How can this be good?

[Darrenf 422]

I am arguing that the criteria set forth in the EO, as I understand them, are a good proxy for someone of a certain age being incapable of handling a gun safely.

 

What are you arguing, that most people who are too feeble to write checks or visit the ban are capable?

So now you want to remove guns from people you've deemed "incapable of handling them safely". Just as long as I know where you stand. Seems you would be happy if the 2nd amendment disappeared since it doesn't have any requirement for "handling guns safely" in the text. And don't try to spin this as me saying training isn't important, it's just not a requirement for ownership.

 

Maybe we should also have those restrictions on the 1st amendment, in which case, you wouldn't get to discuss this matter because you obviously have no background in it.

[Newtonian 453]

 

Ange - "Having someone else handle your finances is a fairly reliable proxy for something being seriously wrong with a person. I'm hard pressed to think of a condition that would require a person's child to handle their finances that does not make them an unacceptably high risk for owning a gun" 

 

​​So you're saying my dad should have been restricted from firearms ownership because I used to pay his bills and handle his finances?

 

Based on my experience people stop doing very personal things like paying their bills (and you can think of at least a dozen more activities) because they're in some way incapacitated. I provided four examples from the four previous-generation individuals in my family: blindness, dementia, confusion/previous suicide attempt, eroded cognitive ability. Significantly higher risk means just that -- my mother, for example, would be much more likely to forget a gun was loaded; my father, being blind, would remember but he can't see what he's shooting at. Etc. IMO neither one should have a gun. 

 

This doesn't apply to me but: What does it mean when someone sits in their own poo all day? Forgets how to subtract numbers in their checkbook? Becomes paranoid? Gives their money away to strangers? Signs that something is going on no?

 

High risk doesn't mean they're going on a murder rampage, it means their likelihood of getting into trouble is higher. Why it's not in your father's case is his business and yours. I speak only for my family. What you guys do with your own incapacitated parents is your business. You can buy them razor-blade puppies for all I care.

[Darrenf 422]

Based on my experience people stop doing very personal things like paying their bills (and you can think of at least a dozen more activities) because they're in some way incapacitated. I provided four examples from the four previous-generation individuals in my family: blindness, dementia, confusion/previous suicide attempt, eroded cognitive ability. Significantly higher risk means just that -- my mother, for example, would be much more likely to forget a gun was loaded; my father, being blind, would remember but he can't see what he's shooting at. Etc. IMO neither one should have a gun.

 

This doesn't apply to me but: What does it mean when someone sits in their own poo all day? Forgets how to subtract numbers in their checkbook? Becomes paranoid? Gives their money away to strangers? Signs that something is going on no?

 

High risk doesn't mean they're going on a murder rampage, it means their likelihood of getting into trouble is higher. Why it's not in your father's case is his business and yours. I speak only for my family. What you guys do with your own incapacitated parents is your business. You can buy them razor-blade puppies for all I care.

You are listing a multitude of other things that are factors, when the SS admin was only going to take one factor into consideration, and the problem is that one factor is NOT a good indicator of a tendency towards violence.

 

Do you want the government to protect us from ourselves?

[Zeke 5,504]

Ugg,

[Newtonian 453]

So now you want to remove guns from people you've deemed "incapable of handling them safely". Just as long as I know where you stand. Seems you would be happy if the 2nd amendment disappeared since it doesn't have any requirement for "handling guns safely" in the text. And don't try to spin this as me saying training isn't important, it's just not a requirement for ownership.

 

Maybe we should also have those restrictions on the 1st amendment, in which case, you wouldn't get to discuss this matter because you obviously have no background in it.

Listen you. We do have limits on the first amendment, and the third, and the fourth, fifth, etc. We don't allow 5 year olds to purchase handguns do we? Or paroled murderers. Where does it say in the constitution that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except for grammar school kids"?

 

"you've deemed" -- I have nothing to do with it. We elect people to make certain limited decisions for us. For the most part they suck but sometimes they're right. And you can shove your passive-aggressive "deeming." Yes it has to do with judgement. Gun advocates cry from the rooftops that mentally incapacitated people should not have guns. 

 

Like the terrorist watch list: we can hold several million hearings or we can pass reasonable restrictions and provide an easy means to obtain an exception. 

 

You try to come off as some kind of professional expert. Tell me what do you do for your "clients" that confers such incredible insights into human nature? 

[Zeke 5,504]

Making friends the bi polar way.....

[Darrenf 422]

Listen you. We do have limits on the first amendment, and the third, and the fourth, fifth, etc. We don't allow 5 year olds to purchase handguns do we? Or paroled murderers. Where does it say in the constitution that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except for grammar school kids"?

 

If you want to turn this to a debate about who the Constitution applies to, maybe you should start another thread.  That is not the issue we were talking about, so try to stay focused. For now though, here is a basic primer on the question you just asked.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/do-children-teenagers-have-constitutional-rights.htm

 

"you've deemed" -- I have nothing to do with it. We elect people to make certain limited decisions for us. For the most part they suck but sometimes they're right. And you can shove your passive-aggressive "deeming." Yes it has to do with judgement. Gun advocates cry from the rooftops that mentally incapacitated people should not have guns. 

 

Yes, you've deemed, you are the one that put your seal of approval on the misguided actions of Obama and the SSA.  And stop straw manning what gun advocates are saying.  They are saying that people ADJUDICATED and mentally ill and prone to violence should not have guns.  ADJUDICATED being key, since the gun advocates I have seen also advocate due process.

 

 

Like the terrorist watch list: we can hold several million hearings or we can pass reasonable restrictions and provide an easy means to obtain an exception. 

 

So, again you are going to relinquish due process?

 

You try to come off as some kind of professional expert. Tell me what do you do for your "clients" that confers such incredible insights into human nature? 

 

Nope, not at all, I am going by what the experts say.  And by experts I mean those who understand due process. 

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdf

 

 

 

 

[Darrenf 422]

 

Ange - "Having someone else handle your finances is a fairly reliable proxy for something being seriously wrong with a person. I'm hard pressed to think of a condition that would require a person's child to handle their finances that does not make them an unacceptably high risk for owning a gun" 

 

​​So you're saying my dad should have been restricted from firearms ownership because I used to pay his bills and handle his finances?

 

That is exactly what he is saying.

[Old School 611]

That is exactly what he is saying.

 

So reconsidering...The 2A should only apply to those with Masters or Doctorate degrees.

How's that Newtonian?

And if you give your taxes to an accountant to do, turn in your guns...

[W2MC 1,699]

For all the armchair warriors on this thread...until you're actually there, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

 

Let me describe for you what this "ruling" by Social Security and O-bum-a REALLY means.  

 

Some know, but many don't, that my wife suffered a debilitating injury several years ago - a head injury (from a fall) that significantly impaired her balance, motor skills, and overall ability to get around, as well as some memory issues.  She is still the extremely intelligent and oriented woman she always was; but the injury left her permanently disabled.  Prior to this, she was an RN and college-level nursing instructor. 

 

After fighting with Social Security for two years...and it is a fight-we had to get the lawyers involved-she was finally able to receive a SS benefit, but there was a proviso.  Since this was a head injury, that clicked the box marked "financial conservator required".   No matter that the injury doesn't affect her higher reasoning ability...its an administrative decision so that SS can cover their own butts and blame someone else if something goes wrong with her finances.  Rather than fight that battle for another two years, she and I signed off.  I am now her "financial conservator".  

 

Fast forward a few years.  O-bum-a now decides, as he's going out the door, that anyone who SS *administratively* decided needed a "financial conservator" should be *administratively* added to the "no-firearms" list.  With the stroke of his pen-nothing more-my wife became a prohibited person, unable to purchase or possess a firearm. 

 

It doesn't matter that this wasn't a ruling by a competent court-it wasn't decided by mental health professionals after a considered interview and judgement.  It wasn't even driven by family concerns-it was decided by a low-level Social Security clerk going down a checklist!

 

THAT'S WHAT THIS IS REALLY ABOUT!

[Newtonian 453]

 

Listen you. We do have limits on the first amendment, and the third, and the fourth, fifth, etc. We don't allow 5 year olds to purchase handguns do we? Or paroled murderers. Where does it say in the constitution that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except for grammar school kids"?

If you want to turn this to a debate about who the Constitution applies to, maybe you should start another thread.  That is not the issue we were talking about, so try to stay focused. For now though, here is a basic primer on the question you just asked.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/do-children-teenagers-have-constitutional-rights.htm

 

"you've deemed" -- I have nothing to do with it. We elect people to make certain limited decisions for us. For the most part they suck but sometimes they're right. And you can shove your passive-aggressive "deeming." Yes it has to do with judgement. Gun advocates cry from the rooftops that mentally incapacitated people should not have guns. 

 

Yes, you've deemed, you are the one that put your seal of approval on the misguided actions of Obama and the SSA.  And stop straw manning what gun advocates are saying.  They are saying that people ADJUDICATED and mentally ill and prone to violence should not have guns.  ADJUDICATED being key, since the gun advocates I have seen also advocate due process.

 

 

Like the terrorist watch list: we can hold several million hearings or we can pass reasonable restrictions and provide an easy means to obtain an exception. 

 

So, again you are going to relinquish due process?

 

You try to come off as some kind of professional expert. Tell me what do you do for your "clients" that confers such incredible insights into human nature? 

 

Nope, not at all, I am going by what the experts say.  And by experts I mean those who understand due process. 

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

"Conflict of interest" and "due process" are two of the most misused terms bantered about by armchair lawyers. Due process does not institute or describe a set procedure for getting from point a to point b. The key word "due" does not mean a full court hearing with lawyers and witnesses and a 12-man jury. It means appropriate, reasonable, fitting the situation. I believe age alone and an administrative ruling constitutes "due" process for prohibiting someone at one end of the age scale (toddlers) from having guns, but that obviously does not apply to a 90 year old.

 

Or do you believe we're violating 5 year olds' constitutional rights? That we should have a trial to keep guns from them?

 

I'm not a HUGE fan of the rule/law we're discussing here but there is no doubt in my mind that, in terms of self defense on one hand and accidents/suicides on the other, it's at best a wash. In fact I'll go out on a limb and say that within this group of individuals 3x as many kill themselves as stop a crime with their gun. Age 75+ comprises about 20% of the 35,000 suicides in this country annually yet only 5.1% of the population. Does that tell you anything?

 

Want to discuss the plusses and minuses of suicide? 

 

We were arguing a few weeks ago about a fireman in PA who mistakenly believed he was on patrol in Falujah instead of going to work in semi-rural Pennsylvania, who shot a teenaged FD intern in the face. Is it inconceivable that an 85 year old who is too feeble to do their own banking -- who is prone to all sorts of mistakes, accidents, falls, mental lapses -- might be someone who should not have a gun? I'm not saying in every case by any means.

 

I asked you all to come up with a scenario where a person incapable of writing and cashing his own checks would be able to handle a gun safely and all you could come up with was people who did so for convenience. Well hell, I haven't written more than 20 checks for myself in the last 33 years. YUGE difference. Ironically I've written dozens of checks in the past few months for my father, who is blind.

 

C'mon guys, give me an example of someone who is physically or mentally incapable of doing day-to-day finances who you'd feel comfortable giving a gun to. Have your kids stay over for an afternoon at that person's house. C'mon. Stop bullshitting and give me concrete examples.

 

You guys make me laugh with your ACLU references. The ACLU's goal is to destroy America from within. They're smart, cunning, and use the "law" to do their dirty work. Unlike the proverbial broken clock they are NOT right twice a day. You can bet that if they're for something it is wrong, degenerate, and the purpose is to further their agenda somehow.

[W2MC 1,699]

Newtonian......perhaps you should re-read the post directly above your last.

 

Then perhaps consider deleting your last diatribe.

 

I post this instead of placing what I *really think* right now.

[Darrenf 422]

Newtonian......perhaps you should re-read the post directly above your last.

 

Then perhaps consider deleting your last diatribe.

 

I post this instead of placing what I *really think* right now.

He's already shown he will stick by his opinion, damn the facts. His attitude is exactly why we have the horrible laws in NJ that we do.Happily giving up liberty for the perceived protection of the state. F that nonsense.

[Old School 611]

He's already shown he will stick by his opinion, damn the facts. His attitude is exactly why we have the horrible laws in NJ that we do.Happily giving up liberty for the perceived protection of the state. F that nonsense.

 

That's why I'm posting from my bunker in SC,  Because of this type of "Oh protect the children" nonsense.

[leahcim 680]

"Not even close." So very few individuals who have others do their finances are also incapable of handling a gun. And there are people who are so wealthy and busy at age 70, 80, 90 that they let you write checks for them. 

 

I know people who are worth oodles and have accountants who don't do that. I know people of modest means who have accountants who don't do that. 

As you said earlier, "It is complicated."  I do not like the idea of using one criteria or test (or five for that matter) to determine when to curtail someone's human rights.

 

And there is a difference between someone using an investment advisor or financial planner to decide asset allocation, insurance needs, etc. and one who needs a trusted agent or POA to manage every bill and every check.

 

Where I live, surrounded by 55+ communities, everyday I see people who should not be driving.  And every few months you hear of someone being killed, or backing through the neighbor's living room, or something like that.  I would favor curtailing driving privileges before I would favor curtailing individual human rights.

 

One issue I see in NJ and many other "liberal" states is the laws that make it very difficult to transfer a handgun between individuals.  If you think your relative should not drive, and you can convince, finagle or trick them into giving you their keys/car, you may be able to keep them off the road.  If you do the same thing with a handgun (correct me if I'm wrong) you have committed a felony.

[Cereza 106]

My nickname for you, Cereza, was already "The Citation Queen". Again, you didn't disappoint. I'm guessing you're in a career with some research? :-)

 

 

No, though maybe I should switch. Current "career" (rotflmao) pays bupkis. (On the flip side, limited hours—more range time!— and no office dress code.)

 

Linking to the horse's mouth as it were is more a personal preference than anything else. I'd rather be shown something, than told something.

 

 

 

BTW, a very detailed article about this topic was just posted on National Review Online. Interestingly, the author hit on one of my initial concerns, but went even further, saying, "There were a host of reasons to object to this measure. On separation-of-powers grounds, the prospect of the Social Security Administration playing judge, jury, and executioner is flatly intolerable..." and then he goes on to list all the other reasons it was simply bad law... and further, lists a large array of diverse groups who opposed it, including the ACLU and many groups concerned about the rights of disabled people.

 

So, yeah, that may have been just incredible overreach on the part of the SSA.

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444582/no-gop-did-not-just-repeal-background-check-system-or-give-guns-mentally-ill

 

I haven't had a chance to read the entire article yet, but those tweets at the top… 

 

 

One issue I see in NJ and many other "liberal" states is the laws that make it very difficult to transfer a handgun between individuals.  If you think your relative should not drive, and you can convince, finagle or trick them into giving you their keys/car, you may be able to keep them off the road.  If you do the same thing with a handgun (correct me if I'm wrong) you have committed a felony.

 

^^^This.^^^

 

I cannot go into details because it's very personal and not my story to share on a public forum, but someone I know recently said something that produced the thought, "his guns should be locked up, if not taken away, until he's better." That thought was immediately followed by, "Wow, if he lived in NJ, it would be illegal for family and friends to lock away/ take away his guns."

 

Politicans love writing one-size-fits-all laws for self-aggrandizement, not taking so much as a moment to consider that those laws may actually be counterproductive to the stated goal of keeping people safe. 

[leahcim 680]

Does"legally blind" prevent one from owning firearms? I am certain that a legally blind individual could safely handle a firearm and use it in self defense

[Zeke 5,504]

Rule of thumb.

Any law,rule or EO that puts non criminal American Citizens at odds with each other is bad.

[Newtonian 453]

Newtonian......perhaps you should re-read the post directly above your last.

 

Then perhaps consider deleting your last diatribe.

 

I post this instead of placing what I *really think* right now.

I read it and out of respect for you and your wife I did not respond. But if you insist...

 

I mentioned there were many reasons why someone requires a financial conservator. My 91 year old father can add, subtract, and multiply rings around most of us but he's blind. Only you and your wife know the extent of her injury so I won't assume anything from your description except that she's seriously (physically) disabled, probably prone to depression as well. Problems with balance...c'mon.

 

If you think the likelihood of your wife having to defend herself with a handgun outweighs bad stuff happening then give her all the guns you want. If you live in NJ she can only use them at home anyway. Go for it.

[Newtonian 453]

Does"legally blind" prevent one from owning firearms? I am certain that a legally blind individual could safely handle a firearm and use it in self defense

You're right it's just a meaningless administrative designation. So what if a person can't recognize faces or see what they're shooting at? 

 

I sometimes wonder if this site doesn't give off LSD. 

[Darrenf 422]

You're right it's just a meaningless administrative designation. So what if a person can't recognize faces or see what they're shooting at?

 

I sometimes wonder if this site doesn't give off LSD.

You realize legally blind can be corrected with glasses well enough for someone to drive. But by all means, let's keep as many people as we can from exercising their rights. God you say some stupid shit.

[leahcim 680]

The U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) defines legal blindness as follows:

1. Reduced central visual acuity of 20/200 or less in your better eye with use of the best eyeglass lens to correct your eyesight; or...
2. Limitation of your field of view such that the widest diameter of the visual field in your better eye subtends an angle no greater than 20 degrees. (Source: http://www.allaboutvision.com/lowvision/legally-blind.htm)

Prior to Lasik, my vision was close to 20/200 uncorrected.  It was correctable to near 20/20 with glasses or contacts.  However, in my uncorrected state of 20/200 I could easily recognize people that were within a self-defense range.  And while my FOV was not limited, I think you can recognize someone in a 20 degree FOV.  

 

Like you said, it is complicated and so it is hard to distill it down to a series of check box criteria to determine whether the government will curtail your basic human rights.

[Newtonian 453]

Hey all of you ahead and give your blind grandparents guns. Give your elderly relatives who can't hold a teacup without dropping it a Desert Eagle. And as you've all shown being demented is just a liberal concept so see if you can get NRA to fund a program to give guns to residents of Alzheimer's care centers. Then organize a play day at the home for your kids. You wouldn't want to deny anyone their God given right to defend themselves.

 

I'm still waiting for an actual example of someone who requires conservatorship who should be trusted with a handgun. 

 

So far I have one barely believable story of someone forced to sign a checkbox to get benefits (who nevertheless is disabled enough not to work and to collect benefits but not too disabled to...oh fuggedaboudit), and one person who believes that all you have to do to cure blindness is to get eyeglasses. 

 

I'll have to mention that to my father, whose maculas are destroyed. Very next time I visit I'll take him to WalMart and get some eyeglasses so his maculas won't be destroyed any more, so he doesn't spill his milk any more while pouring it into his cereal. Which handgun should I get him for his 92nd birthday? I was thinking a nice .44 magnum. Do they make rounds labeled in braille? Oh I forget he'll be able to see if he just puts on his damn glasses. 

 

I'll tell you, liberals have no special claim to being brainwashed and clueless.

[W2MC 1,699]

I read it and out of respect for you and your wife I did not respond. But if you insist...

 

I mentioned there were many reasons why someone requires a financial conservator. My 91 year old father can add, subtract, and multiply rings around most of us but he's blind. Only you and your wife know the extent of her injury so I won't assume anything from your description except that she's seriously (physically) disabled, probably prone to depression as well. Problems with balance...c'mon.

 

If you think the likelihood of your wife having to defend herself with a handgun outweighs bad stuff happening then give her all the guns you want. If you live in NJ she can only use them at home anyway. Go for it.

 

Because, Newt, no one has adjudicated them incompetent!  An action by a low-level clerk in a Social Security office going down a punch-list is NOT the same as a court ruling, a medical diagnosis, or even a family member taking over!  But with the swipe of a pen, O-Bum-A just put that clerical decision on the same legal footing as a court order of incompetency!  These are civil rights we are talking about here....something that should NEVER be denied lightly!

[Darrenf 422]

I'm still waiting for an actual example of someone who requires conservatorship who should be trusted with a handgun.

 

 

 

This is again why we have the awful laws we suffer from here in NJ. This guy thinks we need to prove we should get to exercise our rights, instead of the burden being on the government to show why we shouldn't.

 

 

I'll tell you, liberals have no special claim to being brainwashed and clueless.

Yes, you are living proof of that.

[Newtonian 453]

This is again why we have the awful laws we suffer from here in NJ. This guy thinks we need to prove we should get to exercise our rights, instead of the burden being on the government to show why we shouldn't.

 

 

 

Yes, you are living proof of that.

Don't lecture me on rights sonny boy. I'm asking you for an example, like 3 or 4 times. You can't give one. Nobody else has given one. Case closed. 

[Darrenf 422]

Don't lecture me on rights sonny boy. I'm asking you for an example, like 3 or 4 times. You can't give one. Nobody else has given one. Case closed.

You've been given multiple examples, but of course you keep moving the goal posts and even went as far as to call one shared personal story "barely believable". Keep living in this delusion that you are smarter and better than everyone else, it's fun to watch.

[Zeke 5,504]

Liberal progressive globalist 1: "we have a murder problem "

Lib Prog Glob 2: " we should ban murder"

Lib Prog Glob 1: " we all ready ban murder"

Lib Prog Glob 2: " well than, ban it harder!"

[Newtonian 453]

Because, Newt, no one has adjudicated them incompetent!  An action by a low-level clerk in a Social Security office going down a punch-list is NOT the same as a court ruling, a medical diagnosis, or even a family member taking over!  But with the swipe of a pen, O-Bum-A just put that clerical decision on the same legal footing as a court order of incompetency!  These are civil rights we are talking about here....something that should NEVER be denied lightly!

I agree. And I generally don't like stroke-of-the-pen designations affecting the rights of millions of people. I would prefer family members make this decision but I can tell you, as someone who deals or has dealt with numerous family members in their 80s and 90s, it's very tough for individuals and their families to face the facts of old age and debilitation. Old people become "ribambitti" -- like children, and their offspring (like my siblings) are constantly in denial. I could write a book on our experiences, too many of them negative. 

 

I once had to promise an 80 year old friend who had weeks to live and could barely get out of bed to take a crap that I'd help him renew his driver's license. What if he'd asked me to buy him some ammo for his handgun? 

 

The fact that between the "system," the individual, and a family member a decision is reached that for whatever reason a person can no longer be trusted to conduct what were at one time extremely private activities says quite a bit. Despite Darrenf's delusions of blind people suddenly seeing again and shooting 1" groups. Jesus. I'm still waiting to hear of specific examples where this situation arises and that person would not be considered high risk for owning a gun. You guys don't answer the question because it's so blatantly obvious that those situations are rare. I can't even think of one, with all due respect to your wife. 

 

 

But like I said, you guys want to give your incapacitated relatives handguns go right ahead and let them have their Rambo moment. Just don't come on here looking for sympathy when something awful happens.

[Newtonian 453]

You've been given multiple examples, but of course you keep moving the goal posts and even went as far as to call one shared personal story "barely believable". Keep living in this delusion that you are smarter and better than everyone else, it's fun to watch.

Please humor me then. Give me an example of someone so barred who is not high risk. Or cite a post to that effect. I haven't seen one yet. Tell me the exact condition that caused someone to go into conservatorship.