Sooooo, they can’t have guns because someone else handles their dealings with the govt? Does that mean that anyone tHat uses Turbo tax or a tax preparer doesn’t have 2a rights?
What about people on welfare? They have demonstrated that they can’t handle their financial dealings, should we take away their right to vote?
Has anyone with this SSA designation ever been involved with a mass shooting? Watch the numbers closely since any number they give will probably be mostly suicides, not murders.
Taking away rights from citizens, and giving rights to illegal aliens.
Sounds like a gross overreach to me- I’m surprised this hasn’t been challenged in court yet.
What would it matter? They would just depart from the plain language of the law and uphold it because it’s well intended.
Sounds like almost every other unConstitutional overreach upon which the Supreme Court has colluded.
cinco,
Sadly I used the exact same analogy as the picture you posted in a verbal discussion the other week.
That picture says it all.
Okay now THAT one I could almost warm up to!
They would never take away the welfare vote, the FSA is a crucial part of their base.
Don’t you know, some old lady just shot up the local bingo hall just a few days ago. I bet this would have stopped it… :rolleyes:
$18 Trillion in debt. Maybe the Federal Government should be disarmed because of financial malfeasance?
So if a tottering bunch of old Codgers can’t handle the money they are given they are to infirm to have firearms?
So, how about the tottering bunch of old Codgers who have managed to get us in our fiscal mess as a Country?
Are they too, to mentally infirm to handle their responsibilities? If so, why do they keep getting re elected?
Meanwhile this same administration wants to restore voting rights to convicts.
If this came from any source other than NRA-ILA I would have just assumed it was bogus. Even from NRA-ILA I’m a little skeptical. But, assuming it’s true, it just shows what sort of underhanded, deceptive, sleazy methods of attack the anti’s under Obama will use.
The problem with these sort of attacks, and the RKBA side being constantly in a defensive posture, is that it ties up our time and focus that we would rather use on something more useful (whether better political lobbying or going on vacations). The pro-RKBA side needs to find a way to return these twice over so that the anti’s are too busy playing defense themselves to do this sort of BS. Ideas?
Another source from yesterday:
Obama admin looks to ban some Social Security recipients from owning guns
Even though I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and I do see this as another erosion of our rights in general, this particular idea does not totally bother me.
I work for Social Security and like it or not, I get to make recommendations as to whether or not someone should have a Representative Payee. That is, if I feel that the person cannot manage their own benefits, I recommend that their check should be provided to, and managed by, someone else. That person is called the Representative Payee. It is much more than a “hunch” that they can’t manage a checkbook. More accurately, it is a determination that the person has a pretty severe psychological impairment and/or a sub-optimal intellectual ability. (A Full Scale I.Q. of significantly below 70.) In all likelihood, such a person would be someone you didn’t want to have a gun anyway.
What is perhaps almost as troubling is the reality that some of these people still manage to get a driver’s license!
en·croach·ment
/enˈkrôCHmənt/
noun
noun: encroachment; plural noun: encroachments
- intrusion on a person’s territory, rights, etc.
“You eat an elephant one bite at a time . . .”
That all may be valid but to what end? As someone else mentioned who are these people hurting by having guns? Where do the guns go when these citizens are stripped of their right? If they’re collected then there’s the rub. If they’re handed down to an heir then that’s less of an issue. But my original statement remains. Why are resources being wasted on these individuals when with almost complete likelihood they’re not going to harm a soul
But gets to decide what rights we don’t want people to have because “reasons”? Even on gun boards people don’t really understand that a RIGHT is something that can’t be taken or voted away just because some people don’t like it.
It’s an old sales technique to ask questions first that the answer will always be , “yes” to. Then, once the person is used to saying yes, you spring your true hook on them.
The totalitarians are this time picking a category few would say, “no” to, one that seems to make sense. But what precedent does this set? Where does it stop?
Soon, they’ll say conservatives are all racists, racists are mentally disabled= disarm all conservatives on grounds of mental deficiency. Or, “only the insane would want to own a gun.” This is clearly an entrant into something else down the line, a bite, as Mooseknuckle put it, of the elephant.
One little group at a time until there are no big groups left.
Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
On another note, how many shootings are carried out by social security recipients who have someone as a financial interceder for them? This is as absurd as banning bayonet lugs, and there is more behind the mirrors than meets the eye.
NOTHING that this administration does is meant to further freedom, only curtail it. EVERYTHING this administration does relating to firearms should be opposed because of who wants it, and viewed as the most odious and loathsome of refuse. Utmost suspicion of all policies of this crowd is only the barest minimum of a beginning.
I think we as gun owners must insist upon and adhere to the Periclean principle of NO CONCESSIONS to the enemy of ANY front.
Ok great. But if bureaucrats are going to past judgement on a person’s self-financial management competencies and and then extend that judgement to revoke a person’s constitutional right, then a court should be doing the adjudicating with the assistance of quality psychometric assessment provided by a relevant practitioner. Definitely not you.