Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So you are changing your stance to "incapacitated" for removing self-defense rights or simply dancing around the question about parent and balancing a checkbook?So the ACLU is wrong on this one. Nobody is perfect. The difference is that I can still support the ACLU even knowing they are sometimes wrong. The good they do outweighs their mistakes. If it comes to the point where they their missteps outweigh the good they do, I won't support them. There is no reason to let crazies buy guns.
and that isn't the issue with this crappy legislation it was the fact that people who aren't actually mentally ill would have their right to own a firearm taken away at the whim of some fucking bureaucrat
Are you saying there is not a procedure to get their guns back if they aren't koo koo for coco puffs?
no I'm saying their right should not be taken away in the first place if they were not mentally ill
what if we had a law that took children away from parents because they couldn't balance a checkbook?
as long a there was a procedure to get the kids back it would be OK with you?
If the parent was so incapacitated till they had to have someone else legally assigned to look after their day to day affairs, then yes. The children should be removed until there was reason shown that the parents were capable of caring for the children.
Because President Obama wanted to prevent people who can't balance their checkbooks from the right of self-defense by owning a firearm.So you are changing your stance to "incapacitated" for removing self-defense rights or simply dancing around the question about parent and balancing a checkbook?and that isn't the issue with this crappy legislation it was the fact that people who aren't actually mentally ill would have their right to own a firearm taken away at the whim of some fucking bureaucrat
Are you saying there is not a procedure to get their guns back if they aren't koo koo for coco puffs?
no I'm saying their right should not be taken away in the first place if they were not mentally ill
what if we had a law that took children away from parents because they couldn't balance a checkbook?
as long a there was a procedure to get the kids back it would be OK with you?
If the parent was so incapacitated till they had to have someone else legally assigned to look after their day to day affairs, then yes. The children should be removed until there was reason shown that the parents were capable of caring for the children.
I'm not sure why you would want to change the subject because balancing a checkbook is not a good comparison to what was being discussed. I'm sure lots of people have problems balancing their checkbook, and they hire accountants and such to do that for them. Hiring an accountant is not the same as having a court ordered guardian responsible for the person's affairs, financial and otherwise. If a parent is not capable of attending their own affairs, (which would include the decision to hire an accountant) he is not capable of caring for children.
If one, why not the other? Same logic. People who are mentally deficient shouldn't be allowed to vote, post/write nonsense in public and shouldn't be allowed to be parents. In fact, if 3 doctors agree they are mentally deficient, then they should be sterilized for their own good and the good of the public. Amirite, BULLDOG ?So you are changing your stance to "incapacitated" for removing self-defense rights or simply dancing around the question about parent and balancing a checkbook?and that isn't the issue with this crappy legislation it was the fact that people who aren't actually mentally ill would have their right to own a firearm taken away at the whim of some fucking bureaucrat
Are you saying there is not a procedure to get their guns back if they aren't koo koo for coco puffs?
no I'm saying their right should not be taken away in the first place if they were not mentally ill
what if we had a law that took children away from parents because they couldn't balance a checkbook?
as long a there was a procedure to get the kids back it would be OK with you?
If the parent was so incapacitated till they had to have someone else legally assigned to look after their day to day affairs, then yes. The children should be removed until there was reason shown that the parents were capable of caring for the children.
I listen to Dave Ramsey as I drive around at night...his entire show is dealing with people who are trying to get out of debt...some people are in real serious debt......I wonder if not managing your finances well is a reason to strip not only gun Rights but voting and Free speech Rights?
So you are changing your stance to "incapacitated" for removing self-defense rights or simply dancing around the question about parent and balancing a checkbook?and that isn't the issue with this crappy legislation it was the fact that people who aren't actually mentally ill would have their right to own a firearm taken away at the whim of some fucking bureaucrat
Are you saying there is not a procedure to get their guns back if they aren't koo koo for coco puffs?
no I'm saying their right should not be taken away in the first place if they were not mentally ill
what if we had a law that took children away from parents because they couldn't balance a checkbook?
as long a there was a procedure to get the kids back it would be OK with you?
If the parent was so incapacitated till they had to have someone else legally assigned to look after their day to day affairs, then yes. The children should be removed until there was reason shown that the parents were capable of caring for the children.
I listen to Dave Ramsey as I drive around at night...his entire show is dealing with people who are trying to get out of debt...some people are in real serious debt......I wonder if not managing your finances well is a reason to strip not only gun Rights but voting and Free speech Rights?
So you are changing your stance to "incapacitated" for removing self-defense rights or simply dancing around the question about parent and balancing a checkbook?Are you saying there is not a procedure to get their guns back if they aren't koo koo for coco puffs?
no I'm saying their right should not be taken away in the first place if they were not mentally ill
what if we had a law that took children away from parents because they couldn't balance a checkbook?
as long a there was a procedure to get the kids back it would be OK with you?
If the parent was so incapacitated till they had to have someone else legally assigned to look after their day to day affairs, then yes. The children should be removed until there was reason shown that the parents were capable of caring for the children.
I listen to Dave Ramsey as I drive around at night...his entire show is dealing with people who are trying to get out of debt...some people are in real serious debt......I wonder if not managing your finances well is a reason to strip not only gun Rights but voting and Free speech Rights?
Ramsey is a hoot. His standard answer is " Make more money" Gee, I'll bet all the poor people in the country never thought of that. It's really impressive to hear a millionaire say that all you have to do is mow lawns, and deliver pizza, and go to church, and you too can be a millionaire in a few years.
So you agree to stop teaching chemistry, first aid, firefighting and other classes to avoid teaching "future criminals" how to be more efficient criminals?Do you also worry about "criminals/future criminals" taking driving, math or chemistry classes? What about medical classes so they can secretly patch each other up after major shootouts without having to go to a hospital? How about accounting classes so they can learn how to launder their money? How about firefighting classes so they can learn how to commit arson?Agreed to all except the comment about "innocent bystanders" since lawful shootings of innocent bystanders are so rare as to be insignificant. Most are done by criminals and even those are rare.Certainly free safety training. Perhaps include some minor marksmanship training, to cut down on innocent bystanders.
Only open to people with clean criminal records. And that includes juvie files.
Gun Facts | Gun Control Facts Concerning Accidental Gun Deaths
Myth: Innocent bystanders are often killed by guns
Fact: Less than 1% of all gun homicides involve innocent bystanders.
Murder Rates Don’t Tell Us Everything About Gun Violence
I worry about criminals/future criminals taking the class.
Criminal incompetence is a blessing, one I would regret reducing.
Because President Obama wanted to prevent people who can't balance their checkbooks from the right of self-defense by owning a firearm.So you are changing your stance to "incapacitated" for removing self-defense rights or simply dancing around the question about parent and balancing a checkbook?Are you saying there is not a procedure to get their guns back if they aren't koo koo for coco puffs?
no I'm saying their right should not be taken away in the first place if they were not mentally ill
what if we had a law that took children away from parents because they couldn't balance a checkbook?
as long a there was a procedure to get the kids back it would be OK with you?
If the parent was so incapacitated till they had to have someone else legally assigned to look after their day to day affairs, then yes. The children should be removed until there was reason shown that the parents were capable of caring for the children.
I'm not sure why you would want to change the subject because balancing a checkbook is not a good comparison to what was being discussed. I'm sure lots of people have problems balancing their checkbook, and they hire accountants and such to do that for them. Hiring an accountant is not the same as having a court ordered guardian responsible for the person's affairs, financial and otherwise. If a parent is not capable of attending their own affairs, (which would include the decision to hire an accountant) he is not capable of caring for children.
Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security
Seeking tighter controls over firearm purchases, the Obama administration is pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, a move that could affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others.
The push is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws regulating who gets reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, which is used to prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the country illegally and others.
There is no simple way to identify that group, but a strategy used by the Department of Veterans Affairs since the creation of the background check system is reporting anyone who has been declared incompetent to manage pension or disability payments and assigned a fiduciary
If Social Security, which has never participated in the background check system, uses the same standard as the VA, millions of its beneficiaries would be affected. About 4.2 million adults receive monthly benefits that are managed by "representative payees."
The move is part of a concerted effort by the Obama administration after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn., to strengthen gun control, including by plugging holes in the background check system.
But critics — including gun rights activists, mental health experts and advocates for the disabled — say that expanding the list of prohibited gun owners based on financial competence is wrongheaded.
Though such a ban would keep at least some people who pose a danger to themselves or others from owning guns, the strategy undoubtedly would also include numerous people who may just have a bad memory or difficulty balancing a checkbook, the critics argue....
It depends on the record. Do I want people with violent criminal records to vote? Be parents? Have freedom of speech? No. OTOH, if they are free, off probation, how long do we deprive them of their rights, even the basic right of self-defense?So you agree to stop teaching chemistry, first aid, firefighting and other classes to avoid teaching "future criminals" how to be more efficient criminals?Do you also worry about "criminals/future criminals" taking driving, math or chemistry classes? What about medical classes so they can secretly patch each other up after major shootouts without having to go to a hospital? How about accounting classes so they can learn how to launder their money? How about firefighting classes so they can learn how to commit arson?Agreed to all except the comment about "innocent bystanders" since lawful shootings of innocent bystanders are so rare as to be insignificant. Most are done by criminals and even those are rare.
Gun Facts | Gun Control Facts Concerning Accidental Gun Deaths
Myth: Innocent bystanders are often killed by guns
Fact: Less than 1% of all gun homicides involve innocent bystanders.
Murder Rates Don’t Tell Us Everything About Gun Violence
I worry about criminals/future criminals taking the class.
Criminal incompetence is a blessing, one I would regret reducing.
I think fire arm training would be a special case.
Do you want to give it to people with criminal records?
If one, why not the other? Same logic. People who are mentally deficient shouldn't be allowed to vote, post/write nonsense in public and shouldn't be allowed to be parents. In fact, if 3 doctors agree they are mentally deficient, then they should be sterilized for their own good and the good of the public. Amirite, BULLDOG ?So you are changing your stance to "incapacitated" for removing self-defense rights or simply dancing around the question about parent and balancing a checkbook?Are you saying there is not a procedure to get their guns back if they aren't koo koo for coco puffs?
no I'm saying their right should not be taken away in the first place if they were not mentally ill
what if we had a law that took children away from parents because they couldn't balance a checkbook?
as long a there was a procedure to get the kids back it would be OK with you?
If the parent was so incapacitated till they had to have someone else legally assigned to look after their day to day affairs, then yes. The children should be removed until there was reason shown that the parents were capable of caring for the children.
I listen to Dave Ramsey as I drive around at night...his entire show is dealing with people who are trying to get out of debt...some people are in real serious debt......I wonder if not managing your finances well is a reason to strip not only gun Rights but voting and Free speech Rights?
It depends on the record. Do I want people with violent criminal records to vote? Be parents? Have freedom of speech? No. OTOH, if they are free, off probation, how long do we deprive them of their rights, even the basic right of self-defense?So you agree to stop teaching chemistry, first aid, firefighting and other classes to avoid teaching "future criminals" how to be more efficient criminals?Do you also worry about "criminals/future criminals" taking driving, math or chemistry classes? What about medical classes so they can secretly patch each other up after major shootouts without having to go to a hospital? How about accounting classes so they can learn how to launder their money? How about firefighting classes so they can learn how to commit arson?I worry about criminals/future criminals taking the class.
Criminal incompetence is a blessing, one I would regret reducing.
I think fire arm training would be a special case.
Do you want to give it to people with criminal records?
Correct. Keep reading such as "mental health experts and advocates for the disabled — say that expanding the list of prohibited gun owners based on financial competence is wrongheaded."Because President Obama wanted to prevent people who can't balance their checkbooks from the right of self-defense by owning a firearm.So you are changing your stance to "incapacitated" for removing self-defense rights or simply dancing around the question about parent and balancing a checkbook?no I'm saying their right should not be taken away in the first place if they were not mentally ill
what if we had a law that took children away from parents because they couldn't balance a checkbook?
as long a there was a procedure to get the kids back it would be OK with you?
If the parent was so incapacitated till they had to have someone else legally assigned to look after their day to day affairs, then yes. The children should be removed until there was reason shown that the parents were capable of caring for the children.
I'm not sure why you would want to change the subject because balancing a checkbook is not a good comparison to what was being discussed. I'm sure lots of people have problems balancing their checkbook, and they hire accountants and such to do that for them. Hiring an accountant is not the same as having a court ordered guardian responsible for the person's affairs, financial and otherwise. If a parent is not capable of attending their own affairs, (which would include the decision to hire an accountant) he is not capable of caring for children.
Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security
Seeking tighter controls over firearm purchases, the Obama administration is pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, a move that could affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others.
The push is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws regulating who gets reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, which is used to prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the country illegally and others.
There is no simple way to identify that group, but a strategy used by the Department of Veterans Affairs since the creation of the background check system is reporting anyone who has been declared incompetent to manage pension or disability payments and assigned a fiduciary
If Social Security, which has never participated in the background check system, uses the same standard as the VA, millions of its beneficiaries would be affected. About 4.2 million adults receive monthly benefits that are managed by "representative payees."
The move is part of a concerted effort by the Obama administration after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn., to strengthen gun control, including by plugging holes in the background check system.
But critics — including gun rights activists, mental health experts and advocates for the disabled — say that expanding the list of prohibited gun owners based on financial competence is wrongheaded.
Though such a ban would keep at least some people who pose a danger to themselves or others from owning guns, the strategy undoubtedly would also include numerous people who may just have a bad memory or difficulty balancing a checkbook, the critics argue....
Reread your post. It said
anyone who has been declared incompetent to manage pension or disability payments
Being declared incompetent is not a bureaucratic procedure. It's done by a judge.
Works for me. Also, per due process, a means for someone to be reassessed. That was part of the problem with President Obama's idea to ban those on the "No Fly" list from owning guns. There was no due process of law. Someone whose name happened to be the same as a terrorist's or was mistakenly put on the list (such as the children on it) would have no due process to have their rights restored. They'd be judged guilty until proven innocent and there was no process to prove their innocence. How fucked up is that???It depends on the record. Do I want people with violent criminal records to vote? Be parents? Have freedom of speech? No. OTOH, if they are free, off probation, how long do we deprive them of their rights, even the basic right of self-defense?So you agree to stop teaching chemistry, first aid, firefighting and other classes to avoid teaching "future criminals" how to be more efficient criminals?Do you also worry about "criminals/future criminals" taking driving, math or chemistry classes? What about medical classes so they can secretly patch each other up after major shootouts without having to go to a hospital? How about accounting classes so they can learn how to launder their money? How about firefighting classes so they can learn how to commit arson?
Criminal incompetence is a blessing, one I would regret reducing.
I think fire arm training would be a special case.
Do you want to give it to people with criminal records?
I would support use of profiling to determine if they are likely reoffenders. And if they are not, to have their records expunged automatically.
Correct. Keep reading such as "mental health experts and advocates for the disabled — say that expanding the list of prohibited gun owners based on financial competence is wrongheaded."Because President Obama wanted to prevent people who can't balance their checkbooks from the right of self-defense by owning a firearm.So you are changing your stance to "incapacitated" for removing self-defense rights or simply dancing around the question about parent and balancing a checkbook?If the parent was so incapacitated till they had to have someone else legally assigned to look after their day to day affairs, then yes. The children should be removed until there was reason shown that the parents were capable of caring for the children.
I'm not sure why you would want to change the subject because balancing a checkbook is not a good comparison to what was being discussed. I'm sure lots of people have problems balancing their checkbook, and they hire accountants and such to do that for them. Hiring an accountant is not the same as having a court ordered guardian responsible for the person's affairs, financial and otherwise. If a parent is not capable of attending their own affairs, (which would include the decision to hire an accountant) he is not capable of caring for children.
Obama pushes to extend gun background checks to Social Security
Seeking tighter controls over firearm purchases, the Obama administration is pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, a move that could affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others.
The push is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws regulating who gets reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, which is used to prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the country illegally and others.
There is no simple way to identify that group, but a strategy used by the Department of Veterans Affairs since the creation of the background check system is reporting anyone who has been declared incompetent to manage pension or disability payments and assigned a fiduciary
If Social Security, which has never participated in the background check system, uses the same standard as the VA, millions of its beneficiaries would be affected. About 4.2 million adults receive monthly benefits that are managed by "representative payees."
The move is part of a concerted effort by the Obama administration after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn., to strengthen gun control, including by plugging holes in the background check system.
But critics — including gun rights activists, mental health experts and advocates for the disabled — say that expanding the list of prohibited gun owners based on financial competence is wrongheaded.
Though such a ban would keep at least some people who pose a danger to themselves or others from owning guns, the strategy undoubtedly would also include numerous people who may just have a bad memory or difficulty balancing a checkbook, the critics argue....
Reread your post. It said
anyone who has been declared incompetent to manage pension or disability payments
Being declared incompetent is not a bureaucratic procedure. It's done by a judge.
And you lie on both counts. The ACLU is not right wing by any stretch of the imagination...and they led the effort against taking 2nd Amendment Rights away from people before they had access to due process.....and dittos on the No Fly/No Buy list......you can't take away a fundamental Right from someone because a nameless bureaucrat puts them on a list...a list that you can't find out why you were put on it, you have almost no ability to contest, and it is almost impossible to get off of....
You don't tell the truth about either situation.....
Those who are in this country illegally have no Right to bear arms.....they need to get legal before they do...
So the ACLU is wrong on this one. Nobody is perfect. The difference is that I can still support the ACLU even knowing they are sometimes wrong. The good they do outweighs their mistakes. If it comes to the point where they their missteps outweigh the good they do, I won't support them. There is no reason to let crazies buy guns.
and that isn't the issue with this crappy legislation it was the fact that people who aren't actually mentally ill would have their right to own a firearm taken away at the whim of some fucking bureaucrat
Are you saying there is not a procedure to get their guns back if they aren't koo koo for coco puffs?
no I'm saying their right should not be taken away in the first place if they were not mentally ill
what if we had a law that took children away from parents because they couldn't balance a checkbook?
as long a there was a procedure to get the kids back it would be OK with you?
If the parent was so incapacitated till they had to have someone else legally assigned to look after their day to day affairs, then yes. The children should be removed until there was reason shown that the parents were capable of caring for the children.
the bill that you people are whining about allowed people to have their right to own a weapon taken away because they couldn't balance a checkbookSo you are changing your stance to "incapacitated" for removing self-defense rights or simply dancing around the question about parent and balancing a checkbook?and that isn't the issue with this crappy legislation it was the fact that people who aren't actually mentally ill would have their right to own a firearm taken away at the whim of some fucking bureaucrat
Are you saying there is not a procedure to get their guns back if they aren't koo koo for coco puffs?
no I'm saying their right should not be taken away in the first place if they were not mentally ill
what if we had a law that took children away from parents because they couldn't balance a checkbook?
as long a there was a procedure to get the kids back it would be OK with you?
If the parent was so incapacitated till they had to have someone else legally assigned to look after their day to day affairs, then yes. The children should be removed until there was reason shown that the parents were capable of caring for the children.
I'm not sure why you would want to change the subject because balancing a checkbook is not a good comparison to what was being discussed. I'm sure lots of people have problems balancing their checkbook, and they hire accountants and such to do that for them. Hiring an accountant is not the same as having a court ordered guardian responsible for the person's affairs, financial and otherwise. If a parent is not capable of attending their own affairs, (which would include the decision to hire an accountant) he is not capable of caring for children.
the bill that you people are whining about allowed people to have their right to own a weapon taken away because they couldn't balance a checkbookSo you are changing your stance to "incapacitated" for removing self-defense rights or simply dancing around the question about parent and balancing a checkbook?Are you saying there is not a procedure to get their guns back if they aren't koo koo for coco puffs?
no I'm saying their right should not be taken away in the first place if they were not mentally ill
what if we had a law that took children away from parents because they couldn't balance a checkbook?
as long a there was a procedure to get the kids back it would be OK with you?
If the parent was so incapacitated till they had to have someone else legally assigned to look after their day to day affairs, then yes. The children should be removed until there was reason shown that the parents were capable of caring for the children.
I'm not sure why you would want to change the subject because balancing a checkbook is not a good comparison to what was being discussed. I'm sure lots of people have problems balancing their checkbook, and they hire accountants and such to do that for them. Hiring an accountant is not the same as having a court ordered guardian responsible for the person's affairs, financial and otherwise. If a parent is not capable of attending their own affairs, (which would include the decision to hire an accountant) he is not capable of caring for children.
Nice job backpedaling, but then you stepped in it again. The fact remains the anti-gun mob of the LW are like you; seeking to ban guns from common people, if not completely, then for the slightest of reasons. OTOH, you staunchly support your right to advocating depriving rights from others because you have "free speech".the bill that you people are whining about allowed people to have their right to own a weapon taken away because they couldn't balance a checkbookSo you are changing your stance to "incapacitated" for removing self-defense rights or simply dancing around the question about parent and balancing a checkbook?no I'm saying their right should not be taken away in the first place if they were not mentally ill
what if we had a law that took children away from parents because they couldn't balance a checkbook?
as long a there was a procedure to get the kids back it would be OK with you?
If the parent was so incapacitated till they had to have someone else legally assigned to look after their day to day affairs, then yes. The children should be removed until there was reason shown that the parents were capable of caring for the children.
I'm not sure why you would want to change the subject because balancing a checkbook is not a good comparison to what was being discussed. I'm sure lots of people have problems balancing their checkbook, and they hire accountants and such to do that for them. Hiring an accountant is not the same as having a court ordered guardian responsible for the person's affairs, financial and otherwise. If a parent is not capable of attending their own affairs, (which would include the decision to hire an accountant) he is not capable of caring for children.
Then forgive me.You are completely right to oppose the restriction of gun purchases strictly because someone failed to balance their checkbook. Now, if you can just give me a link to prove that's all it was, we can put this whole silly thing behind us. Until then, it's just a bunch of made up right wing crap about a made up lie.
Nice job backpedaling, but then you stepped in it again. The fact remains the anti-gun mob of the LW are like you; seeking to ban guns from common people, if not completely, then for the slightest of reasons. OTOH, you staunchly support your right to advocating depriving rights from others because you have "free speech".the bill that you people are whining about allowed people to have their right to own a weapon taken away because they couldn't balance a checkbookSo you are changing your stance to "incapacitated" for removing self-defense rights or simply dancing around the question about parent and balancing a checkbook?If the parent was so incapacitated till they had to have someone else legally assigned to look after their day to day affairs, then yes. The children should be removed until there was reason shown that the parents were capable of caring for the children.
I'm not sure why you would want to change the subject because balancing a checkbook is not a good comparison to what was being discussed. I'm sure lots of people have problems balancing their checkbook, and they hire accountants and such to do that for them. Hiring an accountant is not the same as having a court ordered guardian responsible for the person's affairs, financial and otherwise. If a parent is not capable of attending their own affairs, (which would include the decision to hire an accountant) he is not capable of caring for children.
Then forgive me.You are completely right to oppose the restriction of gun purchases strictly because someone failed to balance their checkbook. Now, if you can just give me a link to prove that's all it was, we can put this whole silly thing behind us. Until then, it's just a bunch of made up right wing crap about a made up lie.
