It Was Only A Matter Of Time: Obama Looks To Ban Social Security Recipients From Owning Guns

[Steve_McGarrett]

Here we go.


Obama looks to ban Social Security recipients from owning guns Fox News

 

[occupied]

All of them? Or just the ones who can no longer responsibly protect their weapons? I though you guys were for responsible gun ownership?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Dup thread. In Current Events.

 

[Skylar]

Here we go.


Obama looks to ban Social Security recipients from owning guns Fox News

Gotta love Fox News title trolling. Here's the actual proposed regulation:

The language of federal gun laws restricts ownership to people who are unable to manage their own affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease” – which could potentially affect a large group within Social Security, the LA Times reported.

So its not Social Security recipients that they are propose preventing owning of guns. But mental incompetents.

 

[OKTexas]

All of them? Or just the ones who can no longer responsibly protect their weapons? I though you guys were for responsible gun ownership?

Maybe if you actually read the link you wouldn't ask stupid questions.

 

[Skylar]

All of them? Or just the ones who can no longer responsibly protect their weapons? I though you guys were for responsible gun ownership?

Maybe if you actually read the link you wouldn't ask stupid questions.

God knows you wouldn't learn it from reading the title of the thread.....or the Fox News article.

But that's kinda the point of trolling: attention. You get people worked up by insinuating one thing with the title. With the article telling a different story.

 

[OKTexas]

All of them? Or just the ones who can no longer responsibly protect their weapons? I though you guys were for responsible gun ownership?

Maybe if you actually read the link you wouldn't ask stupid questions.

God knows you wouldn't learn it from reading the title of the thread.....or the Fox News article.

But that's kinda the point of trolling: attention. You get people worked up by insinuating one thing with the title. With the article telling a different story.

So these aren't people receiving social security? Well yes, yes it is. Is it all of them, no.

 

[Skylar]

All of them? Or just the ones who can no longer responsibly protect their weapons? I though you guys were for responsible gun ownership?

Maybe if you actually read the link you wouldn't ask stupid questions.

God knows you wouldn't learn it from reading the title of the thread.....or the Fox News article.

But that's kinda the point of trolling: attention. You get people worked up by insinuating one thing with the title. With the article telling a different story.

So these aren't people receiving social security? Well yes, yes it is. Is it all of them, no.

Its an irrelevant criteria. The proposed regulation never even mentions social security. Nor is receiving social security a criteria for having your guns taken. Instead, mental incompetence is.

If you're going to pick irrelevant criteria.......why not title it "Obama looks to ban those who sleep in beds from owning guns!"

It would be just as true as the OP title. And just as intentionally misleading.

 

[edthecynic]

So its not Social Security recipients that they are propose preventing owning of guns. But mental incompetents.

So a better title of this thread:
It Was Only A Matter Of Time: Obama Looks To Ban Republicans From Owning Guns

 

[Skylar]

So its not Social Security recipients that they are propose preventing owning of guns. But mental incompetents.

So a better title of this thread:
It Was Only A Matter Of Time: Obama Looks To Ban Republicans From Owning Guns

Laughing!

Okay, I don't care who you are, that's funny.

 

[OKTexas]

All of them? Or just the ones who can no longer responsibly protect their weapons? I though you guys were for responsible gun ownership?

Maybe if you actually read the link you wouldn't ask stupid questions.

God knows you wouldn't learn it from reading the title of the thread.....or the Fox News article.

But that's kinda the point of trolling: attention. You get people worked up by insinuating one thing with the title. With the article telling a different story.

So these aren't people receiving social security? Well yes, yes it is. Is it all of them, no.

Its an irrelevant criteria. The proposed regulation never even mentions social security. Nor is receiving social security a criteria for having your guns taken. Instead, mental incompetence is.

If you're going to pick irrelevant criteria.......why not title it "Obama looks to ban those who sleep in beds from owning guns!"

It would be just as true as the OP title. And just as intentionally misleading.

I guess we read different articles. From the link in the OP:

The push, which could potentially affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others, is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws that prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the United States illegally, and others, according to the paper.

 

[Skylar]

All of them? Or just the ones who can no longer responsibly protect their weapons? I though you guys were for responsible gun ownership?

Maybe if you actually read the link you wouldn't ask stupid questions.

God knows you wouldn't learn it from reading the title of the thread.....or the Fox News article.

But that's kinda the point of trolling: attention. You get people worked up by insinuating one thing with the title. With the article telling a different story.

So these aren't people receiving social security? Well yes, yes it is. Is it all of them, no.

Its an irrelevant criteria. The proposed regulation never even mentions social security. Nor is receiving social security a criteria for having your guns taken. Instead, mental incompetence is.

If you're going to pick irrelevant criteria.......why not title it "Obama looks to ban those who sleep in beds from owning guns!"

It would be just as true as the OP title. And just as intentionally misleading.

I guess we read different articles. From the link in the OP:

The push, which could potentially affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others, is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws that prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the United States illegally, and others, according to the paper.

It simply requires that the SSA participate in the background check program. Receiving social security benefits isn't a criteria for having guns regulated. Mental incomptence is.

Just like it is for everyone else.

Here's the LA Times article that Fox News is citing:

Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security

Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security - LA Times

But that doesn't troll. Or insinuate outcomes that the article can't support. So of course your ilk won't use it. Despite the fact that the trolling Fox article is based on it.

Which is exactly my point. Fox bases its business model on manufactured outrage. And its followers prefer the misleading troll to the accurate account.

 

[OKTexas]

Maybe if you actually read the link you wouldn't ask stupid questions.

God knows you wouldn't learn it from reading the title of the thread.....or the Fox News article.

But that's kinda the point of trolling: attention. You get people worked up by insinuating one thing with the title. With the article telling a different story.

So these aren't people receiving social security? Well yes, yes it is. Is it all of them, no.

Its an irrelevant criteria. The proposed regulation never even mentions social security. Nor is receiving social security a criteria for having your guns taken. Instead, mental incompetence is.

If you're going to pick irrelevant criteria.......why not title it "Obama looks to ban those who sleep in beds from owning guns!"

It would be just as true as the OP title. And just as intentionally misleading.

I guess we read different articles. From the link in the OP:

The push, which could potentially affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others, is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws that prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the United States illegally, and others, according to the paper.

It simply requires that the SSA participate in the background check program. Receiving social security benefits isn't a criteria for having guns regulated. Mental incomptence is.

Just like it is for everyone else.

Here's the LA Times article that Fox News is citing:

Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security

Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security - LA Times

But that doesn't troll. Or insinuate outcomes that the article can't support. So of course your ilk won't use it. Despite the fact that the trolling Fox article is based on it.

Which is exactly my point. Fox bases its business model on manufactured outrage. And its followers prefer the misleading troll to the accurate account.

Well evidently your ilk doesn't give a shit about due process. Have all these people been adjudicated by a court of law as incompetent? Or did they simply sign a piece of paper allowing someone to handle their finances, if that's the case how could that signature possibly be legal if they are truly incompetent? These policies deny rights without due process and that is wrong.

 

[Skylar]

God knows you wouldn't learn it from reading the title of the thread.....or the Fox News article.

But that's kinda the point of trolling: attention. You get people worked up by insinuating one thing with the title. With the article telling a different story.

So these aren't people receiving social security? Well yes, yes it is. Is it all of them, no.

Its an irrelevant criteria. The proposed regulation never even mentions social security. Nor is receiving social security a criteria for having your guns taken. Instead, mental incompetence is.

If you're going to pick irrelevant criteria.......why not title it "Obama looks to ban those who sleep in beds from owning guns!"

It would be just as true as the OP title. And just as intentionally misleading.

I guess we read different articles. From the link in the OP:

The push, which could potentially affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others, is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws that prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the United States illegally, and others, according to the paper.

It simply requires that the SSA participate in the background check program. Receiving social security benefits isn't a criteria for having guns regulated. Mental incomptence is.

Just like it is for everyone else.

Here's the LA Times article that Fox News is citing:

Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security

Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security - LA Times

But that doesn't troll. Or insinuate outcomes that the article can't support. So of course your ilk won't use it. Despite the fact that the trolling Fox article is based on it.

Which is exactly my point. Fox bases its business model on manufactured outrage. And its followers prefer the misleading troll to the accurate account.

Well evidently your ilk doesn't give a shit about due process.

Can I take the stark change of topic as your acknowledgement of my point that Fox was trolling. And your ilk gobbled it up?

What about this lacks due process? The people in question have already been found to be incompetent. Most are receiving money or services because of it.

Have all these people been adjudicated by a court of law as incompetent?

Who says that a court of law is the only source of 'due process'? Due process is merely following all legal procedures and respect all legal rights. If you've already acknowledged your incompetence and are receiving government services or money because of it......you'd have a hard time arguing you're not incompetent.

And why don't you answer your own questions before making accusations.

Or did they simply sign a piece of paper allowing someone to handle their finances, if that's the case how could that signature possibly be legal if they are truly incompetent? These policies deny rights without due process and that is wrong.

If they genuinely so incompetent that their signature is legally invalid, why would you want them possessing firearms? And if they themselves have recognized their own lack of competence, why would consider your judgment better than theirs?

Its one or the other. And neither bodes well for your argument.

 

[OKTexas]

So these aren't people receiving social security? Well yes, yes it is. Is it all of them, no.

Its an irrelevant criteria. The proposed regulation never even mentions social security. Nor is receiving social security a criteria for having your guns taken. Instead, mental incompetence is.

If you're going to pick irrelevant criteria.......why not title it "Obama looks to ban those who sleep in beds from owning guns!"

It would be just as true as the OP title. And just as intentionally misleading.

I guess we read different articles. From the link in the OP:

The push, which could potentially affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others, is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws that prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the United States illegally, and others, according to the paper.

It simply requires that the SSA participate in the background check program. Receiving social security benefits isn't a criteria for having guns regulated. Mental incomptence is.

Just like it is for everyone else.

Here's the LA Times article that Fox News is citing:

Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security

Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security - LA Times

But that doesn't troll. Or insinuate outcomes that the article can't support. So of course your ilk won't use it. Despite the fact that the trolling Fox article is based on it.

Which is exactly my point. Fox bases its business model on manufactured outrage. And its followers prefer the misleading troll to the accurate account.

Well evidently your ilk doesn't give a shit about due process.

Can I take the stark change of topic as your acknowledgement of my point that Fox was trolling. And your ilk gobbled it up?

What about this lacks due process? The people in question have already been found to be incompetent. Most are receiving money or services because of it.

Have all these people been adjudicated by a court of law as incompetent?

Who says that a court of law is the only source of 'due process'? Due process is merely following all legal procedures and respect all legal rights. If you've already acknowledged your incompetence and are receiving government services or money because of it......you'd have a hard time arguing you're not incompetent.

And why don't you answer your own questions before making accusations.

Or did they simply sign a piece of paper allowing someone to handle their finances, if that's the case how could that signature possibly be legal if they are truly incompetent? These policies deny rights without due process and that is wrong.

If they genuinely so incompetent that their signature is legally invalid, why would you want them possessing firearms? And if they themselves have recognized their own lack of competence, why would consider your judgment better than theirs?

Its one or the other. And neither bodes well for your argument.

So you're saying that the inability to handle money, renders you incompetent in all aspects of life, just because some bureaucrat say so. Sorry that ain't good enough for me, constitutional rights are sacred and only a court of law has the power to take them. You're assuming guilt instead of presuming innocence, that's not the way our system is supposed to work.

 

[Skylar]

Its an irrelevant criteria. The proposed regulation never even mentions social security. Nor is receiving social security a criteria for having your guns taken. Instead, mental incompetence is.

If you're going to pick irrelevant criteria.......why not title it "Obama looks to ban those who sleep in beds from owning guns!"

It would be just as true as the OP title. And just as intentionally misleading.

I guess we read different articles. From the link in the OP:

The push, which could potentially affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others, is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws that prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the United States illegally, and others, according to the paper.

It simply requires that the SSA participate in the background check program. Receiving social security benefits isn't a criteria for having guns regulated. Mental incomptence is.

Just like it is for everyone else.

Here's the LA Times article that Fox News is citing:

Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security

Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security - LA Times

But that doesn't troll. Or insinuate outcomes that the article can't support. So of course your ilk won't use it. Despite the fact that the trolling Fox article is based on it.

Which is exactly my point. Fox bases its business model on manufactured outrage. And its followers prefer the misleading troll to the accurate account.

Well evidently your ilk doesn't give a shit about due process.

Can I take the stark change of topic as your acknowledgement of my point that Fox was trolling. And your ilk gobbled it up?

What about this lacks due process? The people in question have already been found to be incompetent. Most are receiving money or services because of it.

Have all these people been adjudicated by a court of law as incompetent?

Who says that a court of law is the only source of 'due process'? Due process is merely following all legal procedures and respect all legal rights. If you've already acknowledged your incompetence and are receiving government services or money because of it......you'd have a hard time arguing you're not incompetent.

And why don't you answer your own questions before making accusations.

Or did they simply sign a piece of paper allowing someone to handle their finances, if that's the case how could that signature possibly be legal if they are truly incompetent? These policies deny rights without due process and that is wrong.

If they genuinely so incompetent that their signature is legally invalid, why would you want them possessing firearms? And if they themselves have recognized their own lack of competence, why would consider your judgment better than theirs?

Its one or the other. And neither bodes well for your argument.

So you're saying that the inability to handle money, renders you incompetent in all aspects of life, just because some bureaucrat say so.

I'd have to look more into the standards used by Veteran Affairs on the matter before I form an opinion on the financial incompetence measure. At this point, I dunno.

Sorry that ain't good enough for me, constitutional rights are sacred and only a court of law has the power to take them. You're assuming guilt instead of presuming innocence, that's not the way our system is supposed to work.

Courts of law are for dealing with disputes. If you've admitted to your incompetence, there's no dispute on the matter. And thus no need for a court proceeding. The only relevant factor would be the degree of incompetence and whether financial incompetence would meet a standard sufficient to trigger the federal law.

The proposed regulation would extend the standards used at the VA to the SSA. If the VA standards are valid, then the SSA standards would be. Do you know the standards of incompetence used at the VA? I don't.

 

[OKTexas]

I guess we read different articles. From the link in the OP:

The push, which could potentially affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others, is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws that prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the United States illegally, and others, according to the paper.

It simply requires that the SSA participate in the background check program. Receiving social security benefits isn't a criteria for having guns regulated. Mental incomptence is.

Just like it is for everyone else.

Here's the LA Times article that Fox News is citing:

Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security

Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security - LA Times

But that doesn't troll. Or insinuate outcomes that the article can't support. So of course your ilk won't use it. Despite the fact that the trolling Fox article is based on it.

Which is exactly my point. Fox bases its business model on manufactured outrage. And its followers prefer the misleading troll to the accurate account.

Well evidently your ilk doesn't give a shit about due process.

Can I take the stark change of topic as your acknowledgement of my point that Fox was trolling. And your ilk gobbled it up?

What about this lacks due process? The people in question have already been found to be incompetent. Most are receiving money or services because of it.

Have all these people been adjudicated by a court of law as incompetent?

Who says that a court of law is the only source of 'due process'? Due process is merely following all legal procedures and respect all legal rights. If you've already acknowledged your incompetence and are receiving government services or money because of it......you'd have a hard time arguing you're not incompetent.

And why don't you answer your own questions before making accusations.

Or did they simply sign a piece of paper allowing someone to handle their finances, if that's the case how could that signature possibly be legal if they are truly incompetent? These policies deny rights without due process and that is wrong.

If they genuinely so incompetent that their signature is legally invalid, why would you want them possessing firearms? And if they themselves have recognized their own lack of competence, why would consider your judgment better than theirs?

Its one or the other. And neither bodes well for your argument.

So you're saying that the inability to handle money, renders you incompetent in all aspects of life, just because some bureaucrat say so.

I'd have to look more into the standards used by Veteran Affairs on the matter before I form an opinion on the financial incompetence measure. At this point, I dunno.

Sorry that ain't good enough for me, constitutional rights are sacred and only a court of law has the power to take them. You're assuming guilt instead of presuming innocence, that's not the way our system is supposed to work.

Courts of law are for dealing with disputes. If you've admitted to your incompetence, there's no dispute on the matter. And thus no need for a court proceeding. The only relevant factor would be the degree of incompetence and whether financial incompetence would meet a standard sufficient to trigger the federal law.

The proposed regulation would extend the standards used at the VA to the SSA. If the VA standards are valid, then the SSA standards would be. Do you know the standards of incompetence used at the VA? I don't.

According to your link:

There is no simple way to identify that group, but a strategy used by the Department of Veterans Affairs since the creation of the background check system is reporting anyone who has been declared incompetent to manage pension or disability payments and assigned a fiduciary.

So for the VA it comes down to managing money, no other criteria is mentioned. I know people who have signed papers to allow a relative to handle their VA funds, yet live independently, would you take away their rights? BTW, they have never been seen by a VA doctor.

 

[Skylar]

It simply requires that the SSA participate in the background check program. Receiving social security benefits isn't a criteria for having guns regulated. Mental incomptence is.

Just like it is for everyone else.

Here's the LA Times article that Fox News is citing:

But that doesn't troll. Or insinuate outcomes that the article can't support. So of course your ilk won't use it. Despite the fact that the trolling Fox article is based on it.

Which is exactly my point. Fox bases its business model on manufactured outrage. And its followers prefer the misleading troll to the accurate account.

Well evidently your ilk doesn't give a shit about due process.

Can I take the stark change of topic as your acknowledgement of my point that Fox was trolling. And your ilk gobbled it up?

What about this lacks due process? The people in question have already been found to be incompetent. Most are receiving money or services because of it.

Have all these people been adjudicated by a court of law as incompetent?

Who says that a court of law is the only source of 'due process'? Due process is merely following all legal procedures and respect all legal rights. If you've already acknowledged your incompetence and are receiving government services or money because of it......you'd have a hard time arguing you're not incompetent.

And why don't you answer your own questions before making accusations.

Or did they simply sign a piece of paper allowing someone to handle their finances, if that's the case how could that signature possibly be legal if they are truly incompetent? These policies deny rights without due process and that is wrong.

If they genuinely so incompetent that their signature is legally invalid, why would you want them possessing firearms? And if they themselves have recognized their own lack of competence, why would consider your judgment better than theirs?

Its one or the other. And neither bodes well for your argument.

So you're saying that the inability to handle money, renders you incompetent in all aspects of life, just because some bureaucrat say so.

I'd have to look more into the standards used by Veteran Affairs on the matter before I form an opinion on the financial incompetence measure. At this point, I dunno.

Sorry that ain't good enough for me, constitutional rights are sacred and only a court of law has the power to take them. You're assuming guilt instead of presuming innocence, that's not the way our system is supposed to work.

Courts of law are for dealing with disputes. If you've admitted to your incompetence, there's no dispute on the matter. And thus no need for a court proceeding. The only relevant factor would be the degree of incompetence and whether financial incompetence would meet a standard sufficient to trigger the federal law.

The proposed regulation would extend the standards used at the VA to the SSA. If the VA standards are valid, then the SSA standards would be. Do you know the standards of incompetence used at the VA? I don't.

According to your link:

There is no simple way to identify that group, but a strategy used by the Department of Veterans Affairs since the creation of the background check system is reporting anyone who has been declared incompetent to manage pension or disability payments and assigned a fiduciary.

So for the VA it comes down to managing money, no other criteria is mentioned. I know people who have signed papers to allow a relative to handle their VA funds, yet live independently, would you take away their rights?

Let me elaborate: what are the standards for declaring someone incompetent to manage pension or disability payments? That's the VA standards I'm referring to. The fact that the VA uses financial incompetence as its standard is already stipulated. What mental limitations reach that threshold is what I'm interested in finding out.

If its a very low bar, then I'd agree with you that its insufficient to withdraw gun rights.

If its rather high, then I'd argue that withholding guns is proper.

 

[OKTexas]

Well evidently your ilk doesn't give a shit about due process.

Can I take the stark change of topic as your acknowledgement of my point that Fox was trolling. And your ilk gobbled it up?

What about this lacks due process? The people in question have already been found to be incompetent. Most are receiving money or services because of it.

Have all these people been adjudicated by a court of law as incompetent?

Who says that a court of law is the only source of 'due process'? Due process is merely following all legal procedures and respect all legal rights. If you've already acknowledged your incompetence and are receiving government services or money because of it......you'd have a hard time arguing you're not incompetent.

And why don't you answer your own questions before making accusations.

Or did they simply sign a piece of paper allowing someone to handle their finances, if that's the case how could that signature possibly be legal if they are truly incompetent? These policies deny rights without due process and that is wrong.

If they genuinely so incompetent that their signature is legally invalid, why would you want them possessing firearms? And if they themselves have recognized their own lack of competence, why would consider your judgment better than theirs?

Its one or the other. And neither bodes well for your argument.

So you're saying that the inability to handle money, renders you incompetent in all aspects of life, just because some bureaucrat say so.

I'd have to look more into the standards used by Veteran Affairs on the matter before I form an opinion on the financial incompetence measure. At this point, I dunno.

Sorry that ain't good enough for me, constitutional rights are sacred and only a court of law has the power to take them. You're assuming guilt instead of presuming innocence, that's not the way our system is supposed to work.

Courts of law are for dealing with disputes. If you've admitted to your incompetence, there's no dispute on the matter. And thus no need for a court proceeding. The only relevant factor would be the degree of incompetence and whether financial incompetence would meet a standard sufficient to trigger the federal law.

The proposed regulation would extend the standards used at the VA to the SSA. If the VA standards are valid, then the SSA standards would be. Do you know the standards of incompetence used at the VA? I don't.

According to your link:

There is no simple way to identify that group, but a strategy used by the Department of Veterans Affairs since the creation of the background check system is reporting anyone who has been declared incompetent to manage pension or disability payments and assigned a fiduciary.

So for the VA it comes down to managing money, no other criteria is mentioned. I know people who have signed papers to allow a relative to handle their VA funds, yet live independently, would you take away their rights?

Let me elaborate: what are the standards for declaring someone incompetent to manage pension or disability payments? That's the VA standards I'm referring to. The fact that the VA uses financial incompetence as its standard is already stipulated. What mental limitations reach that threshold is what I'm interested in finding out.

If its a very low bar, then I'd agree with you that its insufficient to withdraw gun rights.

If its rather high, then I'd argue that withholding guns is proper.

You missed my edit where I said they have never been see by a VA doctor. But yes it is a very low threshold, VA has income and asset limits on providing non-service connected vets with benefits. There are ways around them by placing their assets in a trust that is managed by a trustee, the requirement that VA benefits be managed by the trustee, or fiduciary if you will, are just part of the package.

 

[HUGGY]

Are we having a rash of problems with SSI recipients and the guns they own? Who knew?