Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security

Let's just face the future guys.

The only ones who should be able to have guns are outlaws and cops.

Everyone else should just go back home and turn on CNN.

a reply to: mOjOm

I actually was using alcohol as a example of how draconian this could become in the future. What about keeping it simple......You have the right to do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe on anothers rights.



See how simple this......Now apply it.....Say you are waving a gun around drunk.....You are breaking the law and will lose the right to own a gun maybe....But say you are drunk and do not wave the gun around......You keep your right.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: SubTruth

Thank you, I appreciate that. I really am just asking questions.

I know this is a touchy subject for some and I know I'm considered one of those Leftist, Progressive Evil Gun Grabbers around here, even though I'd disagree with that label, but I really am just trying to see where everyone views this subject. Who has limits and who doesn't and why.

Thank you though!!

Right back at ya.......I respect your thoughts even if I disagree with them. Arguing back and forth about issues is how we find the real truth and answers many times.



I am very touchy about constitutional rights because I fear they are the last wall standing between the people of the world and tyranny at the hands of the progressive ideal pushing masters.

a reply to: beezzer

That's a good question. I don't like government most of the time but when they do what they are supposed to do and do it correctly I like it.

It's like any institution really. The whole thing isn't bad. Some parts of it do work and work well. However, other parts are very bad. So it's not as easy as just saying remove the entire thing. Even harder is when you have bad elements within good ones. Like the military. There are some serious problems within the military that are very evil and that do some of the most horrid things imaginable. But that isn't how most of it works. Most of it is trying to work for what it at least thinks is the right thing. It's just that the bad parts are really bad. So I don't want to remove the good parts but it's hard when they are mixed together like that.

It is a nudge. Nudge by nudge and one day you will wake up and wonder how in the world our 2A got so decimated.


The list of medications that have thoughts of suicide, depression, anxiety, and psychiatric side effects are numerous. Medicines that treat epilepsy, asthma and influenza are now under suspicion, as is one that helps smokers kick the tobacco habit, as well as some anti-obesity drugs. www.nbcnews.com...

If tomorrow you wake up and "they" said anybody who is or ever has taken medications with such listed side effects will no longer be allowed to own a gun, hell!...3/4 of Americans would be affected.

It is not just the psychotropic and anti-psychotic drugs to be concerned about. Many many below-the-neck medications have psychiatric disturbances as a possible side effect. It would be just like the anti 2A bunch to try and use this.

Guard your 2A as if it were one of the most precious things you have. Those little nudges that weaken it may not be in our best interest upon closer scrutiny.

a reply to: mOjOm

You admit you do not trust them on some issues.........How can you be certain you should trust them on others? Are you sure it is not ideology driven......I am not saying it is but I do think some people pick and choose according to ideals rather than logic.





Oops I am sorry I thought this was pointed towards me.......Sorry Beezzer.

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: mOjOm

I actually was using alcohol as a example of how draconian this could become in the future. What about keeping it simple......You have the right to do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe on anothers rights.



See how simple this......Now apply it.....Say you are waving a gun around drunk.....You are breaking the law and will lose the right to own a gun maybe....But say you are drunk and do not wave the gun around......You keep your right.

Oh yah, that's fine. Just because you drink doesn't mean you're dangerous. Hell, I'm a super happy drunk myself. Taking away my gun just because I also drink would be pointless. I'm actually less likely to use it then because I'm really forgiving when I'm drinking.

I also am conflicted on the whole felon thing too. Because I believe if you paid your time you should be a free man again, no history killing your future. At the same time, I know there is more of a chance for a violent felon to do harm and don't think a gun is probably the best idea for him to have. But then again, maybe it's the fact that he's never free again which drives him to be violent again. It's a complicated thing and stats and predictions often don't work well.

Even the ADHD thing. I'm with ya on that being a problem. All the shooters just happen to be on the stuff when they do these things. But nobody is addressing that issue. They just blame the guns. I blame the drugs or depression more myself, but I agree that the guns at least helped them get more success out of their little mission too. Sure they might attack a school with a knife if they didn't have a gun, but the kill rate would be much less. It's pretty hard to stab and kill 20 kids as fast as you can shoot them with a semi auto. So I tend to agree with some stuff and disagree with others.

a reply to: mOjOm

You're absolutely correct: rights and privileges are only separate because of how they are defined.

And that makes all the difference in the world.

a reply to: mOjOm

I am using the ADD and ADHD example of how widespread this could become not that they should be in the ban now or in the future.



I keep it simple it is a right that shall not be infringed upon. I used these other mental issues as examples of what the future will hold if we stray down the anti liberty anti gun path.

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?

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.

a reply to: SubTruth

The only issue as per the OP source is those persons that are receiving Soc.Sec. disability funds.

If you do not want your gun(s) taken away by means of this social contract stipulation then don't apply for or accept Soc. Sec. funds.

a reply to: SubTruth

Most of the time I don't trust them. I've become a real cynic actually and don't trust almost anyone anymore. I don't even trust retail stores so I certainly won't trust government. However, I know people that work in the government, nothing important but still government jobs. They are doing what's right usually. So I have to assume that people in government can't all be bad. There are some, especially the big players who are up to some bad stuff. I know they have agendas and many of them I don't agree with.

Also, I realize that sometimes they do something that they actually think is a good thing but end up all wrong. So while I do believe there is some agenda that isn't good, I don't know exactly how far it goes and in to what areas. But obviously the Government in it's higher levels is no different than organized crime. Anyone can see that. Hell, they'll even admit it most of the time themselves. But there are still factions of it that are also working against it too. To be honest, I doubt I'm qualified to say which parts are which once you really get down to it. I'm sure there is info I'm not aware of as well.

I do try and keep it realistic though. I don't go along with the Antichrist theories and stuff like that as you probably know already. I tend to think people are plenty evil and twisted enough to not need any supernatural help to screw stuff up.

originally posted by: fshrrex
a reply to: SubTruth

The only issue as per the OP source is those persons that are receiving Soc.Sec. disability funds.

If you do not want your gun(s) taken away by means of this social contract stipulation then don't apply for or accept Soc. Sec. funds.

Ok this is faulty logic..........You earn this by paying into the system. It is your money not welfare. I stick with the points I made over and over again in this thread.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: SubTruth

Most of the time I don't trust them. I've become a real cynic actually and don't trust almost anyone anymore. I don't even trust retail stores so I certainly won't trust government. However, I know people that work in the government, nothing important but still government jobs. They are doing what's right usually. So I have to assume that people in government can't all be bad. There are some, especially the big players who are up to some bad stuff. I know they have agendas and many of them I don't agree with.

Also, I realize that sometimes they do something that they actually think is a good thing but end up all wrong. So while I do believe there is some agenda that isn't good, I don't know exactly how far it goes and in to what areas. But obviously the Government in it's higher levels is no different than organized crime. Anyone can see that. Hell, they'll even admit it most of the time themselves. But there are still factions of it that are also working against it too. To be honest, I doubt I'm qualified to say which parts are which once you really get down to it. I'm sure there is info I'm not aware of as well.

I do try and keep it realistic though. I don't go along with the Antichrist theories and stuff like that as you probably know already. I tend to think people are plenty evil and twisted enough to not need any supernatural help to screw stuff up.

This is sound logic......Now apply it to this debate and let your ideology go. If you do you will become pro gun rights and understand just how important they are. Look at why.......Look at the bigger picture....Star for you.

originally posted by: fshrrex
a reply to: SubTruth

The only issue as per the OP source is those persons that are receiving Soc.Sec. disability funds.

If you do not want your gun(s) taken away by means of this social contract stipulation then don't apply for or accept Soc. Sec. funds.

If you don't want your rights infringed on then don't take advantage of a program you've paid into your entire working life.

You don't see how completely bass ackwards that is?

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?

I'd say that all depends on whether you are benefiting from what they're doing or not. Like Hitler. If you were German when he was coming to power he would seem like a great leader doing exactly what needed to be done for his people. But if you were the people he was killing or whatever in order to get that power you'd think a bit different obviously.

Same with the US. People don't often consider the fact that the reason we have it good is most likely because someone else is being taken advantage of somewhere else.

(I'm going to lose power so this may be my last post. We have a storm brewing here. In California too of all places. Let's hope it's a good one.)

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.

a reply to: SubTruth

Soc.Sec. is a social CONTRACT...a program designed as a safety net of LAST RESORT. Your's and my participation is voluntary (whether you realize it or not).

Every Contract has terms, restrictions and stipulations.

If you want to work, in America, you must ante up and contribute to the "kitty". There is no getting around that...its pay to play. However, if you are diligent with your income and lucky enough that a medical tragedy does not befall you (approx. 7 out of 10 personal bankruptcy/restructuring is due to hospital costs) you have the "option" of not exercising the the second part of the social contract wherein you concede the fact you need help. This is a public plea for leniency due to a DIS-ABILITY (financial for seniors and medically certified physical/mental handicaps) hence, you are voluntarily agreeing to any and All stipulations...for the BETTERMENT OF SOCIETY.

originally posted by: fshrrex
This is a public plea for leniency due to a DIS-ABILITY (financial for seniors and medically certified physical/mental handicaps) hence, you are voluntarily agreeing to any and All stipulations...for the BETTERMENT OF SOCIETY.

Keeping within the subject of this thread, are you stating that restricting firearm ownership is something that is better for society?