Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security

Background Checks for Seniors

Seeking tighter controls over firearm purchases, the Obama administration is pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, a move that could affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others.

Fair? Unfair?

a reply to: BattleStarGal

Nope nothing to see here.......Move along. Remember the progressive ideal pushing masters do not want to ban guns.......They love single shot 22lr hunting rifles that are wood.




Thankfully for TPTB progressives are easily lead and float on the winds of apathy and entitlements. If you paint the right picture for them they will willingly give up their personal liberties for perceived safety and perceived security. This is also why progressive ideals fail in private and personal life.

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: BattleStarGal

Nope nothing to see here.......Move along. Remember the progressive ideal pushing masters do not want to ban guns.......They love single shot 22lr hunting rifles that are wood.

Do you think a person that isn't even mentally capable of handling even getting their check is responsible enough to handle a gun?

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: BattleStarGal

Nope nothing to see here.......Move along. Remember the progressive ideal pushing masters do not want to ban guns.......They love single shot 22lr hunting rifles that are wood.

Do you think a person that isn't even mentally capable of handling even getting their check is responsible enough to handle a gun?

Where will it go from there Buster?



Meanwhile Obama sits upon his PEN refusing to arm our military personnel so they can protect themselves from Islamic Extremists?

originally posted by: BattleStarGal
Background Checks for Seniors

Seeking tighter controls over firearm purchases, the Obama administration is pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, a move that could affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others.

Fair? Unfair?

Sounds very reasonable to me. NO ONE that is not, legally or practically, able to manage one's own affairs including children and young adults should have access to firearms.

a reply to: buster2010

I stick with the constitution and the supreme law of the land makes it pretty clear....Shall not be infringed. That being said Ya I think limits for very serious mental conditions are needed..........BUT



Imagine how slippery this slope is.......What if someone has mild depression or had a anxiety attack a few years ago or something.....You see how slippery this slope is. Now imagine the government taking over medical industries and tapping into medical records.......Maybe this is the bigger plan at work.


They need a foot in the door and that foot needs to be firmly planted for future steps. Most people will agree mentally unfit senior citizen are not fit for gun ownership......You see how this works. At what point do they stop?????? I find it ironic that many people championing this cause might actually be unfit themselves because of the rise in ADD and ADHD drug use. Many people today take these drugs and in the future the government might consider them mentally unfit......The slope is very.......VERY slippery.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: BattleStarGal
Background Checks for Seniors

Seeking tighter controls over firearm purchases, the Obama administration is pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, a move that could affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others.

Fair? Unfair?

Sounds very reasonable to me. NO ONE that is not, legally or practically, able to manage one's own affairs including children and young adults should have access to firearms.

What about people who take ADD and ADHD drugs......What about depression........What about anxiety disorder.........What if someone had a panic attack..........

a reply to: SubTruth

And well regulated, funny how that part is never mentioned.


If your only argument is slippery slope then you don't have much to stand on.
yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

a reply to: SubTruth

What do those have to do with seniors not having the mental capacity to manage their affairs?

That is the context here, lets try and stay within it.

We should worry about the over prescribing of those drugs before we worry about the gov taking the guns away because of them.

At the end of the day it is a personal choice to go to the doctor and get those, they were never meant to handed out like candy like we do today.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: SubTruth

And well regulated, funny how that part is never mentioned.


If your only argument is slippery slope then you don't have much to stand on.
yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Well regulated.......What like the FDA or the EPA......Are you for real. Let me ask you a question do you trust the government? If your answer is no you might want to rethink you entire argument.



As far the slippery slope goes..........At one point in past history Jews in Germany only had to register firearms.

a reply to: SubTruth

So got the Poe's law out there too.

No the FDA and EPA have nothing to do with the 2nd, nice straw man though.

You quoted the part that is always quoted and said there is no room from interpretation, I just quoted the part that is before that.
The one that seems to be open to interpretation for some reason.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: SubTruth

What do those have to do with seniors not having the mental capacity to manage their affairs?

That is the context here, lets try and stay within it.

We should worry about the over prescribing of those drugs before we worry about the gov taking the guns away because of them.

At the end of the day it is a personal choice to go to the doctor and get those, they were never meant to handed out like candy like we do today.

Actually in some cases it is not a personal choice.....So that is not accurate. I made my points and they are sound. The government deciding who is mentally fit for gun ownership is a slippery slope and if you fail to see it that is your lack of forward thinking and reasoning.


Let me put it another way.......Should people still have gun rights if they are taking ADD or ADHD drugs. What about depression or anxiety disorders?


Who is going to decide.....A doctor or the government? Also the government has more and more control over the health industries and insurance companies.....Maybe this plays into the argument....YA.

originally posted by: BattleStarGal

Fair? Unfair?

A step in the right direction for a change?

Less chance of somebody mentally unfit acquiring a firearm and having a "funny do" resulting in the deaths of innocents.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: SubTruth

So got the Poe's law out there too.

No the FDA and EPA have nothing to do with the 2nd, nice straw man though.

You quoted the part that is always quoted and said there is no room from interpretation, I just quoted the part that is before that.
The one that seems to be open to interpretation for some reason.

Actually you brought up regulation.......I made the point about other regulatory bodies failing. This is a solid argument. And you should answer the question about other mental conditions........Should they lose constitutional rights because of them?

a reply to: Sremmos80

And well regulated, funny how that part is never mentioned.

funny how those that bring that up fail to mention that the regulations were for the troops and discipline. not control of their guns, in fact the one of the first gun laws was that every able bodied man have a weapon to muster with that he provided himself, with powder and shot, that was equivalent to the muskets that the army had.
at best the militias were a bunch of rag tag individual that didn't have any consistency between the states. thats what that part of the 2nd and the militia act were about.

originally posted by: woogleuk

originally posted by: BattleStarGal

Fair? Unfair?

A step in the right direction for a change?

Less chance of somebody mentally unfit acquiring a firearm and having a "funny do" resulting in the deaths of innocents.

Where do you think the line should be drawn and who should be drawing it.........This is the real debate guys. Look past your ideology at the bigger picture going on.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Just wondering why "slippery slope" arguments are poo-poo'd?

Same thing was said about taking a flag off state capital grounds and now people are calling for renaming military bases (Bragg), renaming highways (Jefferson Davis highway), removing memorials from state property (memorials to dead soldiers, not the glory of lost slavery)....

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Sremmos80

Just wondering why "slippery slope" arguments are poo-poo'd?

Same thing was said about taking a flag off state capital grounds and now people are calling for renaming military bases (Bragg), renaming highways (Jefferson Davis highway), removing memorials from state property (memorials to dead soldiers, not the glory of lost slavery)....

This poster uses progressive logic while arguing.......If you cannot win make it personal. They try and discredit the validity of the argument instead of arguing points.


This is not my first rodeo and it usually ends with personal one liner attack posts.......I wonder where mister one liner is tonight.

originally posted by: SubTruth

originally posted by: woogleuk

originally posted by: BattleStarGal

Fair? Unfair?

A step in the right direction for a change?

Less chance of somebody mentally unfit acquiring a firearm and having a "funny do" resulting in the deaths of innocents.

Where do you think the line should be drawn and who should be drawing it.........This is the real debate guys. Look past your ideology at the bigger picture going on.

Funny how slavery is such a big issue, yet the masses can't see what the new "IMPROVED" slavery is all about?

Let's all beg are masters for MORE chains?

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: SubTruth

originally posted by: woogleuk

originally posted by: BattleStarGal

Fair? Unfair?

A step in the right direction for a change?

Less chance of somebody mentally unfit acquiring a firearm and having a "funny do" resulting in the deaths of innocents.

Where do you think the line should be drawn and who should be drawing it.........This is the real debate guys. Look past your ideology at the bigger picture going on.

Funny how slavery is such a big issue, yet the masses can't see what the new "IMPROVED" slavery is all about?

Let's all beg are masters for MORE chains?

I like your style poster........You get it. This is self imposed liberty stealing.......It kinda proves the point that liberty is something you are born with and make a choice about. The constitution just puts that thought into law.



I wonder if any of them are going to answer the question about other mental conditions and were the line should be drawn and who draws it........I bet they stay silent.