Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security

a reply to: Krakatoa
It don't matter how many times we tell them that. A few days later they will be bringing up the same debunked argument. Gets annoying to have to keep reminding people of that fact, and the fact that the constitution and bill of rights ALWAYS affirms the rights of individuals, not entities or groups. It would be like trying to claim that only the religious and the press have the freedom of speech lmao.

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?

If you can;t manage your own affairs, it might come into question if you should have a gun. If you can go through a safety course and don;t have a felony, I don;t see that having another party 'handle your affairs' is relevant. I am constantly behind on my utilities, don;t organize well and my wealthy aunt often helps...doesn;t mean I shouldn;t own a gun. There are a lot of celebrities that don;t handle chit with their money lol.

However, I have personal experience. I went out to California to work after my first year of university. There was a homeless man who frequented the area in front of my place of work. I would buy him coffee from the food cart. Sometimes a muffin. He was obviously mentally unstable. I would ask where his monthly check went to...it was ieither disability or from the military- he was a vet. He would say that people at the shelter took it- other homeless. There was a security guard at the Wells Fargo next to my work who knew him also. She eventually became the person to handle his affairs. That man, though I had many interesting conversations with him and bought him wool socks from Macy;s as a Christmas present (N. California can get pretty cold at night), I am certain he should not have owned a gun.

My own grandmother, may she rest in peace, died of Alzheimer's. I don;t think she should have owned a gun even in the early stages and she was receiving SS income.

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?

Disabled, often is physical. Ya know like Bobby from supernatural in the wheelchair. And having a good weapon and training is life and death for those that crooks like to prey on, they go for easy targets.

I hope you realize that all people, whether disabled, or a single mom doing more work with her children than my father did driving for produce at night and catnapping and running his store in the day, and doing work of equal value and the most important job in the whole multiverse, IS EQUAL AND HAS FULL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. PERIOD.

Ya don't agree, there are lower realms to learn equality on, dog eat dog, survival of the fittest beast realms, hellzones.

THIS AINT THAT.

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...

Funny how the rest of the bill of rights, and the 14th amenmdents never get mentioned.

Funny how the ACT of murder is already against the LAW.

Even funnier how so many people epically fail at reading, and comprehension.


jpfo.org...

Amendment II - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is clearly talking about two separate, but equal things there.

A well regulated militia, the rights of the people, Shall NOT be infringed as both being necessary to the security of a FREE state.

Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The 'background check' is a 4th amendment violation.

Amendment V - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Simply put No gun owner, or other can be held for a crime they did not commit without their days in court, and crimes PROVEN.

That's when 'double jeopardy' enters in where a person can not be tried more than once for the 'same' crime.

Well that is how that is suppose to go except for gun owners.

Amendment VIII - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Gun control, and back ground checks is a 'cruel and unusual punishment' since the '99%' never do anything, but has to pay for what that 1% does.

Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Basically is a repeat of 'shall not infringe'. The power they have can not be used to deny,disparage, or infringe.

Background checks,gun control ALL violate those amendments.

And the 14th amendment shouted by the 'marriage equality' folks, and totally get's IGNORED when it comes to gun rights in this country.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Obama should know this since supposedly he was a 'constitutional' lawyer.

Talk about overreach.

This is gonna hit vets hard. Maybe good in some situations but not all, who gets to decide?

a reply to: BattleStarGal

Interesting.. Obama wants to take guns away from people on social security yet vehemently protest when states want to make people who receive government assistance undergo drug testing while advocating drivers licenses for illegals.

There are a crap ton of candidates on the Republic side for President and I think it has to do with just how piss poor of a job Obama has done.

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?

That's an awfully broad brush... There are plenty of men and women far older than you or I who remain in full control of all their faculties. But I imagine you'd like 'em all to die off asap since they "ruined" the country for you, so I'm not surprised.

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...

Leave us not forget, friend, that "well regulated" meant something very different, at the time the words were committed to paper. You're applying current terminology to something that was written hundreds of years ago.

It's kinda like the word "faggot". What it ACTUALLY means, if you look it up, it's an archaic unit of measure for bundles of sticks. It's also a kind of meatball, made of pork offal, found in English cuisine...it's more common usage is that of a slur against homosexual men. So if i told you that i needed a faggot, would you think i was asking for a bundle of kindling, something to eat, or a gay man?

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: seeker1963

Do you REALLY THINK GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM?

No I don't. Which I've tried to explain. The problem is them getting in to the wrong hands though. So let's talk about that if you want.

Or not, I don't even care at this point because all I get back is accusations and insults to my intelligence.

Here's an idea:

Find out why there are so many wrong hands and start there. It would prevent all the murders that don't involve a gun, as well.

Naah, can't do that.....

It would make too much sense, be too effective, and wouldn't be as sexy as the war on guns...

not to mention, once they solved the problem, they'd have one less thing in the bag of tricks, to try and scare the bejesus out of stupid people with..

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

In case people forget all men starting at age 18 are required to register with the selective service.

that' sounds like a well regulated militia to me. Secondly SCOTUS has already ruled the right to bear arms is an individual right.

Third - An armed population are citizens and an unarmed population are subjects.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: SubTruth

Not to keen on chemically 'impaired' people having access to guns either.

"Shall not be infringed" so all 'arms' and all 'people' - Right? That's what it means literally.

The absurdity of that single statement in today's world is beyond belief. It requires more to drive a car then to own a weapon (or bear children for that matter).

It requires more to drive a car, than to own a gun? In America? You're an absolute mentalist.

I don't remember needing a federal background check to get my driving license. I don't remember a 30-day waiting period to get the thing either....i don't remember needing to go get permission from the police to get a license....

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

originally posted by: SubTruth

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: SubTruth

Not to keen on chemically 'impaired' people having access to guns either.

"Shall not be infringed" so all 'arms' and all 'people' - Right? That's what it means literally.

The absurdity of that single statement in today's world is beyond belief. It requires more to drive a car then to own a weapon (or bear children for that matter).

Shall not be infringed means just what it says.......Driving a car is not a right it is a privilege and not covered in the constitution.


Progressives have a very hard time understanding simple principles like individual rights and that you are born with these rights. TPTB want you to believe these rights are something that can come and go as needed.....This is a lie.

That's not entirely accurate....The constitution guarantees the right to travel.. And there actually IS a legal distinction between the civil act of traveling, and the commercial act of transportation. It's all in the wording. "Driving a car" describes the civil act of traveling, whereas "Operating a Vehicle" describes the commercial act of transportation...

These days, the legal system is so twisted, and so full of word games, nuance, and points of specificity, that it's easy to get tripped up...

a reply to: SubTruth

yeah, really..."chemically impaired" could be twisted to fit damn near anything.....

Smoke Cigarettes? whoop, you're chemically impaired, turn in your arms immediately....same goes with vaping...

on medication for chronic allergies? sorry, no guns for you....

Once you start down this path, there's no turning back..

a reply to: Daedalus

yes the Constitution does guarantee freedom of travel, both inside state boundaries and across state lines. However the constitution does NOT define nor protect method of travel.

Don't want to submit to a security check at the airport? Buy a bus ticket or walk to your destination.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Irishhaf
I have yet to see anyone explain the correlation between not being able to balance a checkbook = a threat to people.

If you can't carry the 7, your rights should be eliminated.

Dude, i could so see that turning into a hashtag campaign on twitter, against this idiocy: #ICarryTheSeven

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: FyreByrd

"Shall not be infringed" so all 'arms' and all 'people' - Right? That's what it means literally.

Actually it says a well regulated Militia.

Which is made up of......


All of us.

Please see my post about changes in language over the years....

a reply to: Daedalus

Actually, illegal aliens can now get drivers licenses.

originally posted by: SubTruth

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: mOjOm

Mussolinni made the trains run on time and Hitler made the autobahn.

Do we judge a government by the good things it has accomplished or the bad that it has done?

Hitler was loved by the people.......LOVED. Truth of the matter Hitler was part of a ruling Oligarchy not that far off from what the US or Russia have today. The only reason history is negative towards these men is because they lost wars and the governments disbanded.


Think I am nuts look at all the atrocities committed by the US or Britain and ask yourself whey history turns a blind eye.

So we just forget the awful stuff they did...that can't have anything to do with history being negative toward them..

Are you interested in purchasing a bridge, neighbor?

a reply to: Xcathdra

In case people forget all men starting at age 18 are required to register with the selective service.

that' sounds like a well regulated militia to me.

Where is the regulated part? That sounds like maintaining the possibility of forcing young men into military service. BTW, do you think that excludes women from your "militia?"

Secondly SCOTUS has already ruled the right to bear arms is an individual right.

Yes, as well as giving the states the right to regulate that ownership.

Third - An armed population are citizens and an unarmed population are subjects.

Cute. Did you make that up by yourself? I have different definitions of the words.

a reply to: Xcathdra

True...however, one does not require a license to ride a horse. At the time the constitution was written, it was one of the most, if not THE most common method of travel across land. I would submit to speculation that the founders intended that the right to travel include protection of the most common means of individual movement, keeping with the times, much in the same way that it is assumed that the 2nd amendment automatically protects the most common contemporary small arms.

Of course, it's also worth noting that common sense was far more common, at the time that the constitution was written, so there was much that was meant, that they didn't necessarily think they actually had to spell out, because it was unfathomable that what they created, could turn into what we have today.