It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security

page: 9
16
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

In cases of doctor certified and family/custodian acknowledged, "diminished" mental capacity...HELL YES!




posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: fshrrex
a reply to: beezzer

In cases of doctor certified and family/custodian acknowledged, "diminished" mental capacity...HELL YES!


But we're not talking about a family member saying, "granpas gone loopy, take away his guns!"

We're talking about government making that decision.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: fshrrex

So your good with a vet who has trouble with balancing a checkbook losing their second amendment?

I ask because it has happened already..

Also financial irresponsibility is a big problem on active duty... So think that through before you answer.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

If we disagree at this point...I am comfortable with my position/opinion. And I respect yours.

But remember if a person seriously wants a gun...it can be found, regardless of government beauracy.
edit on 19-7-2015 by fshrrex because: typo



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Doesn't it all boil down to two simple points? I mean are you pro-choice or not. I am talking about whether you want the choice to own a firearm personally or you choose to leave that decision to an authoritative body.

People that have problems will always exist in society. Those of society that chose to be vigilant protected themselves and those who did/could not chose to have an authoritative body take care of them. We now have the same two choices to make and there should (IMO) always be the two choices. If the police (authoritative body) cannot prevent mob violence or serial killings using weapons other than firearms, how can they protect someone otherwise?

If you feel comfortable with relying upon your government and law enforcement to prevent crimes, then choose so for yourself and family. If you feel that relying upon someone else completely is not acceptable, rely upon yourself and firearms.

Remember, all of this mass killing brouhaha is always followed by a concerted effort to ban or further restrict the weapon and never look to find the root problem. Band-aid solutions are not real solutions they just kick the can down the road by treating the symptoms and not the problems. Remember studies show that you are very close to 3 times more likely to die from intentional self inflicted wounds in the USA than you are from being assaulted with a firearm.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: fshrrex
a reply to: beezzer

In cases of doctor certified and family/custodian acknowledged, "diminished" mental capacity...HELL YES!


But we're not talking about a family member saying, "granpas gone loopy, take away his guns!"

We're talking about government making that decision.


Our elected government; what could possibly go wrong?!



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   

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 that is your statement then give the option for anyone to option out of paying in to the system. Remember SS was something that Americans were forced to PAY for!



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: BattleStarGal

The problem I see is who makes the decision concerning mental instability?

IF this goes into effect you could have an anti-gun doc diagnosing all patients as unstable. You could also have a pro-gun doc saying everyone's good to go. Will there be an appeal process and, if so, who pays for that?

Also, if a doc diagnoses someone as mentally fit to have a gun and that person kills another person(s), will the doc be held liable? If so, why would any doc risk a fine and/or jail time? Diagnos them all as mentally unfit so you don't get sued!

Any system like this can and will be abused.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: fshrrex

my.chicagotribune.com.../-1/article/p2p-84023906/

Since 2008, VA beneficiaries have been able to get off the list by filing an appeal and demonstrating that they pose no danger to themselves or others.

But as of April, just nine of 298 appeals have been granted, according to data provided by the VA. Thirteen others were pending, and 44 were withdrawn after the VA overturned its determination of financial incompetence.

Overman is one of the few who decided to appeal.

He is irritable and antisocial, he said, but not dangerous. "I've never been suicidal," he said. "To me that solves nothing."

More than a year and a half after Overman filed his challenge, the VA lifted its incompetence ruling, allowing his removal from the background check system before the VA ever had to determine whether he should be trusted with a gun.

Overman, who hasn't worked since leaving the military, said he and a friend are now thinking of opening a gunsmith business.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: notmyrealname

Yeah, 'cause we all know how great they are at solving problems...



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: fshrrex
a reply to: beezzer

In cases of doctor certified and family/custodian acknowledged, "diminished" mental capacity...HELL YES!


One would think that in cases such as this, you just simply remove them from the environment, and they likely aren't missed. If they are missed, then you just redirect their attention to something else. Same as when your demented grandma wants to drive...you simply remove the keys from the environment, then let her look for them as long as she likes.

I don't get how that at all pertains to what we are talking about here. If someone was dense enough to sue their Alzheimer's stricken grandpa to have his guns taken away, rather than just removing them for him as per the role of the caregiver, im not sure that person is fit to be a caregiver.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It's all a smoke and mirrors justification for the agenda. Although, not well thought out....or, they are betting on the stupidity and gullibility of the American population.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The issue with Soc.Sec. Administration would put the individual's name on the national background CHECK LIST so they can't get anymore. I would hope any reasonable caretaker would remove any guns from their charges environment. The original article is all about background lists.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: fshrrex

Well...i guess in the maybe 3 or 4 cases of an elderly person with dementia going to buy a gun...

I think im more concerned with someone like my uncle. He lives alone, and was in a motorcycle wreck that left him physically shattered. Ripped off his arm, he bled to death so suffered ischemic damage to the nerves in his legs and is stuck in a wheel chair. The brain trauma from hitting that pole face first at 100mph didn't give him any issues other than he has this form of dyslexia that makes it impossible for him to read or write.

Other than needing someone to do the reading and writing for him, he is independant. And manages to live fairly comfortably (and give a few christmas gifts each year) on his modest disability income. But his means, to make ends meet, he lives in a part of town with lower property values and higher crime.

Those are the kinds of folks I am seeing being screwed over here. Not grandpa.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
this is the end of anyone, LE, military or civilian with any sense at all ever seeking psychological or psychiatric help or answering any medical form, oral questions or surveys truthfully and without paranoiac concern for their liberty. This means psychological concerns will go untreated and unrecognized.


edit on 19-7-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Sorry to hear about your uncle's tragedy but I don't think he should have guns or be able to buy them. If you want to take him hunting lend him one of your guns for the hunt.

I speak from experience...I would be on the list.
edit on 19-7-2015 by fshrrex because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: fshrrex
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Sorry to hear about your uncle's tragedy but I don't think he should have guns or be able to buy them. If you want to take him hunting lend him one of your guns for the hunt.

I speak from experience...I would be on the list.


Do you see how insidious this is?

Having never met the man, or discussed his cognitive function with him, you are willing to make that decision on his behalf?

It wasn't a tragedy on his part. It was bad decision making at the wrong time. But that aside....what i just read is akin to caling your physician and getting a diagnosis over the phone (which is considered malpractice, by the way).

This is why our nation was actually founded as a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy. Because in a democracy a bunch of well meaning but short sighted people can wield public opinion to the detriment of the individuals rights.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I have my opinion...you have yours.

I hope none of your uncle's neighbors sneak into his house and steal his guns.

P.S. Tele-conference with a doctor is NOT malpractice.
edit on 19-7-2015 by fshrrex because: add-on


CX

posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Just to say, some of the best soldiers know couldn't handle thier finances if thier lives depended on it. You should see them handle a firearm though


CX.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: buster2010

Shall not be infringed.


Done and done.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join