Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security

Discussion in '2nd Amendment' started by tallbump, Jul 18, 2015.

  1. tallbump

    tallbump Supporting Member


    It's a pretty lengthy article, but an interesting read.

    I represent people in an attempt to get SSI/SSD and have had plenty of clients who have/need a payee.

    Some of them, I wouldn't trust with an airsoft gun. Others, absolutely no reason they shouldn't be ok.

    But, i still struggle with a person's right vs the greater good of society.

    I mean, we all have the right to self defense, etc...

    But where do you draw the line. I am sure we all know one or two people who probably shouldn't own a gun.

    But this particular issue, I have a reasonable amount of experience.

    I had one client, who was literally kicked in he head by a horse....he's definitely not right in the head. Besides the cognitive difficulties, he really can't manage his funds...he's angry...potentially violent. he has been arrested for disturbing the peace several times, kicked out of and banned from busses, the Social Security office, Welfare Office, etc..

    He wanted to be able to manage his own funds. He had three different caseworkers, none of them would vouch for him that they thought he could. I wrote to a psychiatrist who had treated him, he wouldn't either.

    Personally, I am glad it isn't my call, but if it were up to me, he wouldn't be allowed to own a firearm.

    But I have had several clients who had a payee who would be safe and reasonable. Perhaps they just have a learning disability or something.

    Tough call. But if Obama is for this law, I guess I have to be against it.
    Sorry SWAGA :D
  2. Think1st

    Think1st Supporting Member

    I am leery of any curtailments on liberty based on someone's capricious assessment. The field of psychology is too imprecise and subject to politically-motivated manipulation when it comes to determining competence, at times. It is already being used against a number of veterans as it is.

    Does anyone remember that movie with Angelina Jolie, about the woman whose son got kidnapped? The LAPD brought her some boy who actually was not her son, and when she said as much, they tried to intimidate her into saying that he was. When she wouldn't submit to their coercive measures, they put her into an insane asylum, where the corrupt psychiatric warden wouldn't release her until she would admit that the boy was hers.

    The movie was based on a true story, according to the credits. While such extreme cases don't happen anymore, it illustrates a way in which the system can be abused. What better way to take away the most guns, possible, other than incrementally lowering the threshold for declaring someone incompetent?

  3. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    NE Utah
    I might be in favor of using the inability to handle your own SSI as a flag to indicate a need for further assessment.

    The problem is...who does that? An appointed guy with an agenda from his superiors? An otherwise great shrink, who also is rabidly anti gun? A committee, like a jury?

    And then....who pays for all that?

    Law of unintended consequences says this may be a great idea, which would assuredly be a boondoggle once implemented, and which would allow for abuse by the gov't or individuals.

    Besides...it's not the old folks doing the damage...as long as no one throws popcorn.:cool:
  4. cicpup

    cicpup Resident PITA Supporting Member

    At this point in the game the only thing Obama can successfully push is his index finger into his own bellybutton.
  5. Outlaw

    Outlaw Supporting Member

    :ranton: What was it he said back in the day? "American gun owners have nothing to fear from this administration", Once again proving he is one of, if not the most incompetent, self-righteous, arrogant, self-sanctified, pathetic, lying POS's that has ever held that position. Agree or not, I simply don't give a $h!t. If the truth hurts, sucks to be U.:rantoff:

    Thanks, I feel a bit better now...well, not really :foilhat:
  6. Liberty

    Liberty Shhh! Lifetime Supporter

    Tell us how you really feel.
  7. It would have to be a full blown jury trial to do this. Anything else would qualify as being due process as it has been define for centuries.

    The tax payer would have to pay for most of this. When the gov lost a case, those that started the case and the agency would pay 3 times the defendants legal costs. With 1/3 going to the victim, 1/3 to their lawyer and 1/3 into a fund pay the legal cost of those that lost, give better guns to the old people, armed neighborhood watches, etc.

    Nothing like having to come up with a few $100,000 to keep one from making hastey or emotion based decisions.

    That would be a compromise that would keep almost all possible abuse in check and still allow for both safety and due process.
  8. SWAGA

    SWAGA No longer broke... Lifetime Supporter

    So I remember a certain Florida governor who pushed through a law that welfare recipients had to undergo mandatory drug testing.....no protest from the righties.

    You can't buy alcohol or cigarettes with food stamps...no protest from the righties.

    That's all gubberment 'interference' that y'all are ok with.

    Now this is a slightly different kettle of fish but this is gubberment money ( your tax money) that goes to people that can't take care of their own affairs ( whatever that means)
    So your 'handout' now comes with a stipulation you can't spend it on guns and ammo when you're not bright enough to count your dollars and cents.

    Makes perfect sense to me.
  9. Think1st

    Think1st Supporting Member

    Technically, Social Security isn't a hand out--not until you draw more than you've put into it. Comparing it to welfare is not the same thing.
  10. SWAGA

    SWAGA No longer broke... Lifetime Supporter

    I'm comparing gubberment 'interference'
  11. Bull

    Bull Just a Man Supporting Member

    You don't have a right to government handouts like welfare...They are able to set a income limit to determine who should receive benes, they can damn well make a drug test part of the requirements... Really, that's a piss poor comparison on your part....
  12. There is no comparing the two one me and the other taxpayers money we should have a say in how its given away I have to test at work why they hell dont public aiders they dont have sales tax on there food what a deal

    some sell there food stamps to by drugs seen it more than once !
    if you report it they dont have time too look into it
  13. Think1st

    Think1st Supporting Member

    The term "gubberment interference" applies to private activities. When you take The Queen's shilling and The Queen's biscuit, you simultaneously ask for interference.

    Welfare is not a right. If you want it, then you should have to comply with the terms of he who offers it.
  14. moona11

    moona11 King of you Monkeys Lifetime Supporter

    We all know people who should not have guns. But going to a Dr for having a tough time should not limit you from owning a gun. No crazy ass people that can't be fixed no way should they have a gun.
  15. Not2ManyGuns

    Not2ManyGuns Member

    "...the Obama administration is pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, ...

    I wonder if the statistics show how ofter the people in question (percentage) commit crimes of violence with guns?

    I think a president should have more to worry about than worrying about certain people on SS having guns. Maybe a president should worry more about lone extremist Muslims committing acts of terrorism.
  16. Liberty

    Liberty Shhh! Lifetime Supporter

    Alcohol and cigarettes aren't FOOD. Makes sense to me.

    And I'm in favor of mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients. Let's see - if you won't work, and spend your money (or other people's) on drugs, I don't think you deserve a handout.

    Work, stay off drugs, try to make something of yourself, and try to get off welfare, I'll be at your house cooking a meal for you myself. And I have done it, too.
  17. SWAGA

    SWAGA No longer broke... Lifetime Supporter

    Now what is wrong with mentally deficient people not allowed to own guns?

    Oh but he can't balance a checkbook he's not violent.


    If you can't perform these basic functions for yourself you shouldn't be allowed to operate heavy machinery, operate a motor vehicle or own a gun.
    Common sense really.

    You should be able to file for an exemption. Veterans that sort of thing.
  18. ekim

    ekim Member

    I don't remember seeing "exemption" written anywhere in the 2nd Amendment! Owning a gun is a "Right", operating heavy machinery or driving a motor vehicle are privileges.
  19. Think1st

    Think1st Supporting Member

    There can't be a veterans exemption for avoiding having guns taken away for some alleged incompetence. If your theory about the efficacy of this program is right, then one's status as a veteran would be immaterial. A mentally incompetent veteran would be just as mentally incompetent as a non-veteran.

    To create an exemption is to introduce capriciousness. To introduce capriciousness is to undermine legitimacy. To undermine legitimacy is to prove that a regimen shouldn't exist in the first place.

    It sounds to me as if you just proved why this program should not exist.
  20. Bull

    Bull Just a Man Supporting Member

    So a dyslexic shouldn't be allowed to own a gun?..... Gosh, that's awfully insensitive....
    Which is what "common sense gun laws" get you...