Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security

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?

Coming from the same gov that labeled Christians, War Vets, People who stockpile food and water, and people who speak negatively about the gov as possible terrorist?

yeah I have an issue with it, I have an issue when the handlers are the ones who are going to decide what qualifies as "Mentally unstable"

a reply to: SubTruth


Arguments founded in fallacies are not sound.

Actually in some cases it is not a personal choice.....So that is not accurate.

Well for the vast majority it is.
My statement was a little to cut and dry, I didn't clarify there is people out there that need this.
It usually is still a choice for them to get it though, don't think you can get court ordered to take it like some pysch meds.
Could be wrong there tho.
I bet you would be surprised how much a ADD/HD meds a pharmacy dispenses in a day.

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?

Absolutely, that isn't what this about though.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask



Yep you are right on the money.......I love the irony about this argument. Many of the anti-gun poster post in other topics about mistrust of the government. But because of ideology now trust the government on this issue. It is also the root reason progressive ideals fail in time. The roots are very shallow and when strong winds come.........

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

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?

Coming from the same gov that labeled Christians, War Vets, People who stockpile food and water, and people who speak negatively about the gov as possible terrorist?

yeah I have an issue with it, I have an issue when the handlers are the ones who are going to decide what qualifies as "Mentally unstable"

Yet their still pussy footing around calling this scumbag who killed 5 of our military an Islamist Extremist?

Yea, this administration despite their opaqueness has shown just how transparent their intentions are?

a reply to: Shamrock6

Because you are arguing from a point of what if.

You are discrediting something for what might happen based on nothing.


I agree the flag point slippery slope argument is sort of true, but that kinda of stuff was happening before the flag issue as well.
a reply to: SubTruth

Pointing out a logical fallacy is not a personal attack...

Pointing out regulations that have nothing to do with guns is a solid argument how?

a reply to: Sremmos80

The government is taking away constitutional rights because of mental disorders........So ya other mental disorders play into this argument.......Hence the slippery slope.



Also it is a FACT not a TRUTH that some people are forced to take medications. So your assumption about it being choice for everyone is false. If you cannot see the logic I am using that is fine...........



I do wish you would answer the question about were do we draw the line and who draws it..?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Shamrock6

Because you are arguing from a point of what if.

You are discrediting something for what might happen based on nothing.


I agree the flag point slippery slope argument is sort of true, but that kinda of stuff was happening before the flag issue as well.
a reply to: SubTruth

Pointing out a logical fallacy is not a personal attack...

Pointing out regulations that have nothing to do with guns is a solid argument how?

OK........You are the one who brought up regulation........YOU. So why bring something up and than try and discredit the argument about it......I made the point that other regulatory bodies that are failing......The EPA and the FDA are failing in my mind and many others.

a reply to: SubTruth

I do wish you would answer the question about were do we draw the line and who draws it..?

I don't have that answer, I don't think it is that cut and dry.

It would be more a case by case thing.

Also it is a FACT not a TRUTH that some people are forced to take medications.

Yes I know, I said people are court ordered to take pysch meds...
I said I wasn't sure if that is the case for ADHD meds.
Do you know of a case where an adult has been forced to take them?

And I brought up firearm regulation, not about drugs and the environment.

That is why I said the FDA and EPA have nothing to do with firearms.

a reply to: Sremmos80

When people are committed they are force fed drugs in many cases......This is a FACT. I am glad to see you do not think it is cut and dry.......Thank God. It shows you are reasonable and that is a really rare thing today.



What if......That is the picture I am painting. You mention in other posts about many people being on ADD drugs and I agree with you. What if the government labeled them unfit.....This could go far past gun rights guys. TPTB love control above all else and they will use this angle if allowed. This is the slippery slope I am talking about.



This is not just a gun rights issue..........This is a very dangerous foot in the door.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Arguing from a point of "what if" when there's a glaring example of "what if" gone wrong makes it kind of hard to automatically toss out the argument.

I've repeatedly said that I despise what if arguments. Perhaps I'll start saying "opens the door to..." Instead of "it's a slippery slope." What if arguments are lazy and disingenuous.

But that doesn't mean they're necessarily inaccurate and should be ignored.

"Those kinds of things were happening before" is equally lazy and disingenuous. "Those things happened before" can be applied to nearly any and every possible aspect of life. Very rarely does the wheel successfully get reinvented. Just because it's happened before doesn't mean it happening now should be blithely ignored.

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: Sremmos80

The government is taking away constitutional rights because of mental disorders........So ya other mental disorders play into this argument.......Hence the slippery slope.



Also it is a FACT not a TRUTH that some people are forced to take medications. So your assumption about it being choice for everyone is false. If you can not see the logic I am using that is fine...........



I do wish you would answer the question about were do we draw the line and who draws it..?

He/she ISN'tT going to answer you....LOLOL!!
Sremmos80 refuses to see that once legal precedent is set taking away ANY rights based on mental capacity it's a short legislative session to taking away everyone's rights who is "deemed" unfit. The constitution doesn't pick & choose who gets what rights.

Currently it's up to the families of such seniors who may not be competent to take care of the issue. Mostly the seniors who are incapacitated to such an extent are also in care homes or severely physically restricted due to other physical aliments.

TALK ABOUT A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT TO WRITE SUCH A LAW!!!!!

Obama may want to think twice before going after seniors. It's called "jumping the shark", "biting the hand that feeds you"? Sound familiar??? All those seniors VOTE.

a reply to: SubTruth

What if......

And what if that doesn't happen?

Guns have not been taken away, actually opposite.
Gun sales are up in record numbers, so where is the evidence that they are some how going to start taking all the guns away?

Are there some people out there that given the chance would like to do that with one swipe of the pen?
Sure, but that isn't how the system works so it can't be done.

oh yeah...and since the number of CCP's are UP the crime rate has dropped.
You would vote for a law preventing Seniors the ability to defend themselves in their own homes? In most places it takes the Police more than an hour to respond, dunno where you live but that math doesn't work for me.

This is without factoring in most of the US actually IS rural.

This will cause mentally ill people to either;

Not seek treatment because they don't want to lose their rights

or

Simply purchase firearms illegally.

This will also inhibit people with TBI's, PTSD, depression issues, from seeking care in case it inhibited their freedoms.

Progressives. Can't picture the authoritarian state without them!

a reply to: buster2010

Yes. I do. I know more than one person who has another person handle their affairs for them, but that own guns.

This is just more "We know whats best for you" nonsense. I never volunteered to have someone make my decisions for me. And, if i am being honest, Im not sure that is worth it as a price of admission for living in "society".

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Sremmos80

Arguing from a point of "what if" when there's a glaring example of "what if" gone wrong makes it kind of hard to automatically toss out the argument.

I've repeatedly said that I despise what if arguments. Perhaps I'll start saying "opens the door to..." Instead of "it's a slippery slope." What if arguments are lazy and disingenuous.

But that doesn't mean they're necessarily inaccurate and should be ignored.

"Those kinds of things were happening before" is equally lazy and disingenuous. "Those things happened before" can be applied to nearly any and every possible aspect of life. Very rarely does the wheel successfully get reinvented. Just because it's happened before doesn't mean it happening now should be blithely ignored.

I agree and disagree........If we do not learn from past lessons history does tend to repeat. What if arguments are subjective and not fact.......But I think many people are starting to see the writing on the wall when it comes to the PTB.



I tend to look at the direction of actions and what possible implications they could have on the future. The anti-gun lobby is smart......But they are failing to see one thing......The constitution. If they really want change they need to re-write the constitution. They are putting the cart before the horse.

a reply to: SubTruth

Add to this the other thread about all the race data being collected.

Slippery slope indeed.

America was nice while it lasted.

ETA: To me this was something that did NOT need fixing.

When was the last shooting by a senior???

a reply to: Shamrock6

But just because this flag issued has sort of turned out like people feared, I saw sort of because people can call for change all they want doesn't mean it will happen, also doesn't mean it becomes some sort of precedent either.


I am not saying it should be thrown out and ignored, just argued from a different point then if we allow this then this worst case scenario will happen.

a reply to: Caver78

Um...what?

"In most places it takes police more than an hour to respond." Who's ass did that "fact" get pulled out of?

The phrase is "when seconds count, the police are minutes away." The nationwide response time average is around 10 minutes. Thas for all agencies, every call for service. Sometimes it's faster (a violent crime in progress) sometimes it's slower (a petty larceny at a retail store).

Which is still an eternity when somebody is kicking in your door. But the statement that in "most places" the response time is over an hour is categorically false.

a reply to: buster2010

I have three children, a medicinal cannabis license, and a couple of knives around the house. The point I'm trying to make is that with anything dangerous, you need to take precautions. Without those precautions, you're leaving yourself open for an accident to happen. Maybe there should be some type of test for gun owners of all ages, at least then you could weed out the ones that have no business owning a gun. I would love to own a gun, particularly a rifle, but I don't have the money for it. I don't think it would be right to take away that privilege of an American citizen. Maybe take more precautions but don't limit who can get it cause of age.