The President himself announced it. This one might affect up to 4.2 million people. Social Security recipients. Including veterans who have to let others handle their financial affairs. Anyone whose financial affairs are being managed by a "representative payee" is now subject to confiscation of their firearms. http://www.independentsentinel.com/...-that-will-affect-4-2-million-ssa-recipients/
First the libs were saying there's nothing to worry about, they'll never actually grab guns. But here they are grabbing guns. From OLD people, the truly defenseless ones. This government figures no one will complain about it, 'cause they're all old farts. And that way it can set a precedent which will be applied to future cases (both legal and operational). This is how it starts. "Under the radar screen". Don't laugh. It's how it started in Germany too.
In a way, people who can't take care of their own finances and have to have a representative payee, probably shouldn't have guns; although just because they can't manage their finances doesn't mean they are all crazy. It kind leaves them with no protection, and these people are vulnerable. Some dissonance on this one. For every legal gun the government confiscates through coercion, the government should confiscate at least one illegal gun just to prove that they really are concerned about the 'safety of Americans'. Not addressing the huge illegal gun problem while constantly threatening to take legal guns away from gun owners irks me to no end. It is true. When guns are outlawed, only thugs will have guns. And now my paranoia sets in. Doesn't it seem that the Socialists are setting us up for slaughter when they totally refuse to address the massive numbers of illegal guns, while obsessing over legal ones, I mean really.
And really: I think they should go door to door and confiscate every gun--legal or illegal of everyone who has never paid taxes. Think gang bangers. And while we are on the topic, gang-related hand signals and gang 'colors' need to be banned as they represent murder, drug dealing, prostitution, and general mayhem.
republicans and democrats have been trying to take away guns from ex-criminals and people with mental issues for years we even learned with the Roof case in SC that if you even mention you have abused legal or illegal drugs in the past you lose the right to buy a gun.... I predict that fist terrorist attack at a shopping mall and all gun restriction go out the window and everyone will once again be allowed to carry a gun as the founders intended.... sadly, I think terrorist are gonna attack soft targets in the future, I do not think it's a matter of if... but when the question is, do people have a right to protect themselves from terrorists? yes or no? had these recruitment centers of been allowed to carry guns, you think this Muslim religious fanatic would of been able to kill that many people had someone of had a gun in SC, you think he would of been able to kill that many people .
I know what this is about. It is about old people with guns becoming 'active' because their grandchildren are going to be enslaved to the Socialist International. Old people with 'nothing left to lose'. I thought it was just about people who have to have payees. But you are literally talking about ALL social security recipients? That f* * * * * * sucks especially because his panics think old white people should die because they take up too much of the world's resources, and blacks would love to slaughter any white--young or old. Now my paranoia really sets in. Are old people being set up for slaughter? It is not too hard to imagine. Many, many, many old whites in South Africa, Rhodesia, et al have been slaughtered. I must be a racist, because I hate that man in the WH. Worst f* * * * * * PRESIDENT EVER.
Maybe the authorities think or have reasonable doubt as to the elderlies ability to keep hold of their guns? if we gave weapons to old people, or, let old people keep their guns, then maybe they could be used irresponsibly by them? old people usually have some sort of mental problems - how would you like your senile neighbor to be able to shoot at your dogs?
then what next, ban parents from owning guns? how would you like a crazy kid to shoot at your dogs you can't take away someones rights because of things that 'might' happen I realize people have good intentions with these laws, but they have unintended consequences that are worse for society as a whole imo .
Would you allow matches near a petrol station? The elderly are a little less able, but are they unable? that is the question, of course. now, if they check the records, they will have a idea of whether they should take their guns away. seeing as how every shoot out in america is represented in the media, nearly, then there would be some presidential candidate using that in their speeches. Needless to say now they will, seeing as how it is big news, yes? Of course, a candidate that is against taking their guns away in their campaign would do better than us, of course. I take it back! seeing as how it has never been suggested in the world before, due to evidence or not, then they should keep their guns. it is not even like they use them. they just stand there, doing nothing, and, make a good walking stick! maybe there will be a time where they will be used as a deterant, but, i cannot see a old person needing to rob someone.
they are allowed near a petrol station, so are lighters ect.... you want to strip search drivers before they fill up with gas? you can ban the use of guns in certain areas, but you can't ban the owning of guns... or the owning of matches where the use of guns is banned (court rooms, airplanes), I think the gov is responsible for security and should be held liable for any gun injuries or deaths resulting from their failure to secure the area every free American has the right to protect their homes and families with a gun, if your out camping, your tent is your home, your car is a temporary living space as well ..... people are confusing the right to own a gun with the right to carry a gun anywhere you want..... I have no issue with banning guns in say court rooms and airplanes if a business bans guns, they too must hire additional security or be financially liable for anyone shot or killed with a gun .
My understanding of the situation is that in certain circumstances, SS recipients will not pass a background check when attempting to buy a firearm. That's bad, and I'm not in favor of it, but in theory anyway, the feds don't know what guns they might already have. I have 2, and there is no way .gov can know about it, excepting how deep the NSA spying goes.
A look at the latest gun ban legislation being enacted by various states tells the real tale of why proposals such as this are being put forth. This is simply a way of confiscating guns from old people before they die and can pass them on to family members. The gun grabbers beleive all guns are evil. They may say otherwise but most haven't a clue between any differences in firearms anyway. There's only so much banning the general population will put up with for now but to clean out the closets of old folks will be considered a win. Most old folks have much more to worry about near the end of thier lives than government regulators raiding their homes which they may not ever return to anyway. Think about this. How much of a threat is some old codger laid up in a nursing home? None. His firearms will be confiscated anyway. It's not about public safety, it's about confiscation period.
Without a doubt there are firearms in circulation the government doesn't know about. If any were purchased in a state where you signed your name on any document they know you have it. Even if they're supposed to not know they know.
could be, when my grandpa died he left me his guns, I do not like guns so I gave them to his brother.... who was very happy to have them no way should the gov have had the power to take his guns so he can't pass them down when he passed away I also gave away his chainsaw, don't like those either..... I just feel I would unintentionally hurt myself or others with one.... but that doesn't mean I would want them banned .
Okay, Guns are used to kill people. without them the people could play dead. with them, they will get stolen or result in a domestic disturbance, or, they will just lie around. if the things that kill people are lying around, they at best won't do anything but be a deterrent, at worst they will maim or kill someone. so, what is good about guns? they can protect people by endangering others is what i come up with!
Hi there! [video=youtube;39_c27nwyKI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39_c27nwyKI[/video] (*)(*)(*)(*) that! That is all. - - - Updated - - - It prevents tyranny and foreign invasion as well as protects us from each other...
Maybe Obama is just trying to stop the police from killing the aged. Hearne Woman, 93, Killed By Officer Was Armed With Gun
How many times has it done this, besides in theory? how many of the guns out there are owned by black males? how many of the gangs are comprised of black males?
could say the same about knives or any tools really, tools can be used for good or bad..... we outlaw the misuse of tools, not the tools themselves .
