• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama looks to ban Social Security recipients from owning guns

I did, but I don't see it as cut and dry as you seem to. Not being able to "manage one's own affairs" is a pretty broad category, wouldn't you agree? One could argue that by the very fact you're on social security you've proven you can't manage your own financial affairs. You're the one who brought in mental capacity although I don't believe the term "manage one's own affairs" necessarily is restricted to mental capacity.

It's a Fox News article that's written in a way as to be deliberately controversial and inflammatory.

Did you catch this part:

If Social Security, which has never taken part in the background check system, uses the same standard as the Department of Veterans Affairs – which is the idea floated – then millions of beneficiaries could be affected, with about 4.2 million adults receiving monthly benefits that are managed by “representative payees.”

An SSI recipient having been appointed a "representative payee" is the operative concept in the Obama policy, and should be central to the article.

It should be explained in detail and compared to the VA's practice of appointing a “fiduciary” to veterans with psychiatric disabilities.

But, again, it being a Fox News article it's kind of thrown in there off hand, almost as though it's an afterthought, while the author rants on about a bunch of nonsense.

A "representative payee" is only appointed to an SSI recipient who has been legally adjudicated as being mentally incompetent.

This isn't about folks like my parents and my uncle (an avid hunter, shooter, veteran, and CCW holder) who are older, and maybe not quite as quick on their feet as they used to be, and who struggle with financial issues in their old age because of the fine print of financial agreements, memory loss, problems with deteriorating eyesight and just the general decline in abilities that many (though certainly not all) seniors suffer from.

For folks like that you get a power of attorney and a joint checking account and have the bills delivered to your address and you just sort of manage their financial affairs for them.

When a recipient is appointed a "representative payee" it's usually because their mental abilities have deteriorated to a point where they can't even make a rational decision in respect to turning over care of their finances to a more capable representative.
 
Once again we see the effect of people only reading headlines.

You mean the one about people with poor memories?
 
Social Security isn't optional? What's that supposed to mean?

So, as an example, if a person is disabled, they must accept social security? Is that what you're saying?

They don't have to, theoretically, but they'd be a complete dumbass is they did.

Paying into Social Security is not optional.
 
When stated broadly, yes. ;) It could be more precisely targeted in legislation or in the rules, e.g. people who are found mentally incompetent or mentally ill by a court.



lol... No, you can't. Merely collecting your government-funded senior citizen pension is not evidence of mental incompetence, or an inability to handle your finances.

There should also be no question that the regulation is far more narrow than your interpretation. They will certainly set up standards and mechanisms, as the VA already does, which will likely rely on local determinations like someone gaining guardianship of a senior citizen in court.

You have great faith in government and their ability to legislate in clear, concise language.

Didn't your country just go through a Supreme Court case directly related to legislative language not reflecting the intent of the legislators?

Clearly, this is in early stages and actual language will be critical. But even divorced from the actual language, you seem comfortable that there isn't room for bureaucratic abuse of the process.

And just out of curiosity, what would prohibit a legal guardian from purchasing a weapon for the person they are acting in lieu of if they are legally able to act in all matters for the other person?
 
Wrong again Bucko, I spoke to the language used in the link, not your language - I spoke to the issue of being unable to "manage one's own affairs" and how broad that term may be - you spoke about being mentally incompetent. There is a difference, but clearly you don't believe there is.

So yes, we do disagree. I don't believe that being unable to "manage one's own affairs" signifies mental incompetence - you apparently do.

What other reasons for being unable to manage your own affairs do you believe is being targeted, and what evidence do you have to support that?
 
And includes people with bad memories? Says so somewhere in the article I think.

The article speculates to that regard.
 
So you're withdrawing your gratuitous slag - noted.

Uh, no. You claimed that "one could argue" that simply being on SS means you can't manage your finances. Accepting money you're entitled to means you can't manage your finances? That's a pretty dumb statement.
 
What other reasons for being unable to manage your own affairs do you believe is being targeted, and what evidence do you have to support that?

I don't for a minute presume to know the mind of President Obama and those who advise him on such matters. I simply look at the words and take them at face value. Considering the administration's view of the actual language used in the ACA and how that can be broadened to meet the administration's whims, it's probably wise in the case of this White House to take the broadest of views when trying to guess their intent.
 
I don't for a minute presume to know the mind of President Obama and those who advise him on such matters. I simply look at the words and take them at face value. Considering the administration's view the actual language used in the ACA and how that can be broadened to meet the administration's whims, it's probably wise in the case of this White House to take the broadest of views when trying to guess their intent.

Cop out. That was predictable.

Ok, so what actual words used by the administration lead you to this conclusion.
 
Uh, no. You claimed that "one could argue" that simply being on SS means you can't manage your finances. Accepting money you're entitled to means you can't manage your finances? That's a pretty dumb statement.

Not at all, when dealing with this White House.
 
Not at all, when dealing with this White House.

"This administration sometimes interprets things in a way that differs from my interpretation, therefore I get to assume anything I want about anything they say."

Real compelling.
 
Cop out. That was predictable.

Ok, so what actual words used by the administration lead you to this conclusion.

Not interested in playing little games with you. I was discussing the content of the OP and the potential ramifications. I don't believe the administration has issued any actual words - as another poster noted, when the language actually comes out we'll know better - comparing this to the "unforeseen" problems with the ACA is apt, whether you see it or not. So find someone else to play your little gotcha games with.
 
Not interested in playing little games with you. I was discussing the content of the OP and the potential ramifications. I don't believe the administration has issued any actual words - as another poster noted, when the language actually comes out we'll know better - comparing this to the "unforeseen" problems with the ACA is apt, whether you see it or not. So find someone else to play your little gotcha games with.

I want to discuss potential ramifications also.

Except you don't seem to have anything to base your "potential ramifications" on.
 
"This administration sometimes interprets things in a way that differs from my interpretation, therefore I get to assume anything I want about anything they say."

Real compelling.

That's often how it works with this White House until a court steps in and then John Roberts can pack away his principles and fold.
 
That's often how it works with this White House until a court steps in and then John Roberts can pack away his principles and fold.

You should consider the possibility that courts keep siding against you because you are wrong.
 
And includes people with bad memories? Says so somewhere in the article I think.
Only if those "bad memories" result in their being declared mentally incompetent.
 
You have great faith in government and their ability to legislate in clear, concise language.
Again, the VA is already doing it, and it hasn't stripped every single veteran of their guns.


Didn't your country just go through a Supreme Court case directly related to legislative language not reflecting the intent of the legislators?
Nope. We just went through a ridiculous case where a handful of words were taken out of context by opponents of a law, and where the intent of the law was excruciatingly clear, and the SCOTUS demonstrated a bit of common sense.


Clearly, this is in early stages and actual language will be critical. But even divorced from the actual language, you seem comfortable that there isn't room for bureaucratic abuse of the process.
*shrug* There will be errors no matter what. That alone does not prove that it's a bad regulation.


And just out of curiosity, what would prohibit a legal guardian from purchasing a weapon for the person they are acting in lieu of if they are legally able to act in all matters for the other person?
AFAIK, purchasing a new firearm in order to circumvent a background check qualifies as a straw purchase.
 
Considering the administration's view of the actual language used in the ACA and how that can be broadened to meet the administration's whims, it's probably wise in the case of this White House to take the broadest of views when trying to guess their intent.
I'm sorry, but that's patently fallacious.

The Obama administration never broadened the ACA after the legislation was passed on its own whims. At worst, it delayed implementation of the employer mandate.

Nor would such a claim ever justify an assertion that a regulation like this one would be so broadly expanded as to stop every Social Security recipient from purchasing a new firearm. That's simply absurd.
 
Obama looks to ban Social Security recipients from owning guns

"The Obama administration wants to keep people collecting Social Security benefits from owning guns if it is determined they are unable to manage their own affairs, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The push, which could potentially affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others, is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws that prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the United States illegally, and others, according to the paper.

The language of federal gun laws restricts ownership to people who are unable to manage their own affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease” – which could potentially affect a large group within Social Security, the LA Times reported.

If Social Security, which has never taken part in the background check system, uses the same standard as the Department of Veterans Affairs – which is the idea floated – then millions of beneficiaries could be affected, with about 4.2 million adults receiving monthly benefits that are managed by “representative payees.”"

Obama looks to ban Social Security recipients from owning guns | Fox News

I love it when they do stuff like this. They just can't help shooting themselves in the feets.

Damn scary.
 
You should consider the possibility that courts keep siding against you because you are wrong.

Damn. I see more shadows emanating from penumbras in the future. It's too late for me. I have tons of guns, and I forgot where I put all of 'em. Every single one. Bad memory.
 
Damn. I see more shadows emanating from penumbras in the future. It's too late for me. I have tons of guns, and I forgot where I put all of 'em. Every single one. Bad memory.

Oh right, some of you took that wild speculation about "bad memory" at face value. I keep forgetting.
 
Oh right, some of you took that wild speculation about "bad memory" at face value. I keep forgetting.

I have a right to a bad memory when it suits me. I forget the last time that happened, but I bet it'll happen again.
 
Obama looks to ban Social Security recipients from owning guns

"The Obama administration wants to keep people collecting Social Security benefits from owning guns if it is determined they are unable to manage their own affairs, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The push, which could potentially affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others, is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws that prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the United States illegally, and others, according to the paper.

The language of federal gun laws restricts ownership to people who are unable to manage their own affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease” – which could potentially affect a large group within Social Security, the LA Times reported.

If Social Security, which has never taken part in the background check system, uses the same standard as the Department of Veterans Affairs – which is the idea floated – then millions of beneficiaries could be affected, with about 4.2 million adults receiving monthly benefits that are managed by “representative payees.”"

Obama looks to ban Social Security recipients from owning guns | Fox News

I love it when they do stuff like this. They just can't help shooting themselves in the feets.

Just out of curiosity, did you change the headline from "Obama admin looks to ban some Social Security recipients from owning guns" to "Obama admin looks to ban Social Security recipients from owning guns" or was that an update to the story??
 
Back
Top Bottom