SSA to Propose Rule to Add SS Disability Recipients to NICS No-Buy List

[silverspoon]

Some people scare the crap out of me. How can some be so quick to throw someone else's God Given Right out the window? I'm much more scared of people who takes their's and someone else's God Given Rights so carelessly than I am of a armed felon.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

If you're so mentally disabled you can't work, do you have the capacity to be safe with a firearm?

There is a wide variety of mental health problems that can cause someone not to be able to hold a job, but wouldn't impair their ability to be safe with a firearm. Bill of Rights mentioned one above, severe agoraphobia could be another. Bipolar, ptsd, and such could also meet those criteria. How many more would you like?

 

[Thegeek]

I stand corrected.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm aware of that. However, you said:



I don't think that having some condition preventing one from working should also preclude that person from the right of self-defense. After all, who is going to provide defense for a whole class of people who are disarmed by your policy, which rendered due process to be moot?

Your proposed policy suggestion reads to me to be vindictive and vengeful upon those who have the audacity to take money that is made available; it's kinda like what happens here or on any of several boards on the net when someone talks about the punishment due to a sex offender of some type: Everyone starts falling all over themselves, trying to find the most vicious and grotesque punishment they can imagine, trying to outdo each other.

I get it. You don't think people should claim disability. You have a right to your opinion, and I respect that even as I disagree with that opinion. People have the basic right to the defense of their lives. Where your view falls apart for me is in the point that the NICS check is seen as an infringement upon the RKBA (which it is) right up until it's used to take the ability to lawfully exercise that right away from someone the person speaking doesn't think should have that right.

The 5A is clear in that taking (not surrendering) a right from someone, specifically the denial of the rights of life, liberty, and property, requires that due process of law be employed (more correctly, it denies government the power to do so without that due process of law.)

That a person makes a claim for disability, even on mental grounds, is not an exception to that individual right nor that governmental power and limitation on that power.

BTW, just as you can cite mental disabilities such as paranoid schizophrenia or homicidal mania, I can as easily cite Somatization disorder (which is the random page to which I opened my old copy of the DSM-IV) This disorder causes pain and/or dysfunction of at least four areas of the person's body, and is not constant but is also not predictable as to when it will "hit". A person so affected might be unable to work, but not be unable to provide for his own defense, at least most of the time.

Rights pertain to all or they pertain to none.

Blessings,
Bill

If you're so mentally disabled you can't work, do you have the capacity to be safe with a firearm?

Read my paragraph six above (red coloring added to previously posted text for clarity) and consider that set of criteria. As Jamil stated, in agreement with my paragraph three, it sounds more like you want to punish people for asking for and receiving help.

There is a wide variety of mental health problems that can cause someone not to be able to hold a job, but wouldn't impair their ability to be safe with a firearm. Bill of Rights mentioned one above, severe agoraphobia could be another. Bipolar, ptsd, and such could also meet those criteria. How many more would you like?

Agoraphobia works, as long as one is inside a building. An argument might be made when the person is outside, though, as his phobia might be so paralyzing as to render him immobile. In addition, bipolar and PTSD are often cited as being good reasons, with the volatility of their stereotyped personalities, as disqualifiers.

It doesn't change the fact that there is no disqualifier in the Constitution for those or any other conditions, save the removal of one's ability to lawfully exercise the rights of life, liberty, and property, and to not be denied those rights absent due process. In fairness, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and there are things that will need interpreted. They must be interpreted strictly, not loosely, or it is our liberties as a People that will be falling off like some young punk's pants in need of a belt.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

I stand corrected.

I saw this post immediately upon posting #44, which I started before you posted. I didn't want it seeming as if I was dogpiling you. Thank you for keeping your mind open to other lines of thinking than you were using. This is the mark of a wise man.

Rep is inbound.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Thegeek]

Agoraphobia is something that never crossed my mind. I'm sure there are others too. I was just too quick to get fired up about it because of how long I worked with some people who abused the SS system.

 

[chipbennett]

Agoraphobia is something that never crossed my mind. I'm sure there are others too. I was just too quick to get fired up about it because of how long I worked with some people who abused the SS system.

I'm certainly with you on that one.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Agoraphobia is something that never crossed my mind. I'm sure there are others too. I was just too quick to get fired up about it because of how long I worked with some people who abused the SS system.

I'm certainly with you on that one.

As am I. There are certainly abuses. It's just the separating of the wheat from the chaff that we're discussing here.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/12/28/obama-admin-yanks-2a-rights-from-ssi-recipients/?ref=yfp


Any truth here?

 

[jedi]

I would be more concerned about them coming after our 401K money.

That is coming.
Google Universal Savings Account or usa for short.
It is legislation that has been pending in committee for a while now. In a nutshell it is a reset of all savings accounts.

Basically all savings accounts, all 401k accounts, pension plans are taken by the .gov. In exchange all debt is forgiven and everyone gets a usa with xyz money in it. Not sure how the accounts get more money but that is how they will replace ssa payments.

 

[LP1]

That is coming.
Google Universal Savings Account or usa for short.
It is legislation that has been pending in committee for a while now. In a nutshell it is a reset of all savings accounts.

Basically all savings accounts, all 401k accounts, pension plans are taken by the .gov. In exchange all debt is forgiven and everyone gets a usa with xyz money in it. Not sure how the accounts get more money but that is how they will replace ssa payments.

Universal savings accounts, and the legislation that you reference, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with confiscation of assets. Please remove several layers of tinfoil.

 

[gregr]

Social Security moves to block the mentally ill from purchasing guns | TheHill



Just like the VA tried to do. Due process? We don't need no stinkin' due process...

Due process is KEY. Our Constitution guarantees it.

 

[ATM]

Due process is KEY. Our Constitution guarantees it.

That's a nice notion, but our constitutional guarantees aren't worth the paper they were written on.

 

[jamil]

That's a nice notion, but our constitutional guarantees aren't worth the paper they were written on.

Well, yes and no. They're worth the paper they're printed on when people hold their elected leaders accountable to what's printed. But because our voting system creates a dichotomy between least evils, that evil often involves who violates the constitution less. So then it puts people in the position of having to vote for people who violate the constitution. This past election is an example.

 

[ATM]

Well, yes and no. They're worth the paper they're printed on when people hold their elected leaders accountable to what's printed. But because our voting system creates a dichotomy between least evils, that evil often involves who violates the constitution less. So then it puts people in the position of having to vote for people who violate the constitution. This past election is an example.

All I heard was "Well, yes..." The rest sounded like chattering birds or something.

 

[jamil]

All I heard was "Well, yes..." The rest sounded like chattering birds or something.

I can empathize. As we age, it doesn't get any better. I can type it slower if you want.

 

[ATM]

I can empathize. As we age, it doesn't get any better. I can type it slower if you want.

Slow chattering birds are actually worse. Don't worry, I got the practical part.

 

[printcraft]

Is This President Obama's Parting Shot at Gun Owners? | Fox Business

The fear was that it would use an overly broad classification system like the much-criticized one the VA uses, and though the SSA has significantly narrowed the scope of its rules, it still denies benefit recipients adequate due process by taking away their rights without any sort of administrative hearing and requiring them to petition to have them restored. Equally problematic is that it may cause people to avoid seeking the help they need for mental health problems due to fear of losing their rights to own or buy a firearm.

 

[foszoe]

Is This President Obama's Parting Shot at Gun Owners? | Fox Business

What does it take to remove a rule?

 

[gregr]

Some people scare the crap out of me. How can some be so quick to throw someone else's God Given Right out the window? I'm much more scared of people who takes their's and someone else's God Given Rights so carelessly than I am of a armed felon.