Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 122. (Read 450482 times)

Or in a more perfect world, by prison guards for the rest of their lives.

In adjoining cells next to every living POTUS and their minions, in a desert labor camp with no possibility of ever leaving it alive.

Hillary and Obama don't care.  They will receive taxpayer funded armed Secret Service protection for the rest of their lives.

So Hillary, Saunders and Obama are put on the no guns list?

It’s Official: Social Security Admin Introduces Gun Ban For Some Beneficiaries



The Social Security Administration (SSA)has released details on the looming gun ban which was first discovered at it was being fashioned behind closed doors in July 2015.

Details of the ban seeped out over the next few months then it formerly introduced by President Obama on January 5, 2016.

On July 18 the Los Angeles Times reported that the ban would apply to SSA beneficiaries who are ruled mentally deficient or labeled with a “mental illness” moniker. Once categorized as having mental health problems the beneficiaries would be reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and added to the prohibited persons list, thereafter barred from purchasing guns.

According to the Times, one of the measures of mental health stability would be whether beneficiaries could handle their own finances or not. Based on this measure alone up to “4.2 million” SSA beneficiaries were believed to be susceptible to losing their Second Amendment rights because they have other people handle their finances for them.

On January 4 Breitbart News reported that Obama would be incorporating the SSA gun ban into his executive gun controls. The White House executive order preview said:

    Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS. The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent. The rule-making will also provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health.

And now the SSA has released details making it clear that beneficiaries who do not receive benefits themselves–but have them sent to someone who manages finances for them–take the risk of afoul of the SSA and being prohibited from purchasing guns.

On pages 19 of the SSA’s 41-page overview of the gun ban, we read:

    Under our representative payee policy, unless direct payment is prohibited, we presume that an adult beneficiary is capable of managing or directing the management of benefits. However, if we have information that the beneficiary has a mental or physical impairment that prevents him or her from managing or directing the management of benefits, we will develop the issue of capability. If a beneficiary has a mental impairment, we will develop the capability issue if there is an indication that the beneficiary may lack the ability to reason properly, is disoriented, has seriously impaired judgment, or is unable to communicate with others.

Once the beneficiary has the SSA’s attention–by having someone help with finances–the process of determining mental health status begins, becoming incrementally intrusive. And if a ruling of mental illness sufficient to meet the reporting threshold is handed down, then the beneficiary will be reported to NICS and prohibited from purchasing firearms.



http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/05/official-social-security-admin-introduces-gun-ban-benefeciaries/

As a CCW license holder, I always carry a gun.  

Ever notice how the politicians advocating gun control are always surrounded by bodyguards carrying *gasp* guns? 

Guns keep the peace because people recognize how dangerous guns can be, and don't usually attempt to harm people who have guns.

The question is, How do you enforce gun control without using guns? Enforcing gun control with guns is simply the gun-group making slaves of the people they take the guns away from.

Gun-control is a self-contradictory idea that is used by those who want to make slaves of others.

I think that it's really good law about gun control, people should not using any weapon ever. I am for peace in the world, it's so default but i hate war and other stuff that linked with war.

There's nothing nice about the drug cartels operating on the Mexico/US border.  All of the Mexican border towns are terrorized by these criminals.  On the US side of the border, in virtually any town, virtually every house has a firearm of one sort or another.

I would hate to think of the domination, rape and rampage by the Mexican cartels that would happen on the US side if, like in Mexico, the average citizen was not allowed to possess firearms.

Because criminals always obey the law!!

True for the entire world!

My neighbors and I are parking tanks in our garages and loading up on cannon shells - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/video-shows-train-with-hundreds-of-m1-abrams-battle-tanks-1462244.

In case you haven noticed, law enforcement is filled with evil-minded people. Wanna see that this is true? Google "police brutality."

Let us all be armed, because even good LE sticks with its own kind rather than defending unarmed, innocent people.

i think that guns are just carried by law-enforcement officers.. because gun possesion can be abused by evil minded people.. they can easily kill their enemies without any hesitation..

People are people. The trick is telling which people are good and which are not. Those who want to take self-protection away from others are generally more openly bad. Why? Because they are preparing a group of unarmed people who they can enslave.

"Disarm the people, the power thus insults him in disbelief, and it shows cowardice and government suspicion"
Machiavelli.

This is a difficult question. I believe that the weapon may be only those who are mentally healthy. And it is necessary to find out through a lot of research. Consider the need mentality and lifestyle. People drink alcohol should not have a weapon, for obvious reasons, all.
There should be a favorable environment, social development and equality. For example look at Russia. Distribute guns to first counter, and they are someone will shoot each other, while others want a revolution and will kill the thieving officials and inquisitorial police.

That's your problem, you are consuming too much propaganda. As gun ownership rises crime has also been falling, but you wouldn't know that from television programming. They call it programming for a reason. The programming isn't the show, you are being programmed. Put down the controller and pick up a book.

I think guns control is necessary. I watch on the news almost everyday that some frick from US shooted some people, and it's just scary.

Nukes make even the violence more worse than the violence created by an violent person.

Because a lot of people go to Alaska to hunt.  Firearms must be stowed in baggage, unloaded, and the procedures are fairly easy.   

So no, me and the gun hater are not on the same level.

He's going to starve, and I am not going to starve.