibility of gun ownership.

    Still those reactionaries who demand complete freedom of owning guns want the people who cannot handle their own lies to handle guns, that is insane itself.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    lived in 5 states traveled extensively in Europe middle East and Asia.
    Posts
    14,864
    Thanks
    1,991
    Thanked 2,041 Times in 1,658 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The cases under the now repealed law cover what is called a representative payee. There are laws on the books both for assigning a representative payee and how to change/remove such payees. Assuming there is no fraud involved, this entire section of social security law is for the convenience and safety of the beneficiary. Frankly every single case where such an event occur is the very type where guns have no place in the individual's lives. Do those confined to nursing homes need guns? Those committed to asylums really need guns? These are the people who you suggest have lost their right to own guns, you must explain to the rest of us why they do need guns under those circumstances.

    Check out an explanation of those rules here: http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/res...epresentative-

    There are possibilities of fraud where the rights of an individual are taken away but there are processes in place which offers remediation for such fraud.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    6,334
    Thanks
    873
    Thanked 1,023 Times in 869 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste View Post
    Frankly every single case where such an event occur is the very type where guns have no place in the individual's lives.
    False. As I said before and you ignored, the rule was written to broadly it applied in all cases, regardless of the reason why someone was receiving SSDI for a mental health condition....the fact that you like banning groups of people from handling firearms doesn't make it correct.

    Amazing to me still that the Left takes the most extreme "anytime/anywhere' position on abortion (which isn't addressed in the Constitution) and attempt to most severely restrict the 2nd Amendment...

    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste View Post
    Do those confined to nursing homes need guns?
    Why not? Sexual abuse of seniors does happen. Why shouldn't they be able to defend themselves is they chose to. In this country, we don't take people's rights away for "pre-crime"....we do punish crime. We do try to discourage folks from committing criminal acts.....You really don't want to live in a "pre-crime" world....do you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste View Post
    Those committed to asylums really need guns?
    No they don't. And in this case, that would be a legitimate reason to take their guns away. The person would have had a competency hearing. Their individual case would have been reviewed. They would have had the opportunity to challenge the commitment. Only then, after an individual adjudication, would the person's Constitutional Rights been affected. That's how it's supposed to work in the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste View Post
    These are the people who you suggest have lost their right to own guns, you must explain to the rest of us why they do need guns under those circumstances.
    So I just did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste View Post
    Check out an explanation of those rules here: ....
    Check out the actual rule here

    Under these final rules, we will identify, on a prospective basis, individuals who receive Disability Insurance benefits under title II of the Social Security Act (Act) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments under title XVI of the Act and who also meet certain other criteria, including an award of benefits based on a finding that the individual’s mental impairment meets or medically equals the requirements of section 12.00 of the Listing of Impairments (Listings) and receipt of benefits through a representative payee
    here's section 12.00 of the Listings

    It includes a number of things that we probably should consider whether folks should be "cleared' or not (such as schizophrenia, chronic depression, psychosis).....but it also includes things like OCD, some palsies, eating disorders, PTSD (even if treated)....


    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste View Post
    There are possibilities of fraud where the rights of an individual are taken away but there are processes in place which offers remediation for such fraud.
    True. This rule provided a poor system of redress. In short, the list of those meeting the "criteria" would be added to the "no buy". If affected, the individual could petition for relief. That's not generally how things work in this country....That would be like the state arresting and jailing you for committing some perceived crime-potential....say...Tax evasion...and then, from jail, you could petition to be released.....see why it's a bad rule?

    The Obama admin goal was to get whole stacks of people on the "no buy" list....As I said, the rule was overly broad.
    “You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Ronald Reagan
    "This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves." Ronald Reagan (1964)

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Pondering For This Useful Post:

    smoky (02-18-2017)

  10. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mountains
    Posts
    9,271
    Thanks
    2,392
    Thanked 1,307 Times in 1,095 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pondering View Post
    False. As I said before and you ignored, the rule was written to broadly it applied in all cases, regardless of the reason why someone was receiving SSDI for a mental health condition....the fact that you like banning groups of people from handling firearms doesn't make it correct.

    Amazing to me still that the Left takes the most extreme "anytime/anywhere' position on abortion (which isn't addressed in the Constitution) and attempt to most severely restrict the 2nd Amendment...



    Why not? Sexual abuse of seniors does happen. Why shouldn't they be able to defend themselves is they chose to. In this country, we don't take people's rights away for "pre-crime"....we do punish crime. We do try to discourage folks from committing criminal acts.....You really don't want to live in a "pre-crime" world....do you?



    No they don't. And in this case, that would be a legitimate reason to take their guns away. The person would have had a competency hearing. Their individual case would have been reviewed. They would have had the opportunity to challenge the commitment. Only then, after an individual adjudication, would the person's Constitutional Rights been affected. That's how it's supposed to work in the country.



    So I just did.



    Check out the actual rule here



    here's section 12.00 of the Listings

    It includes a number of things that we probably should consider whether folks should be "cleared' or not (such as schizophrenia, chronic depression, psychosis).....but it also includes things like OCD, some palsies, eating disorders, PTSD (even if treated)....




    True. This rule provided a poor system of redress. In short, the list of those meeting the "criteria" would be added to the "no buy". If affected, the individual could petition for relief. That's not generally how things work in this country....That would be like the state arresting and jailing you for committing some perceived crime-potential....say...Tax evasion...and then, from jail, you could petition to be released.....see why it's a bad rule?

    The Obama admin goal was to get whole stacks of people on the "no buy" list....As I said, the rule was overly broad.
    And what a convenient tool Obamacare was with its questions to patients regarding gun ownership, under the ruse of protecting others.

    So, as has already been pointed out, if it's about protecting others, why no questions regarding their ownership of a car, or a chainsaw, or kitchen butcher knives, or a baseball bat, etc.?

  11. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,643
    Thanks
    402
    Thanked 283 Times in 236 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste View Post
    That the NRA opposed this law is no surprize. They have opposed any such legislation since they became the defacto lobbying group for the gun manufacturers.
    Exactly. Anything that has the potential of softening gun sales is what the NRA opposes. More gun sales is the prime objective.

  12. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mountains
    Posts
    9,271
    Thanks
    2,392
    Thanked 1,307 Times in 1,095 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GhostOfKC View Post
    Exactly. Anything that has the potential of softening gun sales is what the NRA opposes. More gun sales is the prime objective.
    Fake news. . .

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •