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

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Why are you going after that poster instead of the liar who started this thread?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Maybe we can get a Republican president to say all women who had an abortion can't own a gun. After all, isn't she admitting she can't handle a baby? And according to the Leftist "logic" I see on this thread, doesn't that prove she's incompetent in all other areas in her life?

We can put a lock box in front of every planned parenthood where women can deposit all of their guns before walking into the clinic.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

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.

They have very low threshold....according to who? And to be specific, I'm looking for the VA standard for financial incompetence. What are the standards that they use. If you don't know, we're in the same boat.

 

[jknowgood]

Maybe we can get a Republican president to say all women who had an abortion can't own a gun. After all, isn't she admitting she can't handle a baby? And according to the Leftist "logic" I see on this thread, doesn't that prove she's incompetent in all other areas in her life?

We can put a lock box in front of every planned parenthood where women can deposit all of their guns before walking into the clinic.

Also if you can't handle the responsibility of a gun or a baby. Maybe they can't handle the responsibility to vote.

 

[mudwhistle]

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

He's trying to equate checkbook balancing with insanity.

If you can't balance your checkbook....you shouldn't own a gun......according to Obama.

 

[mudwhistle]

Maybe we can get a Republican president to say all women who had an abortion can't own a gun. After all, isn't she admitting she can't handle a baby? And according to the Leftist "logic" I see on this thread, doesn't that prove she's incompetent in all other areas in her life?

We can put a lock box in front of every planned parenthood where women can deposit all of their guns before walking into the clinic.

Also if you can't handle the responsibility of a gun or a baby. Maybe they can't handle the responsibility to vote.

If you can't tell us who is the Vice President you should be voting.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

They have very low threshold....according to who? And to be specific, I'm looking for the VA standard for financial incompetence. What are the standards that they use. If you don't know, we're in the same boat.

When you are so old you need a person to manage your finances...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Maybe we can get a Republican president to say all women who had an abortion can't own a gun. After all, isn't she admitting she can't handle a baby? And according to the Leftist "logic" I see on this thread, doesn't that prove she's incompetent in all other areas in her life?

We can put a lock box in front of every planned parenthood where women can deposit all of their guns before walking into the clinic.

Also if you can't handle the responsibility of a gun or a baby. Maybe they can't handle the responsibility to vote.

If you can't tell us who is the Vice President you should be voting.

Is that how they do it in your country?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can't be crazy enough to lose your gun rights. That's the gun nut extremist position in a nutshell.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You can't be crazy enough to lose your gun rights. That's the gun nut extremist position in a nutshell.

You think craziness and senility are the same thing?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can't be crazy enough to lose your gun rights. That's the gun nut extremist position in a nutshell.

You think craziness and senility are the same thing?

In your case?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You can't be crazy enough to lose your gun rights. That's the gun nut extremist position in a nutshell.

You think craziness and senility are the same thing?

In your case?

You fail to answer the question.

 

[Katzndogz]

If a person is so old they cannot balance a checkbook they should not be alive. Their purpose is to provide entertainment to a, preferably, black thug by being beaten to death.

 

[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.

Why are you going after that poster instead of the liar who started this thread?

Because it can't spell and evidently can't read.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

They have very low threshold....according to who? And to be specific, I'm looking for the VA standard for financial incompetence. What are the standards that they use. If you don't know, we're in the same boat.

I sorry you can't read, I gave you an example. Carry on.