Never said ALL people getting SSI. Just the ones claiming "mental anguish/disability"

Care to explain your thoughts when you stated:

One of their latest "blocks" is to mentally ill people from being ineligible to buy guns. The Social Security Administration wanted to add the people getting SSI from being able to buy guns, by reporting the names of people receiving benefits to the NICS. These are people that under their own admission are so "mentally disabled" they can't work, but the NRA says they can't be stopped from buying guns.

The bold faced text is you including all ...

You give the NRA alot of credit. Care to link to their webpage or youtube video where the NRA stated such a thing?

I heard the VP tonight place the scare tactic of "armor piercing bullets" and how he and Patrick Moynehan tried to ban them in the 80s. A quick look at the ATF website shows they are illegal, but those used mainly in sporting can still exempted and can be purchased. Doesn't Joe B know what in the hell they passed? No wonder the left siders say ... "they ought to pass a law." How about enforcing the laws on the books? It is a novel approach. Any AG who isn't willing to fully enforce the laws on the books needs to resign. That is at all levels of government.

 

Care to explain your thoughts when you stated:



The bold faced text is you including all ...

From subsequent posts it appears to be a communication issue. Maybe Shortbus should ask Donny Trump for advice on how to correct such a thing.

 

Never said ALL people getting SSI. Just the ones claiming "mental anguish/disability"

Why is it you right siders always have to lash out at people that disagree with your thought process?

This issue is not left or right side, only a wrong side where the main selection for losing your gun rights is based on the SS evaluation that a person should have the money from SSI handled by another person. "mental anguish/disability" is a separate matter. You just have no idea that you're talking about as usual.

 

This issue is not left or right side, only a wrong side where the main selection for losing your gun rights is based on the SS evaluation that a person should have the money from SSI handled by another person. "mental anguish/disability" is a separate matter. You just have no idea that you're talking about as usual.

Supplemental Security Income for the Disabled is applied for by the disabled person. Disabilities can be physical or mental. If the applicants request is approved, they can collect.

If someone is so disabled that a 3rd part my get involved, spouse, child, or other designee, then that is a whole separate 'hearing' to decide if the disabled person can handle their own benefits and, if not, who.

What kind of situation can you imagine, @nsaspook, that would cause a person with depression, schizophrenia, rage, or various other categories of mental illness to not be on a list while incapacitated to such a degree that they deserve SSI? Would you trust them with a firearm in your house? For your family members' safety and the ill person's own safety, I have trouble knowing they have complete freedom to buy a gun.

 

Show me someone who ain't mentally disabled. That's why we carry guns. Are you nuts?

 

I would ask you, is it currently a problem with these people buying guns with their SSI and committing crimes? The answer is no as this is just a political ploy by the president who claimed to do something about guns with executive actions even if the idea was worthless and possibly counter-productive in the end. In my case the problem with the person is Autism spectrum disorder. A serious developmental disorder that impairs the ability to communicate and interact. A few years ago many of these people were consider lost causes to lead normal lives but current treatments can work wonders to give them independence with little supervision.

This stupid order would effectively put them on a criminal list for life as a danger to society because currently the best thing for that person (many, who at 18 first get SSI disability are young, naive and easy to trick out of their money) is to have another person control the governments MONEY for them.

Authorities already can block certain people (like schizophrenia, rage, or various other categories) with mental illnesses from buying weapons at gun stores.

 

I would ask you, is it currently a problem with these people buying guns with their SSI and committing crimes? The answer is no as this is just a political ploy by the president who claimed to do something about guns with executive actions even if the idea was worthless and possibly counter-productive in the end. In my case the problem with the person is Autism spectrum disorder. A serious developmental disorder that impairs the ability to communicate and interact. A few years ago many of these people were consider lost causes to lead normal lives but current treatments can work wonders to give them independence with little supervision.

This stupid order would effectively put them on a criminal list for life as a danger to society because currently the best thing for that person (many, who at 18 first get SSI disability are young, naive and easy to trick out of their money) is to have another person control the governments MONEY for them.

Authorities already can block certain people (like schizophrenia, rage, or various other categories) with mental illnesses from buying weapons at gun stores.

It sounds like it is still a work in progress.
According to the White House executive order preview:

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 rulemaking will also provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health.

Again, the push for a ban on gun possession for certain Social Security beneficiaries was already in the works during the summer, but it is also incorporated into the “mental health” aspect of Obama’s executive gun control.

And this means that information on beneficiaries who meet the criteria of mental impairment–demonstrated in part by an inability to manage their own benefits–will be added to the National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS) so that the beneficiaries cannot buy a gun.

I think in the other cases they have to be adjudicated or committed.

 

I would ask you, is it currently a problem with these people buying guns with their SSI and committing crimes? The answer is no as this is just a political ploy...

Why do you pick the less common use of a gun in your argument?

 

Is the White house also going to ban them from buying cars, knives, matches and gasoline?

 

Why do you pick the less common use of a gun in your argument?

Because in theory this executive action is a crime measure. The reality here is political security theater much like the TSA.

 

Is the White house also going to ban them from buying cars, knives, matches and gasoline?

I think he has a law to reference for guns.

Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.


Guns & Mental Health

Under a federal law enacted in 1968, an individual is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms for life if he/she has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution.” A person is “adjudicated as a mental defective” if a court—or other entity having legal authority to make adjudications—has made a determination that an individual, as a result of mental illness: 1) Is a danger to himself or to others; 2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs; 3) Is found insane by a court in a criminal case, or incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A person is “committed to a mental institution” if that person has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution by a court or other lawful authority. This expressly excludes voluntary commitment. It should be noted, however, that federal law now allows states to establish procedures for mentally ill individuals to restore their right to possess and purchase firearms (many states have done so at the behest of the National Rifle Association, with questionable results).

 

Because in theory this executive action is a crime measure.

Don't let your conspiracy theories fool you. 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides.
One person killing themselves is not news but it is still a lost soul. 85% effective - the most effective DIY cure for certain mental illnesses. People do save their SSI money to take care of business.

https://www.autismspeaks.org/sites/default/files/docs/the_other_public_health_crisis.pdf

 

Adjudicated normally means a legal ruling by a court (a constitutional process). Saying that a SSI determination of a disability payment requirement is the same IMO is crazy.

 

Don't let your conspiracy theories fool you. 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides.
One person killing themselves is not news but it is still a lost soul. 85% effective - the most effective DIY cure for certain mental illnesses. People do save their SSI money to take care of business.

https://www.autismspeaks.org/sites/default/files/docs/the_other_public_health_crisis.pdf

Please, someone can find a "but it's for the ..." justification for any bad measure. For me the real fear is the person being hit by a car while walking, riding a bike or something a thousand times more likely than saving for suicide.

 

Adjudicated normally means a legal ruling by a court (a constitutional process). Saying that a SSI determination of a disability payment requirement is the same IMO is crazy.

Or to protect your privacy. But taking tax money might be interpreted as giving up your privacy- in essence pleading guilty.

 

Or to protect your privacy. But taking tax money might be interpreted as giving up your privacy- in essence pleading guilty.

I would love to see that used in court by the IRS on everyone who gets a child tax credit.

 

I would love to see that used in court by the IRS on everyone who gets a child tax credit.

???????

 

Please, someone can find a "but it's for the ..." justification for any bad measure. For me the real fear is the person being hit by a car while walking, riding a bike or something a thousand times more likely than saving for suicide.

So your sitting at your computer spending time arguing why your dependent needs access to a gun while you are afraid they cannot walk down a street safely. How do you come up with this stuff? What NRA Kool-Aid did you drink. Was it the red or the blue?

 

???????

By receiving ' tax money' ... "giving up your privacy- in essence pleading guilty.
https://www.irs.gov/uac/ten-facts-about-the-child-tax-credit

 

So your sitting at your computer spending time arguing why your dependent needs access to a gun while you are afraid they cannot walk down a street safely. How do you come up with this stuff? What NRA Kool-Aid did you drink. Was it the red or the blue?

What, me worry? I'm drinking a nice Henry Weinhard's beer not Kool-Aid.