We don't want to take your guns...read H.R. 4269

Good stuff here 

Do you guys think that someone that has been determined to be incapable of managing their Social Security Disability benefits in their best interest should be allowed to own a gun?

These would be people whose benefits are paid to an individual or organizational representative payee to be used for the person's food/clothing/shelter/needs etc...

Honestly curious...

 

Sincerely,

Jim

Good stuff here 

and now for your winter time entertainment

What's funny is gun control seems to work everywhere else in the world thats actually done it...

Pretty much... For some dumb reason Americans choose to ignore actual facts and statistics, and instead grasp onto anecdotal evidence like their lives depended on it. They actually CHOOSE to live in fear. Scared someone from a different part of the world is going to attack them... Scared someone who's skin is a different color is going to attack them... Scared someone with a different religion is going to attack them... Scared someone is going to take their guns away... Scared they might not be able to buy any more big ol' assault rifles to pacify them and fend off whatever it happens to be that scares them, so they all run off to buy MORE GUNS...

All I can say is I'm glad I don't live like that. Sounds exhausting...

Come out to my neck of the wood AlexB. I have to use a gun to defend my life just about every year. Only reason I haven't had to actually kill an attacker is because my big scary guns out match their 9mm gangster pistols and they tuck and run. Take my standard factory built rifle or semiautomatic shotgun and I assure you that the gangsters will fight back and there will be a body count, either mine or theirs and that is something I don't ever want. Supressive fire saves lives. Shock and awe. Give the bad guys something to fear not law abiding citizens.

Oh yea closest I've come to gettung hurt was when I was blasted at by a guy with a 12 gauge flare gun shooting buck shot. Sheriff takes 20-30 minutes to get here, even in an active shooter situation.

Do you guys think that someone that has been determined to be incapable of managing their Social Security Disability benefits in their best interest should be allowed to own a gun?

These would be people whose benefits are paid to an individual or organizational representative payee to be used for the person's food/clothing/shelter/needs etc...

Honestly curious...

 

Sincerely,

Jim

Anyone with a representative payee?  No.  Blanket rules are usually bad.  There is also a constitutional problem where there is no court involved in the decision, just an administrative agency and an ALJ at most.

Not to mention, there are many instances of representative payees appointed for convenience.  If you start taking guns away from SSI beneficiaries with representative payees, expect a lot more work coming your way.

So Obama's plan aims to require more gun sellers to conduct background checks. What's so bad about that?

What's funny is gun control seems to work everywhere else in the world thats actually done it...

Pretty much... For some dumb reason Americans choose to ignore actual facts and statistics, and instead grasp onto anecdotal evidence like their lives depended on it. They actually CHOOSE to live in fear. Scared someone from a different part of the world is going to attack them... Scared someone who's skin is a different color is going to attack them... Scared someone with a different religion is going to attack them... Scared someone is going to take their guns away... Scared they might not be able to buy any more big ol' assault rifles to pacify them and fend off whatever it happens to be that scares them, so they all run off to buy MORE GUNS...

All I can say is I'm glad I don't live like that. Sounds exhausting...

Nope, the only thing I fear is a liberal with a cause. I can take care of anything else that infringes on my liberty.

What's funny is gun control seems to work everywhere else in the world thats actually done it...

Pretty much... For some dumb reason Americans choose to ignore actual facts and statistics, and instead grasp onto anecdotal evidence like their lives depended on it. They actually CHOOSE to live in fear. Scared someone from a different part of the world is going to attack them... Scared someone who's skin is a different color is going to attack them... Scared someone with a different religion is going to attack them... Scared someone is going to take their guns away... Scared they might not be able to buy any more big ol' assault rifles to pacify them and fend off whatever it happens to be that scares them, so they all run off to buy MORE GUNS...

All I can say is I'm glad I don't live like that. Sounds exhausting...

Nope, the only thing I fear is a liberal with a cause. I can take care of anything else that infringes on my liberty.

Haha bro I am a liberal with guns, you better look out

So Obama's plan aims to require more gun sellers to conduct background checks. What's so bad about that?

Waiting periods and background checks don't do much other than to inconvenience people and put on a show.  A lot like the TSA. 

I already own several guns.  I have to go through a background check and wait 10 days to purchase a handgun.  I can only purchase one handgun every 30 days. 

How, exactly, do these rules logically relate to reducing gun violence?

So Obama's plan aims to require more gun sellers to conduct background checks. What's so bad about that?

Waiting periods and background checks don't do much other than to inconvenience people and put on a show.  A lot like the TSA. 

I already own several guns.  I have to go through a background check and wait 10 days to purchase a handgun.  I can only purchase one handgun every 30 days. 

How, exactly, do these rules logically relate to reducing gun violence?

I think the original intent was to prevent some hothead from purchasing, then immediately using the implement to harm.

So Obama's plan aims to require more gun sellers to conduct background checks. What's so bad about that?

Waiting periods and background checks don't do much other than to inconvenience people and put on a show.  A lot like the TSA. 

I already own several guns.  I have to go through a background check and wait 10 days to purchase a handgun.  I can only purchase one handgun every 30 days. 

How, exactly, do these rules logically relate to reducing gun violence?

I think the original intent was to prevent some hothead from purchasing, then immediately using the implement to harm.

That, and if the person has a record, then no gun for them!
Crash, that's rough that you can only buy one handgun every 30 days and that you have to wait an excruciating 10 days, but if you shouldn't have to go through the legal channels, then why should someone with a criminal record?

Do you guys think that someone that has been determined to be incapable of managing their Social Security Disability benefits in their best interest should be allowed to own a gun?

These would be people whose benefits are paid to an individual or organizational representative payee to be used for the person's food/clothing/shelter/needs etc...

Honestly curious...

 

Sincerely,

Jim

Anyone with a representative payee?  No.  Blanket rules are usually bad.  There is also a constitutional problem where there is no court involved in the decision, just an administrative agency and an ALJ at most.

Not to mention, there are many instances of representative payees appointed for convenience.  If you start taking guns away from SSI beneficiaries with representative payees, expect a lot more work coming your way.

Yeah it just came up on a conf call I was on...I guess I can see both sides of it, but agree that blanket rules can be problematic for sure....

My initial concern is that it would create a new/additional workload (even if not intentionally for SSA staff), and that there might be mis-directed backlash or animosity against SSA staff in field offices (payee decisions are made by DDS and/or ALJ, or by medical doctors who complete and submit statements of capability...field office staff generally just implement the decision).

Will be curious to see how it all plays out.....

Sincerely,

Jim

That, and if the person has a record, then no gun for them!
Crash, that's rough that you can only buy one handgun every 30 days and that you have to wait an excruciating 10 days, but if you shouldn't have to go through the legal channels, then why should someone with a criminal record?

You did not answer my question.

How, exactly, do these rules logically relate to reducing gun violence?

.

That, and if the person has a record, then no gun for them!
Crash, that's rough that you can only buy one handgun every 30 days and that you have to wait an excruciating 10 days, but if you shouldn't have to go through the legal channels, then why should someone with a criminal record?

You did not answer my question.

How, exactly, do these rules logically relate to reducing gun violence?

.

Novofish said, "I think the original intent was to prevent some hothead from purchasing, then immediately using the implement to harm." To that , I added that a background check can weed out those with criminal records and deny them a gun. Does that answer your question?

Do you guys think that someone that has been determined to be incapable of managing their Social Security Disability benefits in their best interest should be allowed to own a gun?

These would be people whose benefits are paid to an individual or organizational representative payee to be used for the person's food/clothing/shelter/needs etc...

Honestly curious...

 

Sincerely,

Jim

Anyone with a representative payee?  No.  Blanket rules are usually bad.  There is also a constitutional problem where there is no court involved in the decision, just an administrative agency and an ALJ at most.

Not to mention, there are many instances of representative payees appointed for convenience.  If you start taking guns away from SSI beneficiaries with representative payees, expect a lot more work coming your way.

Yeah it just came up on a conf call I was on...I guess I can see both sides of it, but agree that blanket rules can be problematic for sure....

My initial concern is that it would create a new/additional workload (even if not intentionally for SSA staff), and that there might be mis-directed backlash or animosity against SSA staff in field offices (payee decisions are made by DDS and/or ALJ, or by medical doctors who complete and submit statements of capability...field office staff generally just implement the decision).

Will be curious to see how it all plays out.....

Sincerely,

Jim

Awesome to consider the unintended consequences and speak up.  Most government agencies are reactive, its good to get out there and be proactive.

Its been a few years since i advised a gun owner to have a representative payee for convenience.