Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security

a reply to: Phage

According to Xcathdra it's those who have registered for the Selective Service who compose that "regulated militia."

That is true, however We The People are the militia "regulated" or not.

Ok. Fair enough. I don't. Not that I see another 1776 on the horizon.

You may be right, however the rate things are going rapidly in this country and all these unconstitutional laws being past without the American people approval, I believe it will come to a time very soon for Americans to draw a line.

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?

I know several people who have put their finances in the hands of others for several reasons. That doesn't mean they should be unable to defend themselves.

Patients who have suffered brain injuries, whether due to trauma or stroke, can recover their motor skills and still have problems when dealing with numbers.
Older people quite often turn their finances over to another party. They might forget to pay a bill but they haven't forgotten where the gun is or how to use it.

This is totally ridiculous. It's pretty damned low to disallow personal protection to the disabled.

About 4.2 million adults receive monthly Social Security benefits that are managed by “representative payees.”

The proposal is part of a concerted effort by the Obama administration after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn hu huh., to strengthen gun control, including by plugging holes in the background-check system. Dylan Roof comes to mind. uh huh.

Someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe,” said Dr. Marc Rosen, a Yale psychiatrist who has studied how veterans with mental-health problems manage their money. “They are very different determinations

Steven Overman, a 30-year-old former Marine who lives in Virginia, said his case demonstrates the flaws of judging gun safety through financial competence. After his Humvee hit a roadside bomb in Iraq in 2007, he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and a brain injury that weakened his memory and cognitive ability. The VA eventually deemed him 100 percent disabled and after reviewing his case in 2012 declared him incompetent, making his wife his fiduciary. Upon being notified that he was being reported to the background-check system, he gave his guns to his mother and began working with a lawyer to get them back.

source

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?

It's not right but he's just responding to what people are asking for. Most gun freedom advocates include as a disclaimer that everyone should own guns that those with mental illness should be excluded. That's precisely what this is targeting. Obama will be called the bad guy here but it's exactly what the NRA and others are asking for in response to things like the Aurora shooting.

a reply to: Phage

Yeah, California.....big surprise there.

California is friggin bizarro world...run by absolute mentalists.

I believe competency tests should be given to politicians first,Feinstein,Pelosi and Biden come to mind.

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?

What if you are mentally capable, but it's simply easier due to your disability to let someone else do it?

So I'm curious... if the Obama administration is so hell bent on denying US citizens of their 2nd amendment right to own firearms, why then has the Fed Gov approved more applications than the two previous administrations?

Newsmax

In 1999 and 2000, during Clinton's presidency, 0.83 percent of applicants, fewer than one in 100, were denied firearms, according to statistics obtained by the Times under the Freedom of Information Act. And from 2001 to 2008 under Bush's tenure, the percentage of refusals was even less at 0.67 percent, also less than 100.

Under the current Obama administration, the average denial rate is just 0.46, or fewer than one in 50 applicants, which is nearly half of Clinton's numbers and also much lower than Bush's.

O'bummers time is almost up... he needs to get on the stick if he's going to round up all the guns... time is running out!

In Kansas when buying a firearm and answering the questions on the form there are a few questions that already restrict buying a firearm.
1. Have you ever been convicted of domestic violence?
2. Are you on or have you taken antidepresents?
3. Are you pesently under inditment for a crime.
So they have already put limitations on buying a firearm in KS if you go through a registered gun dealer.

originally posted by: SubTruth

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?