it may intend to target those with psychological disabilities but will also affect 1.5 million social security recipients with only medical conditions, not psychological, who also have representative payees. among those are people who have representative payees because they have trouble getting to the bank or other reasons not affecting their ability to possess firearms.
Social Security Database to be used in Background Checks?
- Thread starter Wyatt Burp
- Start date
keith44spl
Member
I believe it'll expand beyond the SS disabilities recipients psychiatric evaluation or lack of ability to handle their own finances.....
Like Ol TexMex said, if your on any kind of meds that 'might' have
side effects that would cause a psych irregularity or personality disorder, etc...
Hell, before we can get em stopped...
they's probably flag a feller for taking Bayer aspirins and Carter's Little Liver Pills.
.
.
Like Ol TexMex said, if your on any kind of meds that 'might' have
side effects that would cause a psych irregularity or personality disorder, etc...
Hell, before we can get em stopped...
they's probably flag a feller for taking Bayer aspirins and Carter's Little Liver Pills.
.
.
Last edited:
GatorFarmer
Member
Who decides who is sane? Under the current norm of mental health getting your genitals cut off because you think you are a pretty little girl at heart is aokay. Talking to God, I.e. praying, and thinking you get an answer is meanwhile cause for great concern.
Old TexMex
Member
Nothing to see here...move along. Nothing to see here.
NorthWoods1900
Member
Confiscating guns from Seniors
Hi all, by now you may have heard about Pres. Obama's scheme to confiscate guns from Social Security recipients who are deemed "unable to manage their affairs." You'll note that this is not the same as the legal definition of "incompetent." (Fox, Gretchen Carlson 7/12)
Doubtless they'll offer the rational that the authorities are concerned about "suicide or firearms theft." I'm a Anglican Clergymen and of course don't approve of suicide but, like many things,I believe it's your own private business, just don't advertise. With respect to "theft", well, considering the number of "state secrets" that have stolen by the Chinese and others, perhaps we should consider revoking a number the governments powers?
This little scheme from the White House will fail because it runs up against more than the 2nd. Amendment. Nevertheless the gun confiscation crowd will keep plugging and we shall remain vigilant.
Hi all, by now you may have heard about Pres. Obama's scheme to confiscate guns from Social Security recipients who are deemed "unable to manage their affairs." You'll note that this is not the same as the legal definition of "incompetent." (Fox, Gretchen Carlson 7/12)
Doubtless they'll offer the rational that the authorities are concerned about "suicide or firearms theft." I'm a Anglican Clergymen and of course don't approve of suicide but, like many things,I believe it's your own private business, just don't advertise. With respect to "theft", well, considering the number of "state secrets" that have stolen by the Chinese and others, perhaps we should consider revoking a number the governments powers?
This little scheme from the White House will fail because it runs up against more than the 2nd. Amendment. Nevertheless the gun confiscation crowd will keep plugging and we shall remain vigilant.
a similar concern was raised about anyone who went to a therapist over depression, wasn't it? I don't recall there being major issues from that either.
GatorFarmer
Member
As things currently stand in the United States, a judge does not determine whether someone qualifies for Social Security Disability due to mental health reasons, a purely administrative type does. This would seem to create a situation where due process is denied, if there is an expansion where everyone getting SocSec for being mentally ill is denied/prohibited.
The next logical step is an attempt to make anyone under an active mental health diagnosis disqualified. Browsing your handy copy of the DSM will quickly illustrate how most everyone can be diagnosed with something.
The next logical step is an attempt to make anyone under an active mental health diagnosis disqualified. Browsing your handy copy of the DSM will quickly illustrate how most everyone can be diagnosed with something.
jimbo728
Member
It would be an extension of the VA`s policy, which has arbitrarily barred 200 000 US Vets without due process.
Believe it. This administration will do anything to expand the "nix" list without due process.
Individual rights are not a concern with the gun grabbers that are currently at the top in this administration.
Jim
Believe it. This administration will do anything to expand the "nix" list without due process.
Individual rights are not a concern with the gun grabbers that are currently at the top in this administration.
Jim
Last edited:
CAJUNLAWYER
Member
Should mentally incapable Social Security recipients be banned from buying guns? | NOLA.com
Got real mixed feelings on this one. I see a very slippery slope here. First off. How big a problem is people with designated payee's buying guns? I think this is a solution seeking a problem. On paper it sounds great but next thing you know they will be putting in a data base of everyone who's ever taken Prozac. There are a lot of people who can't manage their finances and pay bills that otherwise are capable gun owners. I just don't like blanket restrictions. Period. I JUST DON'T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT. This is the great downside of computers, our privacy is long gone. Maybe it's time for a pulse bomb to go through and let us start all over again without the internet-although I would postulate that the forum just wouldn't be the same
Got real mixed feelings on this one. I see a very slippery slope here. First off. How big a problem is people with designated payee's buying guns? I think this is a solution seeking a problem. On paper it sounds great but next thing you know they will be putting in a data base of everyone who's ever taken Prozac. There are a lot of people who can't manage their finances and pay bills that otherwise are capable gun owners. I just don't like blanket restrictions. Period. I JUST DON'T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT. This is the great downside of computers, our privacy is long gone. Maybe it's time for a pulse bomb to go through and let us start all over again without the internet-although I would postulate that the forum just wouldn't be the same
Last edited:
Arik
Member
I don't see how balancing a check book means anything. I get what they're trying to say ----- that one can't do the simple act of remembering and adding or subtracting a few numbers ---- but I'm sure at least half the population doesn't balance their check book.
Personally, I think individuals with mantle health conditions that leave them either emotionally unstable or poorly connected to reality should be cause for them to be prohibited from possessing firearms. Similarly, if someone suffers from diminished capacity and isn't capable of make sound decisions, they should also be prohibited persons.
However, these decisions need to be based on highly individualized decisions based on objective criteria applied by highly qualified individuals - not based on broad categories of disability.
The potential saving grace of the VA reporting system is the involvement at the local facility level of a counselor, clinician or diagnostician - not that this always happens and not that they always make a good decision.
If SSA starts doing it however, it will be based only on medical records with the decision made by an individual at the federal level who has no personal knowledge of the individual and who may not be party to all the other factors that should come into his decision. Given how often they make errors in disability claims determination, it's obvious their failure rate will be high in this decision making process as well.
Potentially it could spread even further to other federal data systems as well such as the VR system or individuals with disabilities served by on stops. In those cases, decision made at the federal level would b made solely on reported disability categories absent any direct access to medical records.
However, these decisions need to be based on highly individualized decisions based on objective criteria applied by highly qualified individuals - not based on broad categories of disability.
The potential saving grace of the VA reporting system is the involvement at the local facility level of a counselor, clinician or diagnostician - not that this always happens and not that they always make a good decision.
If SSA starts doing it however, it will be based only on medical records with the decision made by an individual at the federal level who has no personal knowledge of the individual and who may not be party to all the other factors that should come into his decision. Given how often they make errors in disability claims determination, it's obvious their failure rate will be high in this decision making process as well.
Potentially it could spread even further to other federal data systems as well such as the VR system or individuals with disabilities served by on stops. In those cases, decision made at the federal level would b made solely on reported disability categories absent any direct access to medical records.
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
As long as it's the "other guy" being prohibited it's not so bad, right?
First they came for everyone convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year and I did not speak out because I had not been convicted. Then they came for SSD recipients and I did not speak out because I am not a recipient of SSD. Then they came for me....
Solution in search of a problem? No.
It's the ongoing final solution to disarm us all.
First they came for everyone convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year and I did not speak out because I had not been convicted. Then they came for SSD recipients and I did not speak out because I am not a recipient of SSD. Then they came for me....
Solution in search of a problem? No.
It's the ongoing final solution to disarm us all.
Last edited:
Old TexMex
Member
Kinda makes you wonder who exactly in this vignette is really the crazy one. Desire for unlimited power, narcissistic personalities, delusional perception, a proven record of dishonesty...
(this ring a bell for anyone?)
(this ring a bell for anyone?)
LIKE,LIKE,LIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mental health is the easy way for the govt. to disarm us. Child takes Ritalin. Parents can't have guns in house and child can't visit relatives that have guns. Many meds. have side effects that might cause mental problems and no more guns. Mental health is a very slippery and scary slope. Larry
A representative payee can be appointed for anyone receiving Social Security payments-disabilty, SSI or just plain old retirement.
Old TexMex
Member
S.S. recipients are the growth sector of the population. Why wouldn't disarmament advocates attack that part of the population?
Simple rules of strategy and tactics would make it a no brainer to start with the elderly, the weak, the injured and the children (and what better way than to control the definition of "disabled") but if I advance that I'm a "conspiracy theorist".
I'm not. History isn't a theory. It's a bloody fact.
Simple rules of strategy and tactics would make it a no brainer to start with the elderly, the weak, the injured and the children (and what better way than to control the definition of "disabled") but if I advance that I'm a "conspiracy theorist".
I'm not. History isn't a theory. It's a bloody fact.
