yea, its late I got to read that later

(02-06-2017, 09:20 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: Yea, the problem with that barry rule was it was Way to fucking broad as to who decides who is crazy and how exactly how they are to come to that decision. It was a way for barry and co to enact Some kind of gun control even though there are virtually no crimes that could have been prevented by this measure. I don't think it was a Bad law, just a very poorly written one that would be prone to misuse and abuse.
It also was unfairly discriminatory in that it Only affected people on SS and no one else.
I am all about getting guns away from the crazies, but it has to be fair

I don't really know much about this so bear with me, if people don't have the wherewithal to manage their own money it only stands to reason that they shouldn't be allowed the responsibility of owning a firearm. What other people were being caught in this rule? I'm asking because I don't know and I don't think I've ever heard it talked about.

WTF does a persons ability to manage money have to do with owning a firearm?

Only the Jews and Asians will have guns!

Holy shit. If you can't manage a few bucks you haven't got the sense needed to own a gun. Hahaha! Fuckin' aye.

(02-07-2017, 07:10 PM)Duchess Wrote:

Holy shit. If you can't manage a few bucks you haven't got the sense needed to own a gun. Hahaha! Fuckin' aye.

That is the stupidest thing I have heard all day. Are you really that dumb?

(02-07-2017, 07:14 PM)F.U. Wrote: That is the stupidest thing I have heard all day. Are you really that dumb?

I know how to spell been, so probably not.

I use to think highly of you Duch, but after the last week I am starting to wonder about you. Put down the pipe and let your eyes clear ffs.

(02-06-2017, 09:20 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: Yea, the problem with that barry rule was it was Way to fucking broad as to who decides who is crazy and how exactly how they are to come to that decision. It was a way for barry and co to enact Some kind of gun control even though there are virtually no crimes that could have been prevented by this measure. I don't think it was a Bad law, just a very poorly written one that would be prone to misuse and abuse.
It also was unfairly discriminatory in that it Only affected people on SS and no one else.
I am all about getting guns away from the crazies, but it has to be fair

That sounds like Obamacare!

(02-07-2017, 07:17 PM)F.U. Wrote: I use to think highly of you Duch, but after the last week I am starting to wonder about you. Put down the pipe and let your eyes clear ffs.

You called me dumb. Did you really think I'd sit there and take it? You've hung out with me for years and should have known you'd get a response like that.

Well if you think a persons ability to manage money has anything to do with their ability to own a firearm, you are not the brightest bulb in the pack.

I can understand an old buck going senile and family taking his guns away. But the government has a long track record of legislating really stupid knee jerk laws.

(02-07-2017, 07:01 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(02-06-2017, 09:20 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: Yea, the problem with that barry rule was it was Way to fucking broad as to who decides who is crazy and how exactly how they are to come to that decision. It was a way for barry and co to enact Some kind of gun control even though there are virtually no crimes that could have been prevented by this measure. I don't think it was a Bad law, just a very poorly written one that would be prone to misuse and abuse.
It also was unfairly discriminatory in that it Only affected people on SS and no one else.
I am all about getting guns away from the crazies, but it has to be fair

I don't really know much about this so bear with me, if people don't have the wherewithal to manage their own money it only stands to reason that they shouldn't be allowed the responsibility of owning a firearm. What other people were being caught in this rule? I'm asking because I don't know and I don't think I've ever heard it talked about.

This was a rule barry pulled out of his ass last year that basically removed right granted by the 2^nd amendment to anyone that was on social security that had been judged to be incapable of managing their own affairs. That meant anyone drawing SS Benefits that was in any kind of assisted living facility, any kind. It also did this with little or no due process. Just like the "Enhanced Background Checks" and the doctors collecting gun info about patients, There was no where near enough care taken as to peopled privacy or even how the person was to be judged incompetent or by who..

Now I really do not have any problem with guns removed from crazy people. I do care about those rights being taken from people that are not a danger, like my grand parents when they were around, or my uncle that served 27 yrs in the army, medically retired and on SS and in a rehab several times recovering from other injuries and the like. There are many "Retirement Villages" here that have assistance services and those places would have been allowed to boot people out for having guns. The Really Big issue was the missing due process or protecting of peoples rights. This is something that should have been taken very seriously and with very clear rules. Another Big problem is that it created a special class that would be discriminated against in that it Only affected SS recipients and not crazy people in general.

(02-07-2017, 07:01 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(02-06-2017, 09:20 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: Yea, the problem with that barry rule was it was Way to fucking broad as to who decides who is crazy and how exactly how they are to come to that decision. It was a way for barry and co to enact Some kind of gun control even though there are virtually no crimes that could have been prevented by this measure. I don't think it was a Bad law, just a very poorly written one that would be prone to misuse and abuse.
It also was unfairly discriminatory in that it Only affected people on SS and no one else.
I am all about getting guns away from the crazies, but it has to be fair

I don't really know much about this so bear with me, if people don't have the wherewithal to manage their own money it only stands to reason that they shouldn't be allowed the responsibility of owning a firearm. What other people were being caught in this rule? I'm asking because I don't know and I don't think I've ever heard it talked about.

I have some concerns about the execution and reach of this law as well. But, that's true with almost any law. Some people get restricted to minimize a public risk, even though they're not a threat.

Anyway, the rule doesn't say that anyone with a fiduciary or who can't/won't manage their own finances is prohibited from gun ownership. And, it certainly doesn't say or mean that all SS recipients or all those residing in assisted living facilities are prohibited by federal law -- that's false rhetoric.

The federal law requires that the Social Security Administration report to the Attorney General, for inclusion in the NICS, Social Security recipients who have been deemed unable to manage their own affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease." That's in line with the Veteran's rule and the rules that require courts to report legally deemed "incompetent" people to NCIS.

The problem, to me, isn't that SS recipients with mental disabilities are being prohibited from gun ownership. That's as it should be. I don't want another gramps or grams to shoot/kill themselves or others due to confusion/dementia, etc..

The problem is that so few states and courts actually report non-SS recipients deemed incompetent to NICS, as required under the law. If the SS Administration fully complies with the law and few other agencies do, the rule becomes sorta discriminatory in execution.

(02-07-2017, 07:57 PM)F.U. Wrote: Well if you think a persons ability to manage money has anything to do with their ability to own a firearm, you are not the brightest bulb in the pack.

Well, FU, you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer if you think a person who can't manage their money should own a gun.....let everyone own a gun, doesn't matter how they screw up the rest of their life, just be sure they get that dang gun....

To me, don't you see, not being able to manage your money means you are dysfunctional in that area of your life and I don't want some dysfunctional idiot carrying a gun in my neighborhood......where I live, they want to enable students and staff at colleges and universities to carry firearms.....many States have followed suit. This is madness IMO.

Fuck it. Deleted.

(02-08-2017, 01:28 AM)blueberryhill Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 07:57 PM)F.U. Wrote: Well if you think a persons ability to manage money has anything to do with their ability to own a firearm, you are not the brightest bulb in the pack.

Well, FU, you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer if you think a person who can't manage their money should own a gun.....let everyone own a gun, doesn't matter how they screw up the rest of their life, just be sure they get that dang gun....

To me, don't you see, not being able to manage your money means you are dysfunctional in that area of your life and I don't want some dysfunctional idiot carrying a gun in my neighborhood......where I live, they want to enable students and staff at colleges and universities to carry firearms.....many States have followed suit. This is madness IMO.

Well BBH, managing money has nothing to do with firearm ownership. Just because a person has money problems, does not mean they are not a responsible gun owner.
I really don't care what or who you want to carry a gun. In fact I really don't think it will matter much longer anyway. I think things are about to change bigtime and firearm owners will be on the winning side of the fence.

(02-08-2017, 07:03 AM)Duchess Wrote:

Fuck it. Deleted.

no, don't delete shit.

None of the guys who work for my husband know how to manage their money. They either spend hundreds of dollars on lotto and a bunch of other crap they don't need or give it to their wives who spend it on a bunch of crap they don't need. Come Monday they're broke. I wouldn't take away their right to own a gun just for that though, that seems kind of silly. Why is this even a discussion .

(02-08-2017, 11:21 AM)sally Wrote: None of the guys who work for my husband know how to manage their money. They either spend hundreds of dollars on lotto and a bunch of other crap they don't need or give it to their wives who spend it on a bunch of crap they don't need. Come Monday they're broke. I wouldn't take away their right to own a gun just for that though, that seems kind of silly. Why is this even a discussion .

They sound like the REAL retards.