House Votes To Overturn Obama Rule Restricting Gun Sales To the Severely Mentally Ill

[Iceweasel]

It seems some of the left wing bellowing herd on this thread haven't bothered to read it and are still spouting false information. Your points were disproved pages ago but it seems repetition is needed for the mentally deficient liars of the left. From Pupps' post 126...again

The ACLU disagrees with you and favors repeal of the rule for the reasons I mentioned earlier in the thread.

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdf

Your source is also wrong concerning being legally declared incompetent as a requirement to be put on the list. It is not, it is triggered merely by having your SS check go to someone other than the recipient. As follows per the ACLU:

In December 2016, the SSA promulgated a final rule that would require the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients – who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits – be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is used during gun purchases.
We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence. The rule further demonstrates the damaging phenomenon of “spread,” or the perception that a disabled individual with one area of impairment automatically has additional, negative and unrelated attributes. Here, the rule automatically conflates one disability-related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm.

The rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the SSA’s transmittal of names to the NICS database. The determination by SSA line staff that a beneficiary needs a representative payee to manage their money benefit is simply not an “adjudication” in any ordinary meaning of the word. Nor is it a determination that the person “[l]acks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs” as required by the NICS. Indeed, the law and the SSA clearly state that representative payees are appointed for many individuals who are legally competent.

Oh, I read it alright. You misrepresent what it says. And the ACLU is wrong on this one. That should not be surprising to you righties. For instance, from your link that you claim was not read.

who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits

So, there is no argument here. We are talking about people with a mental impairment that prevents them from being able to adequately handle their finances. If they show up at a jewelry store and purchases a big fat diamond for Vanna White, well the store has to take it back. If they show up at a furniture store and purchase a whole house of furniture, when the custodian gets wind of it the purchase is canceled, no penalty, it is the LAW. Honestly, they can waltz in to a gun store and purchase all the guns they want. When the custodian gets wind of it, the gun store has to take the guns back and refund all the money.

So, why should this person's name not be in the NICS database? The sale would most likely be voided after the custodian finds out. Hardly believe the purchase of a gun would qualify as a needed expense. Definitely going to be flagged when the Department of Social Services reviews the expenditures. Seems even the gun store owner would want that protection. Otherwise, the sale is going to be a huge waste of time.

And the "due process" argument of the ACLU is futile. Nobody is randomly assigned a representative payee. The beneficiary can nominate whomever they like. They can change their representative whenever they like. If they don't believe they should be assigned a representative payee they can appeal the decision, in other words, "adjudicate". If they believe they no longer need a representative payee they can file a motion and once again, have it "adjudicated".

STEWPYD.

The NCIS doesn't track sales or know what the fuck you're buying, only that you haven't had a problem. Stwpyd is right. Go get some basic info instead of pontificating and pulling scenarios out of your ass.

Nope, the NCIS doesn't track sales or know what the fuck someone is buying. But, Social Services DOES TRACK PURCHASES made through a Representative Payee Account. Reports have to be filed. Purchases have to be justified. A gun requiring a permit would not be justified. The gun would be returned, the gun store owner would be required to refund the entire purchase price and more than likely get a dressing down for conducting a financial transaction with a mentally incompetent individual.

So tell me, why should this person's name not be in the database?

Guns don't require permits to own in almost all of America. Where the rest of your shit comes from was already mentioned.

 

[Winston]

It seems some of the left wing bellowing herd on this thread haven't bothered to read it and are still spouting false information. Your points were disproved pages ago but it seems repetition is needed for the mentally deficient liars of the left. From Pupps' post 126...again

The ACLU disagrees with you and favors repeal of the rule for the reasons I mentioned earlier in the thread.

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdf

Your source is also wrong concerning being legally declared incompetent as a requirement to be put on the list. It is not, it is triggered merely by having your SS check go to someone other than the recipient. As follows per the ACLU:

In December 2016, the SSA promulgated a final rule that would require the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients – who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits – be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is used during gun purchases.
We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence. The rule further demonstrates the damaging phenomenon of “spread,” or the perception that a disabled individual with one area of impairment automatically has additional, negative and unrelated attributes. Here, the rule automatically conflates one disability-related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm.

The rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the SSA’s transmittal of names to the NICS database. The determination by SSA line staff that a beneficiary needs a representative payee to manage their money benefit is simply not an “adjudication” in any ordinary meaning of the word. Nor is it a determination that the person “[l]acks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs” as required by the NICS. Indeed, the law and the SSA clearly state that representative payees are appointed for many individuals who are legally competent.

Oh, I read it alright. You misrepresent what it says. And the ACLU is wrong on this one. That should not be surprising to you righties. For instance, from your link that you claim was not read.

who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits

So, there is no argument here. We are talking about people with a mental impairment that prevents them from being able to adequately handle their finances. If they show up at a jewelry store and purchases a big fat diamond for Vanna White, well the store has to take it back. If they show up at a furniture store and purchase a whole house of furniture, when the custodian gets wind of it the purchase is canceled, no penalty, it is the LAW. Honestly, they can waltz in to a gun store and purchase all the guns they want. When the custodian gets wind of it, the gun store has to take the guns back and refund all the money.

So, why should this person's name not be in the NICS database? The sale would most likely be voided after the custodian finds out. Hardly believe the purchase of a gun would qualify as a needed expense. Definitely going to be flagged when the Department of Social Services reviews the expenditures. Seems even the gun store owner would want that protection. Otherwise, the sale is going to be a huge waste of time.

And the "due process" argument of the ACLU is futile. Nobody is randomly assigned a representative payee. The beneficiary can nominate whomever they like. They can change their representative whenever they like. If they don't believe they should be assigned a representative payee they can appeal the decision, in other words, "adjudicate". If they believe they no longer need a representative payee they can file a motion and once again, have it "adjudicated".

So, in short. The people on this list CAN legally own a gun. They cannot legally buy a gun, or a diamond ring, or a house of furniture, or about damn near anything else without the approval of their custodian subject to review by Social Services. Since they can't legally buy a gun their name should be placed on the NICS database.

What do we get if we don't put their name on the database? Can the individuals now buy a gun legally? No. Again, the only thing that is protected is the gun dealers right to remain ignorant. And the only thing that accomplishes is providing a loophole within our system in which a legally determined mentally incompetent person can gain temporary access to a gun by making an illegal purchase through an unknowing gun dealer.

STEWPYD.

And you are wrong...this is still just an attempt to grab guns as a last minute thrill for obama....since this is not a problem in our country........and it scoops up people who are not dangerous and denies them their right to own and use a gun for self defense.....

At this point, this far in the thread, and still clutching on to that bit of alternative facts, you are being willfully ignorant. Why not spend a few moments investigating just what a Representative Payee within the Social Security program really is, how it works, how they are assigned, what they can spend money on and what they can't. I mean this whole uproar is really beyond stewpyd. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is paying any attention at all. This Trump administration is a bunch of bumbling idiots way out of their element. No way in hell they should have reversed this policy. It was an NRA power play, a probe, a test. Now they know they can do whatever the hell they want to do. Mostly because of WILLFUL IGNORANCE.

Hey genius...please...tell us exactly how many of these people covered by this law were shooting up public places.....that would be a big help....since they aren't the ones using guns to murder people....and the ones who are....are between 15 and 25.....in democrat neighborhoods........a law that did nothing but scoop up the guns of innocent people ...simply because obama is a spiteful child.....

Well genius, the VA has been using the exact same criteria since 1993. Yep, if your VA benefits go to a representative payee your name gets sent to the NICS database and you can't buy a gun. Where the FUCK were all you assholes the last twenty five damn years? Why the FUCK were you not screaming about crazy veterans not being able to buy a gun?

And wait, this action doesn't stop the VA from sending the information to the NICS. Nope, veterans, trained with weapons, probably been shot at, most certainly knows how dangerous guns can be, that have been determined mentally incapable of managing their finances still get their names place on the list. It is the people with no military background, no training whatsoever, possibly crazier than a shithouse rat but at least deemed incapable of handling their finances, that you are fighting to keep their name on the list.

Yeah, beyond stupid.

 

[2aguy]

It seems some of the left wing bellowing herd on this thread haven't bothered to read it and are still spouting false information. Your points were disproved pages ago but it seems repetition is needed for the mentally deficient liars of the left. From Pupps' post 126...again

The ACLU disagrees with you and favors repeal of the rule for the reasons I mentioned earlier in the thread.

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdf

Your source is also wrong concerning being legally declared incompetent as a requirement to be put on the list. It is not, it is triggered merely by having your SS check go to someone other than the recipient. As follows per the ACLU:

In December 2016, the SSA promulgated a final rule that would require the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients – who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits – be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is used during gun purchases.
We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence. The rule further demonstrates the damaging phenomenon of “spread,” or the perception that a disabled individual with one area of impairment automatically has additional, negative and unrelated attributes. Here, the rule automatically conflates one disability-related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm.

The rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the SSA’s transmittal of names to the NICS database. The determination by SSA line staff that a beneficiary needs a representative payee to manage their money benefit is simply not an “adjudication” in any ordinary meaning of the word. Nor is it a determination that the person “[l]acks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs” as required by the NICS. Indeed, the law and the SSA clearly state that representative payees are appointed for many individuals who are legally competent.

Oh, I read it alright. You misrepresent what it says. And the ACLU is wrong on this one. That should not be surprising to you righties. For instance, from your link that you claim was not read.

who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits

So, there is no argument here. We are talking about people with a mental impairment that prevents them from being able to adequately handle their finances. If they show up at a jewelry store and purchases a big fat diamond for Vanna White, well the store has to take it back. If they show up at a furniture store and purchase a whole house of furniture, when the custodian gets wind of it the purchase is canceled, no penalty, it is the LAW. Honestly, they can waltz in to a gun store and purchase all the guns they want. When the custodian gets wind of it, the gun store has to take the guns back and refund all the money.

So, why should this person's name not be in the NICS database? The sale would most likely be voided after the custodian finds out. Hardly believe the purchase of a gun would qualify as a needed expense. Definitely going to be flagged when the Department of Social Services reviews the expenditures. Seems even the gun store owner would want that protection. Otherwise, the sale is going to be a huge waste of time.

And the "due process" argument of the ACLU is futile. Nobody is randomly assigned a representative payee. The beneficiary can nominate whomever they like. They can change their representative whenever they like. If they don't believe they should be assigned a representative payee they can appeal the decision, in other words, "adjudicate". If they believe they no longer need a representative payee they can file a motion and once again, have it "adjudicated".

So, in short. The people on this list CAN legally own a gun. They cannot legally buy a gun, or a diamond ring, or a house of furniture, or about damn near anything else without the approval of their custodian subject to review by Social Services. Since they can't legally buy a gun their name should be placed on the NICS database.

What do we get if we don't put their name on the database? Can the individuals now buy a gun legally? No. Again, the only thing that is protected is the gun dealers right to remain ignorant. And the only thing that accomplishes is providing a loophole within our system in which a legally determined mentally incompetent person can gain temporary access to a gun by making an illegal purchase through an unknowing gun dealer.

STEWPYD.

And you are wrong...this is still just an attempt to grab guns as a last minute thrill for obama....since this is not a problem in our country........and it scoops up people who are not dangerous and denies them their right to own and use a gun for self defense.....

At this point, this far in the thread, and still clutching on to that bit of alternative facts, you are being willfully ignorant. Why not spend a few moments investigating just what a Representative Payee within the Social Security program really is, how it works, how they are assigned, what they can spend money on and what they can't. I mean this whole uproar is really beyond stewpyd. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is paying any attention at all. This Trump administration is a bunch of bumbling idiots way out of their element. No way in hell they should have reversed this policy. It was an NRA power play, a probe, a test. Now they know they can do whatever the hell they want to do. Mostly because of WILLFUL IGNORANCE.

Hey genius...please...tell us exactly how many of these people covered by this law were shooting up public places.....that would be a big help....since they aren't the ones using guns to murder people....and the ones who are....are between 15 and 25.....in democrat neighborhoods........a law that did nothing but scoop up the guns of innocent people ...simply because obama is a spiteful child.....

Well genius, the VA has been using the exact same criteria since 1993. Yep, if your VA benefits go to a representative payee your name gets sent to the NICS database and you can't buy a gun. Where the FUCK were all you assholes the last twenty five damn years? Why the FUCK were you not screaming about crazy veterans not being able to buy a gun?

And wait, this action doesn't stop the VA from sending the information to the NICS. Nope, veterans, trained with weapons, probably been shot at, most certainly knows how dangerous guns can be, that have been determined mentally incapable of managing their finances still get their names place on the list. It is the people with no military background, no training whatsoever, possibly crazier than a shithouse rat but at least deemed incapable of handling their finances, that you are fighting to keep their name on the list.

Yeah, beyond stupid.

And how many veterans are responsible for gun murder? Moron.

 

[Winston]

It seems some of the left wing bellowing herd on this thread haven't bothered to read it and are still spouting false information. Your points were disproved pages ago but it seems repetition is needed for the mentally deficient liars of the left. From Pupps' post 126...again

The ACLU disagrees with you and favors repeal of the rule for the reasons I mentioned earlier in the thread.

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdf

Your source is also wrong concerning being legally declared incompetent as a requirement to be put on the list. It is not, it is triggered merely by having your SS check go to someone other than the recipient. As follows per the ACLU:

In December 2016, the SSA promulgated a final rule that would require the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients – who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits – be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is used during gun purchases.
We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence. The rule further demonstrates the damaging phenomenon of “spread,” or the perception that a disabled individual with one area of impairment automatically has additional, negative and unrelated attributes. Here, the rule automatically conflates one disability-related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm.

The rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the SSA’s transmittal of names to the NICS database. The determination by SSA line staff that a beneficiary needs a representative payee to manage their money benefit is simply not an “adjudication” in any ordinary meaning of the word. Nor is it a determination that the person “[l]acks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs” as required by the NICS. Indeed, the law and the SSA clearly state that representative payees are appointed for many individuals who are legally competent.

Oh, I read it alright. You misrepresent what it says. And the ACLU is wrong on this one. That should not be surprising to you righties. For instance, from your link that you claim was not read.

who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits

So, there is no argument here. We are talking about people with a mental impairment that prevents them from being able to adequately handle their finances. If they show up at a jewelry store and purchases a big fat diamond for Vanna White, well the store has to take it back. If they show up at a furniture store and purchase a whole house of furniture, when the custodian gets wind of it the purchase is canceled, no penalty, it is the LAW. Honestly, they can waltz in to a gun store and purchase all the guns they want. When the custodian gets wind of it, the gun store has to take the guns back and refund all the money.

So, why should this person's name not be in the NICS database? The sale would most likely be voided after the custodian finds out. Hardly believe the purchase of a gun would qualify as a needed expense. Definitely going to be flagged when the Department of Social Services reviews the expenditures. Seems even the gun store owner would want that protection. Otherwise, the sale is going to be a huge waste of time.

And the "due process" argument of the ACLU is futile. Nobody is randomly assigned a representative payee. The beneficiary can nominate whomever they like. They can change their representative whenever they like. If they don't believe they should be assigned a representative payee they can appeal the decision, in other words, "adjudicate". If they believe they no longer need a representative payee they can file a motion and once again, have it "adjudicated".

STEWPYD.

The NCIS doesn't track sales or know what the fuck you're buying, only that you haven't had a problem. Stwpyd is right. Go get some basic info instead of pontificating and pulling scenarios out of your ass.

Nope, the NCIS doesn't track sales or know what the fuck someone is buying. But, Social Services DOES TRACK PURCHASES made through a Representative Payee Account. Reports have to be filed. Purchases have to be justified. A gun requiring a permit would not be justified. The gun would be returned, the gun store owner would be required to refund the entire purchase price and more than likely get a dressing down for conducting a financial transaction with a mentally incompetent individual.

So tell me, why should this person's name not be in the database?

Guns don't require permits to own in almost all of America. Where the rest of your shit comes from was already mentioned.

Who said anything about owning. The people this pertains to can own all the guns they want. I already said that. They just can't buy them if it requires a permit. I even admitted they could buy a shotgun or rifle. Hell, they could buy a handgun at a gun show or from a private individual. Why is it that, even though they can't legally buy a gun requiring a permit, you want their name removed from a database of people that, wait for it, CAN'T LEGALLY BUY A GUN REQUIRING A PERMIT? How the hell does that make sense?

 

[Winston]

Oh, I read it alright. You misrepresent what it says. And the ACLU is wrong on this one. That should not be surprising to you righties. For instance, from your link that you claim was not read.

So, there is no argument here. We are talking about people with a mental impairment that prevents them from being able to adequately handle their finances. If they show up at a jewelry store and purchases a big fat diamond for Vanna White, well the store has to take it back. If they show up at a furniture store and purchase a whole house of furniture, when the custodian gets wind of it the purchase is canceled, no penalty, it is the LAW. Honestly, they can waltz in to a gun store and purchase all the guns they want. When the custodian gets wind of it, the gun store has to take the guns back and refund all the money.

So, why should this person's name not be in the NICS database? The sale would most likely be voided after the custodian finds out. Hardly believe the purchase of a gun would qualify as a needed expense. Definitely going to be flagged when the Department of Social Services reviews the expenditures. Seems even the gun store owner would want that protection. Otherwise, the sale is going to be a huge waste of time.

And the "due process" argument of the ACLU is futile. Nobody is randomly assigned a representative payee. The beneficiary can nominate whomever they like. They can change their representative whenever they like. If they don't believe they should be assigned a representative payee they can appeal the decision, in other words, "adjudicate". If they believe they no longer need a representative payee they can file a motion and once again, have it "adjudicated".

So, in short. The people on this list CAN legally own a gun. They cannot legally buy a gun, or a diamond ring, or a house of furniture, or about damn near anything else without the approval of their custodian subject to review by Social Services. Since they can't legally buy a gun their name should be placed on the NICS database.

What do we get if we don't put their name on the database? Can the individuals now buy a gun legally? No. Again, the only thing that is protected is the gun dealers right to remain ignorant. And the only thing that accomplishes is providing a loophole within our system in which a legally determined mentally incompetent person can gain temporary access to a gun by making an illegal purchase through an unknowing gun dealer.

STEWPYD.

And you are wrong...this is still just an attempt to grab guns as a last minute thrill for obama....since this is not a problem in our country........and it scoops up people who are not dangerous and denies them their right to own and use a gun for self defense.....

At this point, this far in the thread, and still clutching on to that bit of alternative facts, you are being willfully ignorant. Why not spend a few moments investigating just what a Representative Payee within the Social Security program really is, how it works, how they are assigned, what they can spend money on and what they can't. I mean this whole uproar is really beyond stewpyd. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is paying any attention at all. This Trump administration is a bunch of bumbling idiots way out of their element. No way in hell they should have reversed this policy. It was an NRA power play, a probe, a test. Now they know they can do whatever the hell they want to do. Mostly because of WILLFUL IGNORANCE.

Hey genius...please...tell us exactly how many of these people covered by this law were shooting up public places.....that would be a big help....since they aren't the ones using guns to murder people....and the ones who are....are between 15 and 25.....in democrat neighborhoods........a law that did nothing but scoop up the guns of innocent people ...simply because obama is a spiteful child.....

Well genius, the VA has been using the exact same criteria since 1993. Yep, if your VA benefits go to a representative payee your name gets sent to the NICS database and you can't buy a gun. Where the FUCK were all you assholes the last twenty five damn years? Why the FUCK were you not screaming about crazy veterans not being able to buy a gun?

And wait, this action doesn't stop the VA from sending the information to the NICS. Nope, veterans, trained with weapons, probably been shot at, most certainly knows how dangerous guns can be, that have been determined mentally incapable of managing their finances still get their names place on the list. It is the people with no military background, no training whatsoever, possibly crazier than a shithouse rat but at least deemed incapable of handling their finances, that you are fighting to keep their name on the list.

Yeah, beyond stupid.

And how many veterans are responsible for gun murder? Moron.

None, cause the ones determined mentally incapable of handling their personal finances have their names sent to the NICS database.

Dumbass.

 

[2aguy]

It seems some of the left wing bellowing herd on this thread haven't bothered to read it and are still spouting false information. Your points were disproved pages ago but it seems repetition is needed for the mentally deficient liars of the left. From Pupps' post 126...again

The ACLU disagrees with you and favors repeal of the rule for the reasons I mentioned earlier in the thread.

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdf

Your source is also wrong concerning being legally declared incompetent as a requirement to be put on the list. It is not, it is triggered merely by having your SS check go to someone other than the recipient. As follows per the ACLU:

In December 2016, the SSA promulgated a final rule that would require the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients – who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits – be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is used during gun purchases.
We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence. The rule further demonstrates the damaging phenomenon of “spread,” or the perception that a disabled individual with one area of impairment automatically has additional, negative and unrelated attributes. Here, the rule automatically conflates one disability-related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm.

The rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the SSA’s transmittal of names to the NICS database. The determination by SSA line staff that a beneficiary needs a representative payee to manage their money benefit is simply not an “adjudication” in any ordinary meaning of the word. Nor is it a determination that the person “[l]acks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs” as required by the NICS. Indeed, the law and the SSA clearly state that representative payees are appointed for many individuals who are legally competent.

Oh, I read it alright. You misrepresent what it says. And the ACLU is wrong on this one. That should not be surprising to you righties. For instance, from your link that you claim was not read.

who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits

So, there is no argument here. We are talking about people with a mental impairment that prevents them from being able to adequately handle their finances. If they show up at a jewelry store and purchases a big fat diamond for Vanna White, well the store has to take it back. If they show up at a furniture store and purchase a whole house of furniture, when the custodian gets wind of it the purchase is canceled, no penalty, it is the LAW. Honestly, they can waltz in to a gun store and purchase all the guns they want. When the custodian gets wind of it, the gun store has to take the guns back and refund all the money.

So, why should this person's name not be in the NICS database? The sale would most likely be voided after the custodian finds out. Hardly believe the purchase of a gun would qualify as a needed expense. Definitely going to be flagged when the Department of Social Services reviews the expenditures. Seems even the gun store owner would want that protection. Otherwise, the sale is going to be a huge waste of time.

And the "due process" argument of the ACLU is futile. Nobody is randomly assigned a representative payee. The beneficiary can nominate whomever they like. They can change their representative whenever they like. If they don't believe they should be assigned a representative payee they can appeal the decision, in other words, "adjudicate". If they believe they no longer need a representative payee they can file a motion and once again, have it "adjudicated".

STEWPYD.

The NCIS doesn't track sales or know what the fuck you're buying, only that you haven't had a problem. Stwpyd is right. Go get some basic info instead of pontificating and pulling scenarios out of your ass.

Nope, the NCIS doesn't track sales or know what the fuck someone is buying. But, Social Services DOES TRACK PURCHASES made through a Representative Payee Account. Reports have to be filed. Purchases have to be justified. A gun requiring a permit would not be justified. The gun would be returned, the gun store owner would be required to refund the entire purchase price and more than likely get a dressing down for conducting a financial transaction with a mentally incompetent individual.

So tell me, why should this person's name not be in the database?

Guns don't require permits to own in almost all of America. Where the rest of your shit comes from was already mentioned.

Who said anything about owning. The people this pertains to can own all the guns they want. I already said that. They just can't buy them if it requires a permit. I even admitted they could buy a shotgun or rifle. Hell, they could buy a handgun at a gun show or from a private individual. Why is it that, even though they can't legally buy a gun requiring a permit, you want their name removed from a database of people that, wait for it, CAN'T LEGALLY BUY A GUN REQUIRING A PERMIT? How the hell does that make sense?

Because...asswipe........you have failed to show that they are dangerous to themselves or others......and simply banning them because you can is not a reason to take away someones rights.....

 

[2aguy]

And you are wrong...this is still just an attempt to grab guns as a last minute thrill for obama....since this is not a problem in our country........and it scoops up people who are not dangerous and denies them their right to own and use a gun for self defense.....

At this point, this far in the thread, and still clutching on to that bit of alternative facts, you are being willfully ignorant. Why not spend a few moments investigating just what a Representative Payee within the Social Security program really is, how it works, how they are assigned, what they can spend money on and what they can't. I mean this whole uproar is really beyond stewpyd. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is paying any attention at all. This Trump administration is a bunch of bumbling idiots way out of their element. No way in hell they should have reversed this policy. It was an NRA power play, a probe, a test. Now they know they can do whatever the hell they want to do. Mostly because of WILLFUL IGNORANCE.

Hey genius...please...tell us exactly how many of these people covered by this law were shooting up public places.....that would be a big help....since they aren't the ones using guns to murder people....and the ones who are....are between 15 and 25.....in democrat neighborhoods........a law that did nothing but scoop up the guns of innocent people ...simply because obama is a spiteful child.....

Well genius, the VA has been using the exact same criteria since 1993. Yep, if your VA benefits go to a representative payee your name gets sent to the NICS database and you can't buy a gun. Where the FUCK were all you assholes the last twenty five damn years? Why the FUCK were you not screaming about crazy veterans not being able to buy a gun?

And wait, this action doesn't stop the VA from sending the information to the NICS. Nope, veterans, trained with weapons, probably been shot at, most certainly knows how dangerous guns can be, that have been determined mentally incapable of managing their finances still get their names place on the list. It is the people with no military background, no training whatsoever, possibly crazier than a shithouse rat but at least deemed incapable of handling their finances, that you are fighting to keep their name on the list.

Yeah, beyond stupid.

And how many veterans are responsible for gun murder? Moron.

None, cause the ones determined mentally incapable of handling their personal finances have their names sent to the NICS database.

Dumbass.

Right....you are a fucking moron............if they are so dangerous to others they can get guns if they want them......if fact, they may even already have a stockpile of guns....making your point stupid....

Again....why should they be put on that list if they are not dangerous to themselves or others?

 

[Iceweasel]

It seems some of the left wing bellowing herd on this thread haven't bothered to read it and are still spouting false information. Your points were disproved pages ago but it seems repetition is needed for the mentally deficient liars of the left. From Pupps' post 126...again

The ACLU disagrees with you and favors repeal of the rule for the reasons I mentioned earlier in the thread.

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdf

Your source is also wrong concerning being legally declared incompetent as a requirement to be put on the list. It is not, it is triggered merely by having your SS check go to someone other than the recipient. As follows per the ACLU:

In December 2016, the SSA promulgated a final rule that would require the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients – who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits – be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is used during gun purchases.
We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence. The rule further demonstrates the damaging phenomenon of “spread,” or the perception that a disabled individual with one area of impairment automatically has additional, negative and unrelated attributes. Here, the rule automatically conflates one disability-related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm.

The rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the SSA’s transmittal of names to the NICS database. The determination by SSA line staff that a beneficiary needs a representative payee to manage their money benefit is simply not an “adjudication” in any ordinary meaning of the word. Nor is it a determination that the person “[l]acks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs” as required by the NICS. Indeed, the law and the SSA clearly state that representative payees are appointed for many individuals who are legally competent.

Oh, I read it alright. You misrepresent what it says. And the ACLU is wrong on this one. That should not be surprising to you righties. For instance, from your link that you claim was not read.

who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits

So, there is no argument here. We are talking about people with a mental impairment that prevents them from being able to adequately handle their finances. If they show up at a jewelry store and purchases a big fat diamond for Vanna White, well the store has to take it back. If they show up at a furniture store and purchase a whole house of furniture, when the custodian gets wind of it the purchase is canceled, no penalty, it is the LAW. Honestly, they can waltz in to a gun store and purchase all the guns they want. When the custodian gets wind of it, the gun store has to take the guns back and refund all the money.

So, why should this person's name not be in the NICS database? The sale would most likely be voided after the custodian finds out. Hardly believe the purchase of a gun would qualify as a needed expense. Definitely going to be flagged when the Department of Social Services reviews the expenditures. Seems even the gun store owner would want that protection. Otherwise, the sale is going to be a huge waste of time.

And the "due process" argument of the ACLU is futile. Nobody is randomly assigned a representative payee. The beneficiary can nominate whomever they like. They can change their representative whenever they like. If they don't believe they should be assigned a representative payee they can appeal the decision, in other words, "adjudicate". If they believe they no longer need a representative payee they can file a motion and once again, have it "adjudicated".

STEWPYD.

The NCIS doesn't track sales or know what the fuck you're buying, only that you haven't had a problem. Stwpyd is right. Go get some basic info instead of pontificating and pulling scenarios out of your ass.

Nope, the NCIS doesn't track sales or know what the fuck someone is buying. But, Social Services DOES TRACK PURCHASES made through a Representative Payee Account. Reports have to be filed. Purchases have to be justified. A gun requiring a permit would not be justified. The gun would be returned, the gun store owner would be required to refund the entire purchase price and more than likely get a dressing down for conducting a financial transaction with a mentally incompetent individual.

So tell me, why should this person's name not be in the database?

Guns don't require permits to own in almost all of America. Where the rest of your shit comes from was already mentioned.

Who said anything about owning. The people this pertains to can own all the guns they want. I already said that. They just can't buy them if it requires a permit. I even admitted they could buy a shotgun or rifle. Hell, they could buy a handgun at a gun show or from a private individual. Why is it that, even though they can't legally buy a gun requiring a permit, you want their name removed from a database of people that, wait for it, CAN'T LEGALLY BUY A GUN REQUIRING A PERMIT? How the hell does that make sense?

You did. You said purchasing. Do you know basic English? And wtf permit are you yammering on about? Nothing you say makes sense.

 

[Winston]

At this point, this far in the thread, and still clutching on to that bit of alternative facts, you are being willfully ignorant. Why not spend a few moments investigating just what a Representative Payee within the Social Security program really is, how it works, how they are assigned, what they can spend money on and what they can't. I mean this whole uproar is really beyond stewpyd. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is paying any attention at all. This Trump administration is a bunch of bumbling idiots way out of their element. No way in hell they should have reversed this policy. It was an NRA power play, a probe, a test. Now they know they can do whatever the hell they want to do. Mostly because of WILLFUL IGNORANCE.

Hey genius...please...tell us exactly how many of these people covered by this law were shooting up public places.....that would be a big help....since they aren't the ones using guns to murder people....and the ones who are....are between 15 and 25.....in democrat neighborhoods........a law that did nothing but scoop up the guns of innocent people ...simply because obama is a spiteful child.....

Well genius, the VA has been using the exact same criteria since 1993. Yep, if your VA benefits go to a representative payee your name gets sent to the NICS database and you can't buy a gun. Where the FUCK were all you assholes the last twenty five damn years? Why the FUCK were you not screaming about crazy veterans not being able to buy a gun?

And wait, this action doesn't stop the VA from sending the information to the NICS. Nope, veterans, trained with weapons, probably been shot at, most certainly knows how dangerous guns can be, that have been determined mentally incapable of managing their finances still get their names place on the list. It is the people with no military background, no training whatsoever, possibly crazier than a shithouse rat but at least deemed incapable of handling their finances, that you are fighting to keep their name on the list.

Yeah, beyond stupid.

And how many veterans are responsible for gun murder? Moron.

None, cause the ones determined mentally incapable of handling their personal finances have their names sent to the NICS database.

Dumbass.

Right....you are a fucking moron............if they are so dangerous to others they can get guns if they want them......if fact, they may even already have a stockpile of guns....making your point stupid....

Again....why should they be put on that list if they are not dangerous to themselves or others?

Yes, they can get guns if they want to.

Yes, they can own all the guns they want.

But, they cannot LEGALLY BUY A GUN REQUIRING A PERMIT.

How hard is that to understand? They probably can't legally buy a gun period, I only quantify it with requiring a permit because they might live in bear country and everyone knows you need a gun in bear country.

So yeah, their name should probably be on a list of people that can't legally buy a gun requiring a permit. Afterall, the NICS database is not a list of people that might be dangerous to themselves or others. It is a list of people, like convicted felons, that can't legally purchase a firearm requiring a permit.

And tell me, why were you not bitching about the policy at the VA. They have been doing it since the Brady Act. They did it all through the Bush administration. Why is it not a problem when we utilize this policy with those collecting VA benefits but not those collecting SSI?

 

[Winston]

Oh, I read it alright. You misrepresent what it says. And the ACLU is wrong on this one. That should not be surprising to you righties. For instance, from your link that you claim was not read.

So, there is no argument here. We are talking about people with a mental impairment that prevents them from being able to adequately handle their finances. If they show up at a jewelry store and purchases a big fat diamond for Vanna White, well the store has to take it back. If they show up at a furniture store and purchase a whole house of furniture, when the custodian gets wind of it the purchase is canceled, no penalty, it is the LAW. Honestly, they can waltz in to a gun store and purchase all the guns they want. When the custodian gets wind of it, the gun store has to take the guns back and refund all the money.

So, why should this person's name not be in the NICS database? The sale would most likely be voided after the custodian finds out. Hardly believe the purchase of a gun would qualify as a needed expense. Definitely going to be flagged when the Department of Social Services reviews the expenditures. Seems even the gun store owner would want that protection. Otherwise, the sale is going to be a huge waste of time.

And the "due process" argument of the ACLU is futile. Nobody is randomly assigned a representative payee. The beneficiary can nominate whomever they like. They can change their representative whenever they like. If they don't believe they should be assigned a representative payee they can appeal the decision, in other words, "adjudicate". If they believe they no longer need a representative payee they can file a motion and once again, have it "adjudicated".

STEWPYD.

The NCIS doesn't track sales or know what the fuck you're buying, only that you haven't had a problem. Stwpyd is right. Go get some basic info instead of pontificating and pulling scenarios out of your ass.

Nope, the NCIS doesn't track sales or know what the fuck someone is buying. But, Social Services DOES TRACK PURCHASES made through a Representative Payee Account. Reports have to be filed. Purchases have to be justified. A gun requiring a permit would not be justified. The gun would be returned, the gun store owner would be required to refund the entire purchase price and more than likely get a dressing down for conducting a financial transaction with a mentally incompetent individual.

So tell me, why should this person's name not be in the database?

Guns don't require permits to own in almost all of America. Where the rest of your shit comes from was already mentioned.

Who said anything about owning. The people this pertains to can own all the guns they want. I already said that. They just can't buy them if it requires a permit. I even admitted they could buy a shotgun or rifle. Hell, they could buy a handgun at a gun show or from a private individual. Why is it that, even though they can't legally buy a gun requiring a permit, you want their name removed from a database of people that, wait for it, CAN'T LEGALLY BUY A GUN REQUIRING A PERMIT? How the hell does that make sense?

You did. You said purchasing. Do you know basic English? And wtf permit are you yammering on about? Nothing you say makes sense.

Must be the echo. Try pulling your head out of your ass.

 

[2aguy]

Hey genius...please...tell us exactly how many of these people covered by this law were shooting up public places.....that would be a big help....since they aren't the ones using guns to murder people....and the ones who are....are between 15 and 25.....in democrat neighborhoods........a law that did nothing but scoop up the guns of innocent people ...simply because obama is a spiteful child.....

Well genius, the VA has been using the exact same criteria since 1993. Yep, if your VA benefits go to a representative payee your name gets sent to the NICS database and you can't buy a gun. Where the FUCK were all you assholes the last twenty five damn years? Why the FUCK were you not screaming about crazy veterans not being able to buy a gun?

And wait, this action doesn't stop the VA from sending the information to the NICS. Nope, veterans, trained with weapons, probably been shot at, most certainly knows how dangerous guns can be, that have been determined mentally incapable of managing their finances still get their names place on the list. It is the people with no military background, no training whatsoever, possibly crazier than a shithouse rat but at least deemed incapable of handling their finances, that you are fighting to keep their name on the list.

Yeah, beyond stupid.

And how many veterans are responsible for gun murder? Moron.

None, cause the ones determined mentally incapable of handling their personal finances have their names sent to the NICS database.

Dumbass.

Right....you are a fucking moron............if they are so dangerous to others they can get guns if they want them......if fact, they may even already have a stockpile of guns....making your point stupid....

Again....why should they be put on that list if they are not dangerous to themselves or others?

Yes, they can get guns if they want to.

Yes, they can own all the guns they want.

But, they cannot LEGALLY BUY A GUN REQUIRING A PERMIT.

How hard is that to understand? They probably can't legally buy a gun period, I only quantify it with requiring a permit because they might live in bear country and everyone knows you need a gun in bear country.

So yeah, their name should probably be on a list of people that can't legally buy a gun requiring a permit. Afterall, the NICS database is not a list of people that might be dangerous to themselves or others. It is a list of people, like convicted felons, that can't legally purchase a firearm requiring a permit.

And tell me, why were you not bitching about the policy at the VA. They have been doing it since the Brady Act. They did it all through the Bush administration. Why is it not a problem when we utilize this policy with those collecting VA benefits but not those collecting SSI?

Moron.......the anti gunners also want universal background checks...so they won't be able to buy any gun and you just pointed out a reason why they should be allowed to buy a gun....

You just have some hang up with Permits.......you have crossed the line to the insanity of gun grabbers....


How hard is that to understand? They probably can't legally buy a gun period, I only quantify it with requiring a permit because they might live in bear country and everyone knows you need a gun in bear country.

This is why we don't trust gun grabbers like you...you are not rational....

 

[whitehall]

Nobody seems to want to flag Veterans who receive a pension for PTSD so how in the world can we trust the gigantic federal social security administration to keep the records straight on who is mentally incompetent when they can't seem to keep ordinary records straight on a good day? Isn't there a better way like requiring psychiatrists who treat mentally disturbed people to report the names to the state just like other members of the medical fraternity are required to report gunshot victims?

 

[2aguy]

Nobody seems to want to flag Veterans who receive a pension for PTSD so how in the world can we trust the gigantic federal social security administration to keep the records straight on who is mentally incompetent when they can't seem to keep ordinary records straight on a good day? Isn't there a better way like requiring psychiatrists who treat mentally disturbed people to report the names to the state just like other members of the medical fraternity are required to report gunshot victims?

They want to do this in Britain...but the Psychologists there are concerned about being sued if they fail to name the right people....

 

[whitehall]

Charging the gigantic Social Security bureaucracy with determining the mental stability of persons applying to purchase a firearm is an (pardon the pun) insane idea but typical of the Obama administration. Pass the buck to Social Security and walk away from the problem and pretend it's solved when it merely opens a brand new level of craziness. Va. Tech Blacksburg must have a great press agent because almost nobody remembers the worst school shooting in history. A Korean born maniac who was under court ordered psychiatry treatment got away with purchasing a number of firearms because the liberal faction in the state thought that his right to privacy for mental health issues trumped the safety of society. I'm sure Americans would be satisfied if anyone who underwent court ordered psychiatric counseling was flagged from purchasing a weapon and anyone who was adjudged mental incompetent in place of a criminal conviction was prevented from purchasing a firearm. These things are easy to check but often meet resistance from the left.

 

[2aguy]

Charging the gigantic Social Security bureaucracy with determining the mental stability of persons applying to purchase a firearm is an (pardon the pun) insane idea but typical of the Obama administration. Pass the buck to Social Security and walk away from the problem and pretend it's solved when it merely opens a brand new level of craziness. Va. Tech Blacksburg must have a great press agent because almost nobody remembers the worst school shooting in history. A Korean born maniac who was under court ordered psychiatry treatment got away with purchasing a number of firearms because the liberal faction in the state thought that his right to privacy for mental health issues trumped the safety of society. I'm sure Americans would be satisfied if anyone who underwent court ordered psychiatric counseling was flagged from purchasing a weapon and anyone who was adjudged mental incompetent in place of a criminal conviction was prevented from purchasing a firearm. These things are easy to check but often meet resistance from the left.

He did it through the social security administration because it is safer and easier than trying to pass a gun ban through congress......

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

This is seriously fucked up.


House Votes To Overturn Obama Rule Restricting Gun Sales To the Severely Mentally Ill

According to NPR's Susan Davis, the measure being blocked from implementation would have required the Social Security Administration to send records of some beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. About 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs would have been affected.


The National Rifle Association had pushed for the repeal, and Republicans argued it infringed upon Second Amendment rights by denying due process.


Supporters of the rule argued it was designed to stop mentally ill persons from getting firearms.


"The House charged ahead with an extreme, hastily written, one-sided measure that would make the American people less safe," Rep. Elizabeth Esty, D-Conn., said, according to The Hill. Esty represents Newtown, Conn., where a mentally ill man shot and killed 20 six- and seven-year-olds and six adults.

As it was written, it was too broad and took away rights from people who posed no danger. People have a right to protect themselves and this law was intended to strip rights on a wide scale. And the left found ways to paint everyone as mentally ill. Depressed over the loss of a loved one? You're mentally unstable.

I wonder if all those rioters in the streets who are beating up innocent people and calling for a bloody revolution should have their rights denied. They are the problem with society, along with the gangs and other scum.

Ignorance. It is

ALREADY ILLEGAL

to sell every single person on this list a gun.

Nobody's rights are being taken away, except for the gun sellers right to remain ignorant.

How would a gun dealer know if the information that they have been adjudicated mentally deficient if it was not subject to the background check?

You gun-grabbers are arguing in circles and tripping over your own feet!

EXACTLY

Which was the reason for the NEW Obama policy of sending the names of those adjudicated mentally deficient via the Social Security representative payee program to the NICS.

Legally, they can't own a gun. Is that not information that should be available to a dealer via the NICS? If not, why not? Because rather you realize it or not, if you are opposed to this action and support Trump's order you are supporting the continued ignorance of the gun dealer. Nothing else.

If these people were adjudicated mentally deficient, it is the responsibility of the court, not the SS Administration to make that determination. The law was allowing an abuse of gun owners. True or false?

 

[Flash]

Libtards always have a very difficult time understand these four simple words:

"Shall not be infringed".

Those four words boggles the Moon Bat mind.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

This is seriously fucked up.


House Votes To Overturn Obama Rule Restricting Gun Sales To the Severely Mentally Ill

According to NPR's Susan Davis, the measure being blocked from implementation would have required the Social Security Administration to send records of some beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. About 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs would have been affected.


The National Rifle Association had pushed for the repeal, and Republicans argued it infringed upon Second Amendment rights by denying due process.


Supporters of the rule argued it was designed to stop mentally ill persons from getting firearms.


"The House charged ahead with an extreme, hastily written, one-sided measure that would make the American people less safe," Rep. Elizabeth Esty, D-Conn., said, according to The Hill. Esty represents Newtown, Conn., where a mentally ill man shot and killed 20 six- and seven-year-olds and six adults.

It is violating due process. There is no definition of what is considered severe mental disorder, it could include anyone that files for Social Security Disability for any mental reason.

Not true. Not even close to true. This order only applied to individuals receiving their Social Security benefit via a Representative Payee. Social Security assumes an adult can handle their finances, even those on a mental disability. Only after it has been PROVEN otherwise, with investigations, hearings if necessary, and after a judge signing the order if the beneficiary protests, is a Representative Payee assigned. There is even a right to appeal the decision. There is plenty of "due process" involved with making the determination that a Special Representative should be assigned.

Let's examine some examples. My father-in-law has been collecting disability since he was in his 30's. A mental disability, anxiety mostly. He has "episodes" every once in a while and has to hospitalized for a period of time. Last time he wanted me to take him to Hardees because Daniel Boone was going to be there to meet him. But he does handle his finances, even the royalties from the shale oil operations in Texas. He can legally purchase a gun.

Then there is my uncle. He too has been collecting disability since he was in his 30's. A mental disorder as well, full blown schizophrenic. He will tell you the government is snooping on him via the television a la 1984. One time he ran naked into the street with a shotgun shooting at the road crew. My mother is the custodian of the Representative Payee account. He cannot legally buy a gun. The government SHOULD provide that information to the NICS.

So, in a nutshell, what you are defending is not the right of that person with the Representative Payee account having a gun. Hell, he can legally own a gun. He just can't legally buy one. And how does it make sense that he can, hell he can't legally handle his own money. Is not part of handling that money deciding on what to buy, like a gun? Damn but you people are a bunch of flippin moronic robots receiving your orders via tweeter.

You are defending the right of the GUN SELLER to remain ignorant as to a customers inability to handle their money and LEGALLY purchase a gun. Seriously. Here is the scenario

So, my uncle busts out of the nursing home and manages to walk the mile or so to the pawn shop. He is on a mission, like the time he flew to New York to marry Vanna White. He comes in disheveled, reeking of body odor, muttering under his breath and carrying his priced 1950's era Martin D-45. He is even carrying his state ID card in his wallet. Right now, under existing law and existing guidelines, he can walk out with rifle or a shotgun. If his name is on the NICS list, like under Obama, he can't wait a bit and walk out with an AR-15. But now, well he can. He shows his ID, pawns his guitar, and waits while the background check runs. He has no criminal record, his mental health issue has all been handled privately, and now his name is not on the list, removed by Trump's order. Within a few hours he is walking out the door with his AR-15, a couple hundred rounds of ammo, and his "mission" to finally get all the people that have been spying on him.

Where is your reference to all of this crap you have been posting? It appears to be the mental meanderings of someone who should be reported to the NICS as mentally deficient because you cannot provide any support for your posts.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

No one died at Sandy Hook.

I've researched this and found this to be the likely truth of the matter.

 

[Lakhota]

Yeah, we clearly need more nuts with guns.