Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security

a reply to: Shamrock6

My only concern with the elderly having guns is that they might harm themselves or someone else on accident. That and they might not be capable of keeping their guns safe from others stealing them and using them for criminal activity. That shouldn't be out of the range of discussion. I'm not worried about a rouge gang of violent old folks storming the city either.

a reply to: buster2010
Responsible? Probably. ?
Competent? I don't know.

But using a gun is a lot easier than driving to the bank to deposit your social security check.

Sometimes guns are just easier.

It should be a requirement that everyone when reaching the age of 16 should, before getting their driving license be required to purchase a gun and learn how to use it, when to use it and gun safety.

God bless

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Shamrock6

My only concern with the elderly having guns is that they might harm themselves or someone else on accident. That and they might not be capable of keeping their guns safe from others stealing them and using them for criminal activity. That shouldn't be out of the range of discussion. I'm not worried about a rouge gang of violent old folks storming the city either.

I'm not attacking you, I'm discussing this calmly and respectfully.

I urge you to do a little research and determine how many elderly people harm themselves or someone else on accident then compare those numbers to how many elderly people use a gun, whether by firing it or just pointing it, to prevent a crime from being committed upon their person. Keep in mind that the self-defense cases are just the ones that were reported.

If it was an actual problem, you might have an argument.

people forget that in the 18th century, "well regulated" meant "well ordered", in other words, "well trained"

So in other words, it doesn't mean just letting anyone teenager, yahoo, or psycho have a gun.

Thank you for supporting gun control.

a reply to: CB328

Wrong again.

It means, "It is the responsibility of the state militia to provide training if that is deemed necessary".

originally posted by: CB328

people forget that in the 18th century, "well regulated" meant "well ordered", in other words, "well trained"

So in other words, it doesn't mean just letting anyone teenager, yahoo, or psycho have a gun.

Thank you for supporting gun control.

The 2nd Amendment does not apply solely to the militia and the "well regulated" portion of the statement is in reference to the militia, not private individuals. When will the gun control crowd give that idea up and focus on something else?

Don't you guys ever come up with new material?

There are many laws in place about who can purchase a firearm. Again, those laws don't stop criminals from being criminals so the push for more laws falls flat right there.

How much this whole thing disgusts me, I cannot put into words.

"Obama won't come after your guns!", says his defenders.

This is how progressives work. Their authoritarian model won't accept freedom in any form.

Molon Labe.

a reply to: CB328

And you can twist my words any way you like. It does not alter the fact that the 2A does not put restrictions on who, only that they be trained. PERIOD...and that shall not be infringed.

originally posted by: beezzer
How much this whole thing disgusts me, I cannot put into words.

"Obama won't come after your guns!", says his defenders.

This is how progressives work. Their authoritarian model won't accept freedom in any form.

Molon Labe.

Who is gonna come and take them?

The LEO's that the Progressives constantly lump together as "Their all dirty"? Look at Baltimore, and how crime is so bad now that they are begging for LAW to save them from the thugs!

I'll gladly hand over my weapons to any Progressive brave enough to do what they are relying on someone else to do for them!

Can anyone point out where it says in the Bill of Rights, that rights can be infringed upon if certain conditions aren't met?


Thanks in advance.

Not surprised. I am not sure why it wasn't more obvious to others what was going on with ACA.

Do people really believe they are looking out for our best interest. Power, control, compliance. Typical M.O.

I've been watching it unfold.

Circumvent HiPA laws, gain control of personal mental health issues, then preach that mental health is causing too many shootings.

Once the foot is in the door, they can list whatever they want as a mental health issue, including situational depression, medications, etc, etc...

What percentage of the us population is on a psychotropic type of drug?

Playing all sides, recommending medication, then removing gun rights...nice

The SS ban, is just another chunk of the population. One piece at a time.

a reply to: buster2010

Who would be next?

These decisions are best left to the caregiver, not the frickin' govt. The govt. can't even pave streets, yet we're going to keep trusting them with this sort of thing?

No. Hell no.

a reply to: beezzer

I checked.

It isn't there.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: beezzer

I checked.

It isn't there.

Thanks.

So an unconstitutional act But many will justify it.

Wonder how they'll justify any other unconstitutional acts.

Will we need a qualifier before speaking in public?

I mean, if mental health is enough of a justification to remove one right, then it's clearly enough to remove another right, isn't it?

a reply to: beezzer

It's for the children, dammit.

oh, wait...

It's for the old folks, dammit. Think of the old folks. So helpless and all.

God, I'd love to see 'em try to stop my 94 year old Dad from buying a hand gun, or rifle, if he so chooses. He can't drive anymore, but he still outshoots me most times.

Nanny state. Here we come, like it or not.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: beezzer

I checked.

It isn't there.

Thanks.

So an unconstitutional act But many will justify it.

Wonder how they'll justify any other unconstitutional acts.

Will we need a qualifier before speaking in public?

I mean, if mental health is enough of a justification to remove one right, then it's clearly enough to remove another right, isn't it?

Obviously, if they can't manage owning a gun, they cannot speak clearly or sanely. So, there goes the 1st Amendment too...

originally posted by: CB328

people forget that in the 18th century, "well regulated" meant "well ordered", in other words, "well trained"

So in other words, it doesn't mean just letting anyone teenager, yahoo, or psycho have a gun.

Thank you for supporting gun control.

If you're going to engage in Constitutional debates (which encompass the Bill of Rights) you would be well served to do some research into the terminology, definitions, and verbiage used on the documents before doing so. Attempting to argue about what something means when one has zero comprehension as to how the documents were actually written is destined to fail.

a reply to: beezzer

You know what popped in my head earlier? And I know it's a textbook example of "slippery slope" but I don't much care.

"We're not coming after your guns, just old people." Okay, sure.

We're not coming after your guns, just raising the age limit to buy them. Oh okay.

We're not coming after your guns, just people who haven't done *x*. Oh okay.

And then over time, only a very small group is allowed to have guns. Meanwhile, criminals are still criminals.

How do you eat an elephant?

One bite at a time my friends.

a reply to: beezzer

I mean, if mental health is enough of a justification to remove one right, then it's clearly enough to remove another right, isn't it?

It will be, if they have their way. Freedom of speech? After all, mental health should be a main criteria for speaking out... Right?

But that's alright, no slippery slope here. None. No being forced to meet certain criteria before speaking. ...and who makes these decisions anyway???

a reply to: CB328

You want to get rid of personal gun ownership, then do it the right way. There is a process in place to repeal a Constitutional amendment If you cannot get enough support to succeed....then live with that. Otherwise, any thing else if a lame attempt at infringing the protections we are guaranteed by that ultimate law.

So, what are YOU, yes YOU doing right now to make that legal push???? Other than posting on a random Internet forum?