President Obama at Benedict College in South Carolina (courtesy voanews.com)

The President and his staff have said it time and again: their biggest disappointment was their inability to further restrict the rights of American citizens to keep and bear arms. Now with the end of his presidency looming, it looks like President Obama might be preparing to go “full retard” on gun control laws. The new proposal would specifically impact those who receive Social Security disability benefits, banning them from even owning guns if they fit a list of conditions that President Obama and his administration deem “dangerous.”

From the LA Times:

Seeking tighter controls over firearm purchases, the Obama administration is pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, a move that could affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others.

[…]

A potentially large group within Social Security are people who, in the language of federal gun laws, are unable to manage their own affairs due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.”

In short, anyone who is unable to manage their expenses for themselves would be prohibited from owning a firearm.

This is, quite frankly, insane. The stated purpose for these new provisions is to keep guns out of the hands of potential mass shooters, but I can’t find a single such attacker in recent history who was receiving Social Security benefits for a mental disability. In other words, the President is trying to use a national tragedy to further restrict our right to own guns and the plan he has outlined would do absolutely nothing whatsoever to make us more safe. All he wants to do is take guns out of people’s hands, and it looks like he doesn’t care whether that would actually have an impact on crime or not. He’s just pushing for the most restrictive policies that he possibly can without bothering to ask Congress for help, and he doesn’t give a damn who it hurts.

Targeting Americans with disabilities and trying to restrict their rights seems like a pretty slimy thing to do in my opinion. They haven’t done anything wrong, so why are they being punished? Oh, right: guns are evil and gun owners need to be eradicated. Right.

Recommended For You

197 Responses to BREAKING: Obama Announces Plans to Ban Guns for Elderly and Disabled Americans

    • Maybe Obama will suspend the voting rights of those that “lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs”.

      I think that might be his voting base.

      • Seriously. I’m sure there would be massive outcry from the ACLU and dozens of other groups if these proposals were worded identically but RE voting rights instead of firearms.

        …Of course, that’s probably because they all encourage the busing in of senile seniors — no photo ID needed — so they can vote en masse for whomever the bus driver tells them to haha

        • Jeremy,

          If you’re ever in Brea, CA, I’ll love to get you a beer or a scotch. RF, Dr Vino, etc. have my contact info.

        • It’s always astounded me that certain people will place restrictions on the Second Amendment that they would never (openly) consider for other rights. Will these same people also be prohibited from;
          – voting
          – exercising their religion
          – exercising their right to free speech
          – a fair trial
          – peaceably assembling

        • If you were actually familiar with the track record of ACLU wrt gun rights of specific groups, you’d know that they do in fact oppose such restrictions in those cases. For example, they have banded up with SAF to shoot down gun laws that prohibit legal immigrant non-citizens from owning guns in some states. For them it’s not about guns in that case, it’s about equal rights and freedoms. So I wouldn’t be surprised if they step in here, as well.

        • +1 thats why I show them some love and the Electronic Frontiers Foundation too. Guns are only a small part of the assault on our freedoms.

      • Not even Obama knows who his voters are. Some are long dead, some are multi-state boters, many are illegal alien criminals who commit violent crimes with firearms over and over, and no one can seem to do anything about them (they must drive around in cars).

        • His voters are not likely to support picking on the disabled. Who, btw are often victimized and are greatly in need of self defense. And there is NO way any court outside of SF is going to agree to this policy. 1 it violates the second amendment but 2 it violates a shit load of liberal anti descrimnation laws including the ADA itself. Not being able to handle yor own finances is a far cry from ring a danger to yourself or others.

        • I bet multiple quadriplegics that have someone else handle the finances but still can handle a firearm should not be denied a right because someone else writes the checks. How many disabled people have one of their parent’s as a rep/payee because when first getting disability the beneficiary was under 18 at the time?

      • Not even Obama knows who his voters are. Some are long dead, some are multi-state boters, many are illegal alien criminals who commit violent crimes with firearms over and over, and no one can seem to do anything about them (they must drive around in cars).

        And if you’re blue (D), or liberal, all of Obama is yours, that’s on you, and your progeny.

      • Most of the people commenting in this article and the author himself obviously fit the definition of “marked subnormal intelligence.” The only reason I would support your ability to keep guns is that it makes it easier for you to remove yourselves from the gene pool. Please, go ahead. I recommend a 12ga in the mouth. Pro tip; pull the trigger with your toe. Thanks.

      • Now that it has the attention of the NRA, veterans, senior, and disability rights groups, I suspect there will be challenges on multiple fronts. Not often one sees AARP, NRA, NAMI, etc. join forces. Regardless of one’s position on gun control, it sets a dangerous precedent.

        • I’ve said it over and over , here and on other sites , everywhere I can actually , Barry is coming for our guns . He is slick as a whistle and successful in all his endeavors . I don’t know how it’s going to go down but it’s coming . Hang on for the ride ahead . Always watch what the other hand is doing with this bunch . The information being hung out for our consumption now is a ruse . They already have stuff in place through the new health care act that will affect gun owners who are either being medicated for depression or living with someone receiving these treatments and now they will throw in age as a criteria so if your living with your parent or grandparent who is senile , suffering from dementia or Alzheimer’s or is receiving treatments for depression or nervousness then there can’t be any firearm within their homes . They are taking away the rights of American veterans every day who are PTSD etc. This gun issue is coming to a save near you . I get these gut instincts , I have all my life and I am usually spot on . Be very watchful this coming year I think we are all in for a bumpy ride ,

        • I agree that this is on the agenda.

          I’m puzzled that there is NO discussion here (or anywhere else I’ve seen) objecting to the 20 year retention period for 4473 forms; nor even a mention of the fact that an FFL going out of business must send his forms to the ATF for perpetual preservation.

          This 20-years-to-perpetuity system is a proto-registration system. Governments can use it to try to round-up “assault weapons” or whatever other type they want to ban. The forms can be used to identify “frequent buyers” who could reasonably be presumed to have as many guns as they bought from FFLs. Sure, they may have sold a few but probably bought an equal number in private transactions.

          We ought to be pushing our Congress-critters to shorten the retention period from 20 to 10 or 7 or 5 years. Have the GAO do a study on how many ATF traces are successful by year. How many traces on 20-year-old purchases; 19; 18; . . . 3; 2; 1. I doubt that many traces on guns sold more than 7 years ago lead to useful information. Whatever the inflection-point is on the curve, there is no justification for keeping forms beyond that point of usefulness for law-enforcement purposes.

          Suppose the retention period were shortened to – say – 5 years. Most likely, FFLs would not immediately purge their archives as soon as forms aged off the 5 year point. They would be likely to purge only after the 6’th or 7’th year. So, many traces of older sales could still be made available to law enforcement. The FFL community would have the option of destroying old forms that aged-out if Congress started to debate any more gun-control bills.

          The law should also be changed to allow private “registered archivists” to hold the forms of FFLs that go out of business. The ATF will never destroy the 4473 records they retain whereas private archivists would be contracted to do so.

          The cost of scanning forms and preserving images on disk/tape/cd has dropped to very low levels. It is likely that FFLs could save money by shipping off all their existing records for years-past to archivists and reducing their file rooms to the minimum required to maintain the current year’s or month’s activity. The archivists could – probably – also automatically purge images of records that age-out; a difficult task for FFLs keeping paper forms.

          (FFLs keep records in order by name, not date. So, all John Abraham’s forms are together, next John Adams’s, and so forth. A clerk would have to look at the date for each form and determine whether that form had aged-off. This task, thumbing through the entire 20 year inventory, can’t be done economically every year. Optical scanning software could “read” the date on each form and record it in machine readable form. Then, software could automatically purge images each year as they age-off; or, a couple of years after they age-off if the FFL industry wants to cooperate with law enforcement.)

          I do NOT think that a very effective confiscation drive could be based on gathering-up all the 4473 forms from all the FFLs today. Congress’s design for FFL record retention was probably wise and good-enough. NEVERTHELESS, the 20-year retention period is obviously far-enough-down-the-path that the Antis only have to incrementally push it a little farther from time to time. Eventually, record-keeping will be complete enough to support a confiscation drive.

          UBC is/would-be an inconvenience and a threat to law-abiding gun owners who inadvertently skip a BC. However, these factors are likely a side-show. Some States already have UBC for hand-guns if not all guns. The more States that adopt UBC the larger the percentage of secondary-market sales will be documented. In addition to stopping UBC as a 4473 documentation pretext, we must also gut the 20-years-to-perpetuity FFL archive.

          Once the FFL archive has been reduced to the point where it no longer represents a viable basis for confiscation, the Anti’s eagerness to build the archive for private transfers will abate. Imagine this: Suppose all transfers were documented but the record retention period were very short, say just 1 year. Would a complete archive for just the last year’s transfer activity be of any value to gun-grabbers? Obviously not. Even if the archive were for 5 or 7 years, it would not be good-enough because guns’ useful lives are as long as a century.

          As long as we have 20-years-to-perpetuity record retention confiscation will remain a looming threat. Reduce this term to 5 or 7 years and the threat will dissipate. Too small a fraction of the inventory will be documented to make confiscation practical.

        • Mark, Appreciate your points and am inclined to advocate for them, but…

          Recently read that the *average* age of illegally obtained firearms used in the commission of crime is 14 years. The article didn’t detail other parameters (mode, standard deviation, distribution, etc.) that could be pertinent too.

          If the records are truncated at say 5 years, how does that affect reducing illegally obtained firearms? Your thoughts?

        • I’ve read 12; and was disappointed by that. I thought it would be much shorter.

          First, I’m skeptical as to what any such figure means. The ATF traces guns for any number of reasons. Some are found at crime scenes. Others are simply found without connection with a crime. Some are discovered to have been stolen.

          So, what does it mean when some elderly lady dies and a gun is found while cleaning out her estate? They run a trace and find her late husband bought the gun at the LGS 19 years ago. How does that trace skew the statistic?

          Mexico runs a trace on a hundred guns and the trace runs to some Spanish-sur-named buyer from New Mexico 18 years ago. What does that tell us about “time to crime”? Who knows how long that gun languished in some hut in Oaxaca before it was traced.

          What really matters is whether a gun trace lead to any useful lead in an investigation. The older the trace the more likely the retail buyer has moved and the cops don’t bother to try to find him. The older the trace the more likely that the retail buyer won’t remember anything useful about the disposition of the gun, It might have been stolen; but the burglary case is stone cold.

          If the trace is FRESH – a year or two – I can believe that there would be an opportunity to find a straw-buyer or trafficker. Or, find the guy who bought the gun and subsequently turned to a life of crime. Or, who bought the gun – shot it for a while -and subsequently sold it to an acquaintance who could be found.

          The OAG (or some such independent investigator) would have to cook up a sample of cases that shows a significant percentage of old traces that lead to useful evidence. I very strongly doubt that a significant number of traces over 5 years prove useful. Sure, they might find the original buyer; and, find his current address; and, they might be able to interview him. Do they bother to interview him? Does he have anything interesting to contribute to the investigation?

          Let’s face it. Cops, prosecutors, the ATF, are all busy with plenty of other crimes. If a given investigation is not REALLY interesting and if the apparent avenues of investigation appear time-consuming, they will turn their attention to other cases.

          We already know that the ATF pays little attention to straw-buying cases. Why bother? So, you find the suspected straw-buyer. She is a young single minority mother. Is the prosecutor going to press charges against her to imprison her for 5 years just because the gun was found at the scene of a robbery? They got the robber already and offered to plea-down to strong-armed-robbery. What do they want to make of his “girl-friend”.

          The burden of proof for retaining 4473 forms rests with the ATF to show that public safety gets something out of a long retention period. Most business records only need to be kept for 7 years; why 4473 forms for nearly 3 times that long? Because GUNZZZZZ?

          We are never going to have a perfect system; in fact, what we want is a system that is intentionally “leakey”. Ideally, for 2A purposes, we would like no preservation of 4473 forms at all. After the NICS check comes back, the 4473 form could be destroyed unless – of course – the NICS return were STOP. (See the plan for the BIDS system.) Yet, we PotG must concede that there is a public safety concern. We do want guns used in crimes to be traced. These two concerns are in contention.

          I believe Congress saw fit to resolve the contention by keeping the 4473 forms widely distributed among tens of thousands of FFLs throughout the country. As such, they could not have imagined overcoming the difficulty of collecting all these forms into a national registry. Perhaps they didn’t see the going-out-of-business send forms to ATF as a significant consideration.

          Today, we need to recognize that things have changed since Congress designed this system. ATF’s archive is now a scanned image archive. Congress could pass a law requiring all FFLs to send in all their old records plus new records monthly. All these forms could be scanned and collated. We are dangerously close to a feasible national registry of first retail sale. From this point, dangerously close to a national registry of ALL sales.

          There is a great compromise available to Congress, law-enforcement, the FFL industry and us customers. Privatize the archive of FFLs that have gone out-of-business. Keep the FFL records in the field, whether in the FFLs’ own hands or in the hands of private “registered archivists”. Shorten the legal retention period so that we the PotG could “shred” the archives upon threat of a national registry. In exchange for this, we the PotG promise to VOLUNTARILY preserve 4473 forms long beyond the minimum-required retention period. E.g., the minimum period might be 5 years while the maximum useful life of the forms might be around 15 years. OK, we will keep these forms for 15 years or so; until a threatening bill is introduced in Congress. If Congress doesn’t negotiate in good faith we will have our revenge at the shredding machine.

      • Actually there are all kinds of exemptions and loopholes in which the ADA does not protect.

        ADA focus is on “access” to services
        And employment rights.
        and removal of physical barriers.

        It does not protect rights of activities engaged in your own time and place. ADA also does NOT apply to federal government. Action/services by federal government are exempt from the ADA. because of the rehabilitation act of 1974. which does apply to federal government.

    • The second amendment dictates that a Well Regulated militia is an option for any free state and that citizens have the right to bear arms.. I’m paraphrasing.. But these assertions that Obama is taking guns from the elderly and disabled is an untruth! The proposal is that the mentally incompetent not be able to possess guns.. Then this article twists that for the sake of their headline! The article itself states that if the elderly and disabled are unable to handle their AFFAIRS they could be deemed incompetent!!! That is exploited to say that social security and disability recipients receive income that is handled by administrations, so they are being denied a right.. That’s BS! That is not what was actually said! One has to be mentally capable to manage their AFFAIRS!! Ones second end meant right is not being denied by passing gun CONTROL laws!! There has never been a proposal to BAN guns! And , with the distorted threat of losing rights, you people want mentally incapable people to have guns?? That’s so crazy!! And I’m sure that the founding fathers never contemplated military grade assault weapons in the hands of citizens! You people scare the shit out of me!

      • Riddle me this: what does being mentally competent to balance one’s checkbook have anything at all to do with being mentally competent to handle a firearm?

        I’ll wait.

      • You scare the shit out of me. The broad terminology of the mental-illness prohibiting criteria is at the heart of the problem. What does “adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution” really mean?

        If the VA or SSA can reach a determination of “adjudication” that a person who has appointed another to handle his financial affairs then we have a real threat. Oh, sure, anyone who has plenty of money left over from his VA or SS benefits can appeal and contest the “adjudication”. And, eventually, if he has enough money and good enough lawyers and a sympathetic judge, he could probably get his 2A rights restored.

        Is this what “due process of law” has been reduced to? That two Federal agencies can gin-out thousands of form letters, drop them in the mail, and turn an equal number of law-abiding tax-paying citizens into instant felons for possessing guns?

        Read the book “Three Felonies a Day”. It is precisely this sort of failure to adhere to our principles of due-proves of law that is turning our nation into a tyranny. If we fail to object to these sorts of cases of soft tyranny there won’t be enough of us standing armed to stop them when they line us up in front of the wood-chippers.

        I do not have a naive expectation that we will ever reach an entirely satisfactory solution to the prohibited-person categories. Nevertheless, clearly the Vets and the SS Disabled are the place to begin criticizing the Feds in over-reach here.

        • Back in the day, the determination of who was not competent to bear arms was made not by any bureaucrats or impersonal regulations, but by their peers, the people who knew them.

          That’s what we need to get back to: a system with actual local militias, with officers selected with neither input nor interference from the federal government, officers who know their people, officers who can talk to those people, officers who can consult with mental health professionals or anyone else, officers who can decide that a given felon ought to bear arms or a particular mentally ill person shouldn’t.

        • Law enforcement as officers in a local militia would, I think, be a conflict of interest, so I don’t see how they could possibly be selected as militia officers.

          Though… where did you get that question? I didn’t even mention law enforcement!?!?!!

        • Okay, then who the hell are those local militia officers, and why they are in charge of deciding whether I can or cannot have a gun?

        • We don’t have them at the moment — you noticed maybe that I said “we need to get back to”?

          Local militia officers would be, as they were then, selected by the local militia. Their interest would be to see, as a certain patriot once said, “that every man be armed” — except for those known by the community to be plainly not qualified.

          And they would be in charge because that’s what militia officers are for — they’re in charge of the militia.

          (What DO they teach in schools these days???)

        • In sunny, arid California our main local militias are also called the Crips and Bloods. Many others to choose from as well.

        • So basically, you’re proposing instituting a new local elected official position or positions, that would be elected (?) by members of the militia, and that, once elected, would have full discretion over who can and cannot own guns in their jurisdiction.

          For starters, this is classic unchecked tyranny of the majority, with predictable outcomes such as we’ve already seen before. For example, such an arrangement in Deep South circa 1960 (and probably even a few decades later… how long did it take for Mississippi to repeal their miscegenation laws,a gain?) would virtually guarantee that any county with white majority would elect white militia officers that would just deny RKBA to any blacks in their area.

          Then, it’s not clear to me how you define militia. If it’s a subset of the community as a whole, then why do militia officers have authority to deny RKBA to non-members? If it’s the entire community, then that sounds conspicuously like a local universal conscription to me. And what’s this business with “every man be armed”? Are you saying that people must have guns if militia officers deem them fit for that purpose? What happens if they don’t?

        • Do you not know any history? don’t they teach about the militia any more?

          I’m not talking about government, I’m talking about militia. And if you don’t recognize the quote “that every man be armed”… well, at the moment I don’t have time to educate you.

        • I do know history, and it never had anything of the kind that you’re describing here.

          (But no, they don’t teach it in schools in the country where I’m originally from. Which is not US. It’s a large planet.)

          You still haven’t answered any of my questions. And in particular, if your militia has power to deny people in some area the right to own or bear guns, then your militia is government. Government is simply the institution that enforces a monopoly on violence in its jurisdiction. If militia is the final authority on individual RKBA right, and if it enforces that authority by violent force if needed, then it’s government. If it doesn’t enforce it, but is a voluntary opt-in scheme, then it is useless for the purposes that you’ve described, because people who don’t want to be subject to it will just opt out.

        • First, the reference:

          “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed.”
          — – Patrick Henry, to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

          That’s the goal of the militia: that every man be armed. While the government may want laws excluding this person or that, it is not properly up to the government — only the militia, which wants every man armed, is qualified to single out any specific one as not being suitable for being armed. One way to make it work is to let the government propose who may not be armed, and give the militia veto power.

          You can tell from the tone of discussions here how that would go: the militia would find every reason possible to keep every man armed, and only concede the government’s point when a person’s unfitness for being armed is evident to the entire community. That’s essentially how it worked; no militia officer would ever get away with arbitrarily deciding someone couldn’t have arms.

          Ideally, everyone would belong to one militia or another — Grand Avenue Patriots, Green Irish Fusiliers, Rainbow Rifles, whatever. The federal government could set minimum standards, states could add to them.

          At this point, the simplest way to proceed would be for all those who own weapons to organize and elect officers. While those officers would have to meet some standards set by the government, the government would have no say in who those officers would be — and as was true in the Revolution, if there aren’t any who match the government’s standards, the militia goes ahead and elects from whomever it has, and to hell with the government.

          As I said, that’s what we need to get back to:
          “That’s what we need to get back to: a system with actual local militias, with officers selected with neither input nor interference from the federal government, officers who know their people, officers who can talk to those people, officers who can consult with mental health professionals or anyone else, officers who can decide that a given felon ought to bear arms or a particular mentally ill person shouldn’t.”

          To the point about the militia being government, well, it is and isn’t. In the ways that it is, it is not part of the named government, but is to an extent an anti-government, the loyal (but ever suspicious) opposition. It’s a form of checks and balances such as the trial by jury was supposed to be, where the jurors are the final authority, and can tell the judge, prosecutor, and law to go to hell if they do not consider any (or all) of them just: the people, as the people and not as the government, telling the government to behave itself.

        • Still too vague. Who is militia, exactly? If it is the body of armed men, and all men should be armed, then you are again subjecting RKBA to vote, in practice, with all that entails (i.e. tyranny of the majority). If it’s some subset, then who decides what subset? You’ve already said it’s not the government. How then?

          You also say that there would be numerous different militias. Does each have an exclusive area they are responsible with, and have authority over? If so, then who decides those areas, and what happens if two militias lay claim to the same? Assuming that this is magically resolved, if I happen to live in an area with a particular militia, we again have this little problem of some people whom I didn’t directly grant any authority having say over whether I should have or have not guns – why, exactly, should I comply with that? On the other hand, if basically everyone can start a militia and they can have overlapping territories, then who has the final say on people’s right to own? Do they have to agree unanimously that someone must be denied? In that case you’ll just have people start their own “militia” so that they can veto their denial.

          Finally, you’re really way too idealistic about the notion that your militia officers wouldn’t deny those rights to anyone. It’s not even true here and now – there are many people who own guns who hate Muslims, for example, enough so to believe that they should be refused such right outright. And, of course, historically there was all that racist Deep South thing. So even if it somehow worked as you described at one particular historical moment, it’s a system that is waaaay too susceptible to tyranny of the majority. It’s basically a local direct democracy on RKBA with no right to appeal or recourse. No, thanks.

        • You’re trying to make this complicated when it isn’t. You’re also failing to recognize that by dissing the militia concept you’re handing authority over guns to the government.

          So some redneck militia decides to keep out Muslims. Sucks for them; the Rainbow Rifles down the street will take the Muslims.

          And multiple militias makes it even harder for anyone to be barred the use of arms — if one militia agrees with the government that someone shouldn’t be armed, he appeals to another militia.

          That you can speak of “areas” tells me again that you aren’t familiar with the history: Massachusetts, for example, during the run-up to the Revolution, had multiple militias, and they weren’t necessarily geographical. For that matter, George Washington employed some militia units that weren’t from a single state; they were people who knew each other for various reasons who decided to all join one militia.

          That, BTW, makes the militia more democratic than any government ever could be: if you don’t like your nation, your only option is to relocate to another one; if you decide you don’t like your militia, you find one you do like, and don’t have to move; you just travel a different route to musters.

          Also BTW, you DID grant authority to the officers to have a say over your arms — you joined up. If you decide not to join a militia, then you’re in a sorry situation; if there’s a crisis and the state decides they need militia members, they may well go after people who haven’t joined any organized group first. Then you’re stuck; you don’t get to choose your unit or your officers.

          Think of militias as fraternities who happen to be devoted to arms — maybe that will help.

        • So basically what you’re saying is that any random Joe can form a militia of his own, of which he’s then a member, and then nobody can deny him his RKBA, because the sole authority on that subject is himself.

          (If that is not the case, then who decides what is a militia and what isn’t? The people who do are then the real authority, not the militias themselves.)

          So your earlier talk about “officers who can decide that a given felon ought to bear arms or a particular mentally ill person shouldn’t” is meaningless – if a felon or a mentally ill person want guns, they can always have them. So basically your entire proposal is completely pointless.

          QED

        • I’m trying to fathom how you think that one person can be a half dozen officers, at least as many non-coms, and a platoon or three all by himself.

        • Who says they have to be? Who sets the standards?

          Then again, I guarantee you that for a measly few bucks, you will quite easily find a few bums willing to sign up for your “militia”, if numbers is what it takes.

        • I decided this needed special attention:

          “Government is simply the institution that enforces a monopoly on violence in its jurisdiction.”

          That’s the whole point of the militia: that the government NOT have a “monopoly on violence”.

          See, the government only gets to use force because very person has the right to use force when justified. The authority of the government to use force derives from the people, and the people have the right to rescind that authority any time they please. And since the authority to use force derives from the people, the people may exercise it apart from the government — they need neither permission nor approval. Also since the authority to use force derives from the people, it is in the interest of the people, as Patrick Henry said, “that every man be armed” — so if any government contemplated tyranny, they would have to consider that everyone who wanted to be was already armed, and most would be willing to face down any tyranny.

          Any government that has a monopoly on violence is already a tyranny, however much the chains might ride like velvet. And that is why a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a FREE state: a militia that is not commanded by the government stands ready to tell the government “No!”

        • Answering your first question about incompetence.

          It is by court or judicial system that declares you incompetent. Or a court/judge sends you to a mental institution by court order. That is current law. They have a very narrowly defined set criteria meant to only strip the rights of those most dangerous to themselves and/or others. (Your being put on trial essentially)

          The key part of this is due process under the constitution of the USA. the right to appeal etc.

          Meaning the “judicial system” is the only means to which your constitutional rights can be stripped. NO ONE else has that kind of legal power under constitution.

          whether it be criminal or mental incompetence. This is garrenteed to us by the constitution and related laws

          Volunteering to seek treatment, shows sound of mind. which is why your not declared mentally incompetent or defective of mind. You have to be able to reason and recognize that you need help and what your experiencing is not normal. This is demonstration of a high level cognitive function with some level of knowing right from wrong, etc. This is WHY under this circumstance Your not incompetent or defective.

          —————————————————————————
          Problem is, is that obama is bypassing our constitutional rights by violating our right to the “judicial system.”
          By allowing people not trained or not part of the official judicial system to determine if people in mass is incompetent. And given the power to strip MULTIPLE constitutional rights. With NO DUE PROCESS. No probable cause, etc.

          Other problem with Obama’s executive orders is the expansion of what mental incompetence is, based solely on political views.(has nothing to do with competence to use fire arms or not or whether they are violent or not or know right from wrong etc) Using a “blanket criteria system”(based on political views) where they do not do it, on a case by case basis, as it should.

          As a result we loose our citizenship. because we have lost our power to protect our constitutional rights. And we have lost our rights to engage in our constitutional rights. If Obama administration gets what it wants.

          This goes way beyond just the second amendment itself. We loose the protection and rights of a LARGE chunk of the constitution.

          Look at what California does with stripping the rights of those they deem mentally defective.(unworthy) They even loose their right to vote. along with a whole slew of other things.

          the whole mess is a very slippery slope. Once actions happen, that strip the rights of those deemed unworthy. It snowballs with stripping other rights, because the attitude is “we did it before and thus we can do it again.” So it is ok to abuse those that we view unworthy, the more you do it, the more it is ok and normal. Which by the way, is the irrational reasoning to which is used to justify the abuse, by the abuser.

          Which paves the way to eugenics reemerging in full force, instead of just in the shadows.

          Quote “In January 2012, a Massachusetts trial judge ordered that Mary Moe, 1 a schizophrenic and bipolar pregnant woman, be “coaxed, bribed or even enticed” into a hospital where an abortion could be performed. 2 The judge ordered the abortion even though Moe was “very Catholic” and “[did] not believe in abortions.” 3 Additionally, the judge ordered sua sponte, and without notice, that Moe be sterilized “to avoid this painful situation from recurring.” 4″

          We are regressing to a time of “loss of self determination”, if you are declared mentally incompetent / defective. But without the benefit of being declared by a court.(judicial system). Think of the witch hunt that will run crazy, if the court was willing to do the above quote. With blanket like policy by non-judicial entities(VA or SSA), it would be like this court action but en-mass regardless of situation. With ABSOLUTELY NO APPEAL RIGHTS

          I know this because I am one of those being directly effected by this. I am a law abiding citizen, with a very strong moral ethical code, to which I try to live by. I am the kind of person who jumps in a freezing lake to save a drowning swimmer, who is a total stranger, putting my own life at risk to save theirs. I am also firearm safety certified. Which is NOT required by state law, for those born my generation. which is stamped on the back of my drivers license. I am of sound mind set by the guidelines of medical practitioners and the judicial system…

          Obama want to strip my constitutional rights, all because I voluntarily see a psychologist. And I am collecting SSDI (Social security disability insurance) And I voluntarily checked my self in to a psychiatric facility for a week, when I was homeless, while waiting for disability determination.

          I have seen ZERO documentation that based on the above criteria, that I am any more likely as any other person in the “general population” To become a mass murderer. or anymore likely to commit suicide.

          The only way that can legally justify Obama’s administrations actions, is if they PROVE(not biased correlations by brady campaign)(but with empirical evidence of raw data) that that criteria of people they are signaling out, is significantly more likely, than the general public, to commit these atrocities.

      • The Second Amendment does not say “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be denied”, it says “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. The difference, in simple English, is that the amendment means that not just the core issue can’t be altered, but related issues can’t be touched, either — that’s what “infringed” means, to mess with peripheral issues, including non-essentials… you know, like the fringe on a tablecloth, which isn’t really important to the tablecloth at all, but is just decorative.

        Oh, BTW — military grade weapons in the hands of the ordinary people is exactly what the Founding Fathers meant the Second Amendment to accomplish: it was supposed to guarantee that any invaders or tyrants who tried to take away liberty would be met by more than a match for any army.

  1. being that I’m a disabled combat veteran, I find this very very scary. this guy is like a roller coaster running off the tracks! something has to be done to stop this fella and all of us have to vote in 2016 to make sure another dictator like President Obama is not elected. we all call him Osama down at the VFW. lol

    • This is exactly why some disabled vets wont go to the VA for and help. I know quite a few that refuse to go there because of fears of asking for counseling and what they can do.

      • That is exactly the reason why I stopped going to the VA; the nurses started asking whether I owned, or had access to, firearms during routine vitals screening before seeing a doc.
        I’ve been following the NICS Improvement Act of 2007 since it’s inception and have been regularly writing lawmakers about it. This news comes as absolutely no surprise. It’s sickening and unconstitutional in the extreme. I have lost all faith in our “representatives”, along with the vast majority of my fellow Americans.

        • I’ve seen this coming for some time now . If you rely on a check from old Uncle Sam then old Uncle Sam has you by the gonads . Old Uncle Sam can threaten to take away your healthcare and your income if you do not tow the line . This is what happens when we have a dependent society . THAT’S WHY THEY WANT YOU DEPENDENT , ‘ POWER ‘ . Do you really think Harry Reid , Nancy Pelosi , John Bonner , John McCain , any Bush or Clinton , and most of the Washington establishment really LOVE us ? Really ? When you give up any part of your personal freedom of independence for government assistance you are really in limbo

    • He a selfish, evil, yes evil, man. All he cares about is himself and his desires. His arrogance is unlimited. Sadly, though, he is only doing what he has been enabled to do by a majority American voters. Some because they harbor the same evil controlling desires and some because they’re too dumbed down.

    • The VA has been dumping vets who come to them for financial help into the NICS system. Its been working so great that nearly a 1/4 million veterans have lost their right to own firearms. Why not implement it on that other group that relies on the government for benefits, the elderly? And once Obamacare is in full swing, they can put in bans for people on certain cold medications or undergoing treatments, instantaneously! No stupid due process to get in the way, they’ve been putting in express lines to serfdom.

      • Government benefits and inability to manage their own affairs? Like, say– not paying rent?

        That’s half of Obutthead’s constituency.

        • Heck, it’s also a fair description for half of his administration. Who among them has demonstrated any ability to manage a budget, manage to reduce crime, manage to improve the outlook for the middle class…etc.?

        • He is not running for re-election and he is actually running to someone Else’s strings being pulled from the background.

          Look at how the last 2 presidents have lead, once in office. they essentially throw out all previous political behavior to which they advocated for years. They essentially push the same policies, regardless of their party. And make the same decisions regardless of their prior party affiliation, is pretty much the same between the two. by action not words.

          They have acted as if someone was instructing them behind the scenes as to how they will conduct their presidency. Some kind of organization that transcends terms of office.

          Obama been pretty much pro gun up to his presidency. based on actual actions in the past that is part of public record.

    • God way to insure people don’t seek help for various conditions — knowing they will be put on a list that reduces their rights.

      What they are doing is looking at every way to expand from “adjudicated dangerous.” This is a slippery slope from an accepted threshold to thresholds you could drive a truck through

    • The VA classifies everyone that elects to have their money handled by a fiduciary. There’s no finding of incompetence or being a threat. From the LA Times article:
      * The NRA was blindsided on this per their spokesperson, Chris Cox
      * About half of the VA’s beneficiaries are over 80
      * Opponents include the NRA, National Council on Disability, and other senior and disability rights groups
      * None of the mass shooting incidents would have been prevented by this policy
      * The VA has entered about 177,000 into the DOJ database as “adjudicated as a mental defective” to prevent firearm purchases.
      * Removal from the VA’s list takes about 18 months. Todate only 9 of 298 appeals have been granted.
      * One is presumed to be incompetent to be trusted with a firearm simply by choosing to have a “representative payee”.

      Not mentioned is that autos cause many more deaths and injuries than firearms. Arguably, removing driving privileges of those with “representative payees” would do more for public safety…but severely impact and disrupt the lives of millions.

      • This could get interesting. Find the right client and you might have a Section 1983 action. The issue is that its a blanket prohibition and does not take individual circumstance into consideration. You can’t restrict someone’s basic rights for merely needing a little bit of help. I wouldn’t be surprised if many people who are on disability and have a fiduciary have sufficiently serious issues that they should not own sharp pointy objects. However, this should not be a default.

        • It is way more than that, it is “HOW” the executive order is being used. Which is illegal.

          The executive order is being used in a manor that breaches the checks and balances, between congress and the presidency.

          Executive orders can only be given if it coincides with the wording of the constitution and then laws.

          Executive orders can not run counter or circumvent , especially in regards to constitution.

  2. Why?

    Seriously…what possible reason does he have for this? All the 95 year old, mentally deficient people robbing convenience stores and fleeing on their scooters?

    • You know that the only reason why the 2nd protects you against anti-gun laws on state level is because of the 14th, using the same exact reasoning that was used for all those other things where it was applied, right?

      • One of the big reasons for the 14th was that states were deciding who could and couldn’t own guns. For some all blacks were excluded, for others only landowners were allowed, others you basically had to be a friend of the governor.

        It’s thanks to the 14th that we got so much as Heller.

  3. unable to manage
    their own affairs due to
    “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.”

    Soooo, pretty much every polititian then?

  4. The sooner this guy is out of office, the better.
    I can only hope the next POTUS reverses a bunch of these “executive orders”.

        • I don’t recall a lot of endorsing going on around here, the last couple of elections haven’t really had a strongly pro-2A candidate in the general.

        • “Does TTAG endorse?”

          POTG damn sure don’t need any assistance in voting selections.

        • Good choices Accur81. Those are in the top 5. I also like Jindal, and Huckabee. Hell, Lindsey Graham looks like William F. Buckley next to Obama or Clinton.

      • All my hopes are in Rand. Frankly, if he doesn’t get the nomination the US has officially gone full fascist retard and we’re gonna have to step up our political game even more.

    • No. No president will reverse this. Politicians don’t care about America anymore. It’s all about gaining power. Bohener and McConnell will sell out.

      And now people who are on SS and DA and I guess who are also unemployed can’t own a gun now?

      • YOU GET IT ! Social Security , Medicare , Medicaid , VA benefits , Workers Comp , WIC , College Loans , 72 % of home mortgages , etc. , etc. and on and on , game over . USE EM or LOSE EM .

  5. What if somebody else is handling my affairs simply because I don’t want to deal with all the bullshit?
    Hell, I’m in my thirties and I’m already tired of registration, licenses, paperwork, etc… Seems like most of my free time is taken up with navigating government bureaucracy.

    Paperwork at birth, paperwork your whole damn life, paperwork at and after death. It’s goddamn ridiculous.

    • Don’t apply for Social Security benefits then. You won’t have to worry about that paperwork or this gun restriction.

      • Yeah, don’t apply for the benefits that you’ve paid for your entire life via taxes.

        I don’t agree with the premise behind social security, but if my tax dollars are paying into it, you can be damn sure I’m going to collect what is mine.

        • If you were born after 1960 +/- you’re never going to see a dime anyhow.

          SS Disability is forecast to bankrupt 3rd Qty FY16 (July 2016). The other bits and pieces follow.

        • …………………………and you will damn sure give up any constitutional right and even God given rights to keep em too , ” I paid in and I will get what’s mine ” ……….. YELP .

    • setting up direct deposit of your benefits and auto pay of your bills, under the VA is enough to get you sent to the timeout corner. I am talking about, you setting it up yourself. Which demonstrates competency and cognitive function. I was reading a personal account story of a vet this happened to. Along with other vets who chose to let their spouse handle the finances, as they did when they were away on duty. It is better that only one member handles the finances to prevent over spending budget. It’s simply common sense.

      Auto deposit and auto bill pay is becoming more common among the general population month by month.

      So by va standards a very large chunk of the general public is also incompetent. and defective.

    • You have to figure that at this point the debt numbers mean nothing to politicians. If you had a trillion $ debt (oh wait you do thanks to O) would another million cause you any loss of sleep? No, bc its a drop in the bucket at that point. Next thing you know you have a trillion.5, then you say ‘oh well next guy will fix it’ and so goes the cycle.

    • Most of that was newly printed (digitized) money Obama made out of thin air. Which basically means we don’t actually have to pay it back because taking that money out of circulation would cause deflation and farmers would go bankrupt. However, it is the reason we still have such a crappy economy. For instance, the recession caused the price of gas to plummet which would normally stimulate the economy, but then Barry goes and prints all that money and the price of gas jumps right back up. Now you have high gas prices and no job. Jimmy Carter tried this. FDR tried this. All it does is insure that the recession goes on and on.

      • As someone who is in banking and does work occasionally as a teller the brand new $100 bills scare me. I rarely see $100 that are over 5 years old. All the other denominations are well worn and in circulation but all I see is new, crisp $100s.

        • Yes, they were printing up 840,000,000 of those every month for a few years.

      • Do you hear that Governor , that flapping noise ? The chickens are coming home to roost . When the last chicken has mounted the roost , the coon and fox will make their appearance and it won’t be a pretty sight when we make our morning rounds . Country folks will know what I mean , the rest of you can make another analogy , but story is the same .

    • that is not on him, that is mainly on the too big to fail corporations “bail out” of criminals and crooks.

  6. Hell, I’m not elderly or disabled and I’m shit with managing my money, that’s why I have my wife do it. Then again, as a veteran, I’m probably already on some list.
    This is blatantly unconstitutional. Not to mention how senior citizens are often specifically targeted by criminals. I’ve seen many instances of DGUs in my area by people over 60.
    This is too much. We need to watch this plan like a hawk.

    • Think of all the LEO and Ret LEO that were also military, their brothers in blue would have to be the enforcers of this law right?

    • Not necessarily unconstitutional in many cases. Even a broad interpretation of the unorganized ‘militia’ holds that it refers to all able-bodied adult citizens. An 80 year old in a wheelchair with dementia is not part of any militia the Founders had in mind. You might have a better argument opposing this based on a Natural Rights basis rather than the US Constitution.

      • Militia membership is not requisite for a constitutional argument. The constitution expressly denies the government the authority to do this. So what if one is not able bodied enough to be in the militia?

        • Precisely. By this reasoning, we could take all manner of rights from someone in a wheelchair. I can and have kicked / leg swept people in self defense and / or to affect an arrest. Someone in a wheelchair probably doesn’t have that option. If anything, the disabled have more need of the RKBA than I do.

        • The Oath Keepers are a militia. An organized armed resistance to the government. And a very effective one that is hated by the left and the right.

      • The “militia requirement” having already been debunked, I called it unconstitutional because it deprives citizens of their 2nd Amenment-recognized rights without due process.

      • actually it was any “White” individual with their own firearm/s, to which they self trained, to use through hunting and trapping and such who qualified for militia duty. There is NO official military training of this group. other than be sure they can shoot where instructed. They were then instructed to fire in the general direction of the enemy on command of the officer.

        Quote from wiki: “A militia /mɨˈlɪʃə/[1] generally is an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel, or historically, members of the fighting nobility class (e.g., knights or samurai). It was common for militias to engage guerrilla warfare or defense instead of attacking.”

        There was NO psych test back then. or exclusion based on psych,
        There was NO formal education requirement.
        a large number of the troops were illiterate., maybe even a few officers, at that time.

        point of the militia was last ditch defense. A “home guard” for the state. Of “untrained fighters”

        People get this confused about militia due to “national guard” definition of militia.

        It is the above definition of militia that the constitution refers too NOT the definition of militia that the national guard belongs too.

        Most of the anti-gun and obama administration are trying to pull the wool over our eyes, by saying the militia is the national guard version of definition. Which is a lie, because “national guard” did not exist at the time of writing of the constitution.

  7. You want to leave us senior citizens unable to defend our selves just as the four Marines and a Sailor in Chattanooga. KSS my ass!

  8. I guess I’m not as scared of this as some of the commenters.

    This idea is stillborn. It’s DOA. Going nowhere.

    Count your blessings that nobody in the White House came up with a gun control idea that could actually pass.

      • They will never pass Barry care , they will never bail out wall street , they will never take over corporations , they will never take over student loans or home mortgages , they will never ban Bibles from the military , they will never use quantitative easing , they will never use quantitative easing twice , they will never elect Barry twice , they will never get Barry care through the Supreme court , they will never release terrorist from Cuba , they will never turn their backs on Israel , they will never pass a gay marriage law , they will never get a deal with Iran on nukes , they will never get this gun confiscating stuff through , people will never give up their guns just to keep getting a check from Uncle Sam , they will never ask for and get Barry Sorrento , alias Barak Hussein Obama , three times . None of this crap could ever happen in America , never . It’s DOA

    • This idea is stillborn. It’s DOA. Going nowhere.

      It will be done by EO, so it doesn’t have to pass. The VA already does this — also by EO.

    • No EO required. A secret call from a White House phone to a nameless, faceless bureaucrat squatting in some endless row of cubes; an agency rule/regulation is published; and his will be done.

      Actually, as the Lois Lerner scandal demonstrates; 27yrs of libtard “civil servant” hires in the fed gov’t and they come up with this shit all on their own. “They” know what is needed/desired. Oumer is a short termer and the gloves are off. No time to waste. So be VERY AFRAID on Friday what is next.

      Probably worse than Moscow of the 1930s. The Stalinist waited for marching orders on what/how, too much/not enough terror etc.

  9. That Oath of Office meant zip. I have made a point to join GOA, NRA and SAF in an effort to battle. Every now and then I throw a bucks there way. Everything helps the way I see it.

    • Old people vote in larger numbers than any other demographic. I’m a disabled vet. I avoid the VA like the plague. I received a survey from Tricare about my health. Tossed it. I quit going to air base after they asked if I felt like hurting myself or others. I go to a really nice PA who just cares about medical issues. And I’m probably on some lists as well. “He has bought how many guns?”

  10. “unable to manage their own affairs due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.”

    Me, me, me also….wow, I am really close on this one, really close.
    😉

  11. What other evidence of you need that the federal government is on a path to remove lawful self defense.

    They’ve started with Veterans now senior citizens. Soon it will be unemployment checks, then finding errors your taxes, then businesses receiving contracts, or perhaps driving on a federally funded road. The list can be endless.

  12. Thats fucked taking guns away from some of the most vulnerable people. A lot of mental impaired people are taken advantage of and a person that forces them to do things they dont want to like sign checks. They could stop that by using their gun to prevent these abusive people from forcefully controlling them

  13. So with Obamacare nationalizing the health industry we have seen stories about Doctors being told to ask if we have a gun or if there is a gun in the household. This new order would set a list of conditions that a Doctor could choose from and then the person would be banned. The Doctor of course would be doing this to avoid problems or face a loss or reduction of income. This is scary. I am not a religious person, but I pray that bad luck falls on the current idiot in the WH.

    • This is a fairly accurate conversation that occurred a couple of years ago between me and my urologist:

      He: So, what do you do [for a living]?
      Me: I used to practice law, but I retired. Now, I’m a firearms instructor.
      He: So you own guns?
      Me: Lots of them.
      He: Are you a member of the NRA?
      Me: Sure.
      He: I think the NRA is right. If a person wants a gun, he should be able to have a gun.

      Since this is the guy who checks my prostate, I was very happy he felt that way.

      • I think he had no right asking those questions and if he recorded your answers you better hope he sticks to fingering out prostate problems , there is no light at the end of the tunnel .

        • Every private person has a right to ask any question – that’s part of that whole “freedom of speech” thing. You’re not obligated to answer, though, or continue the conversation (also part of that thing).

  14. I can see POTUS (Ojerko, Hildabeast, Bush 3rd) forming a special group under BATFE tasked with going round to elderly folks on Social Security to collect their guns. All fun and games for these Tyrants right up until some old guy with an ’03A3 with black tips nails a couple of Jack Booted Thugs right through their armor.

    • Or a semi auto BAR full of WW2 black tips.
      Interesting piece of predictive fiction here:
      “He looked around the battlefield that had been his home, and carefully raised himself out of the recliner. It wouldn’t do to fall and break a hip now. Company was coming, and he had to be ready to greet them. He hoped it would be today. He had been scared of the attacking Nathaniel Victors, the whistles and the bugles, the explosions and the screams. With his whole life ahead of him then, he wanted to live. But now, at the end of his life, he wasn’t afraid of the thugs who had targeted him. He was only afraid that they wouldn’t come.”
      http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2009/10/absolved-chapter-one-battle-of-sipsey.html

    • no need to collect. You simply forbid them from buying ammo. The gun is useless for its intent without it.

      It is defacto seizure of firearms without putting any people who would collect the guns, in harms way. Any active shooters would be out of ammo in no time. They are also forbidden to buy gun powder, so they can’t even load their own.

      ^^^^ this is why they call it a gun grab in regards to disabled and seniors. Even though technically they still possess the firearm itself. The end results is the same, inability to fire firearm.

  15. Can’t wait until Ol’ Yellowstain Boehner and the Elmer Fudd Mcconnell start fighting back this unconstitutional and flagrant violation of executive authority!
    Oh wait.,..,
    Nevermind…..

  16. I’m immediately reminded of a friend of my grandparents who refused to go to the nursing home (I don’t blame her!), but had to have her kids handle her finances. She lived 20 minutes from town, and had to be her own protection. Just because she couldn’t figure out her taxes didn’t mean she couldn’t fend off burglars (she did) and take care of rattlers (she did) with a shotgun.

    He doesn’t get real life. He doesn’t want to get it.

  17. Wait, take the 95 yr olds’ guns that they aren’t hurting anyone with but leave them to drive the wrong way on a one way street cause that’s their only way to get to Bingo Night?

      • Let’s see. Driving is a licensed privilege subject to a demonstration of skill. Yet, after a licensed driver is obviously long-in-the-tooth, the States do nothing to call-in their licenses or demand a demonstration of capacity.

        Keeping arms for self-defense is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. An incompetent confined to her home is of no danger to anyone – by virtue of being armed – except her loved-ones. And yet, the President is worried about confiscating their guns?

        His absolute grasp of the lowest priorities before the greatest threats is amazing.

  18. Well, little by little the mask keeps coming off.

    We want what we want and anybody who disagrees isn’t just thinking differently, or even greedy, but in fact is deranged. “Bitterly clinging” can be read as a behavior indicating either neurosis or adjustment disorder, depending on which version of the DSM you use, and how you spin the words.

    And they’re mostly lawyers on top of it.

    Why to I flash on an obscure part of “The Devil’s Advocate” from time to time, in the midst of the big speech at the end.

    “But why the law?”

    “Because it puts us into everything…”

    • We only get a POTUS from the small pool of people the very wealthy and the corporations approve of — so they’ll keep getting worse, because the very wealthy can hire private armies and the corporations don’t care if we can protect ourselves. Obama sold out to the bankers and the insurance companies and then was told to play nice — so we got a fascist health plan that uses coercion to turn us into customers, and an elitist power structure that wants peasants, not free men.

      Welcome to Imperial America. It’s been here since Nixon, but now they’re flexing their muscles.

  19. “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency…”

    I guess politicians and government bureaucrats are next, then.

  20. What an evil pos…Barry for prison 2017! I do get the object here-so they can’t oppose dumbocrats. I do wonder what happened to my dads guns after he alzhiemer-ed and stuff disappeared(non-evil) step-mother…

  21. I worked at the social security administration for a while and I think he’s talking about someone that names someone else as their power of attorney. In that instance the payee is stating they are no longer a person of sound mind and cannot adequately manage their money because their mental state has deteriorated so much. Those are the people that buy $1,237 worth of lottery tickets and don’t have any money to pay for the bus ride home. To the government they are no longer a person, they have no rights, and the government is basically just waiting for them to die.
    The reason Obama wants to target this group is obvious: they have a government-run list to make it happen so they can have clear metrics to report their “success” and they have leverage to get people to comply, the monthly checks. If you don’t turn in your guns they stop your checks. This also throws in confusion to stop paying people to save the SSA some dollars. Payees would have to prove they don’t have any firearms, which would probably be reported by their power of attorney representative. I can imagine some senile people bringing guns into the gun free zone that is the SSA with hilarious results.

    • Jethro Schmidt, is that in addition to the offices that already have an armed DHS officer assigned?
      [W3]

  22. I can’t say anything here that won’t be removed because it’s going to sound racist and have the FBI burning my house down.

    So unemployed people can’t own a gun now?

  23. What does one’s ability to balance a checkbook have to do with one’s natural right to keep and bear arms?

    The Obama administration has already been trying this crap with our returning veterans, IIRC.

  24. Lol — Yeah, then next anyone who smokes or drinks more than 3 beers a week. …. TALK ABOUT YOUR SLIPPERY SLOPES!

  25. Nick,

    Just read Tylers old post about CMMG Blackout.
    He mentioned something about ammo breaking your Liberty can?
    What/where is that story?

  26. My guess is that there is not a large fraction of SS disability beneficiaries who have a fiduciary who keep and use arms. No where near as large a fraction of vets on disability who have a fiduciary. But regardless of whether the SS disability class is large-or-small, Obama just stepped into a minefield.

    Look at the class of SS RETIREMENT beneficiaries! If the Feds can strip ANY SS beneficiary of ANY right then all SS beneficiaries are apt to get nervous. Lots of these old guys/gals are apt to have a fiduciary (e.g., the little-ones) handle their affairs. Yet, they keep an S&W under their beds.

    First they came for the disability beneficiaries’ guns; then they came for the retiree beneficiaries’ guns and there was no one left to speak for me!

    Does Hillary still want to run on an anti-gun platform?

  27. I hope that you guys contribute to the 2nd Amendment Foundation…………I am sure that they will take the first test case, and they need all the financial support they can get! (check out Amazon Smile…..you can contribute a little to 2nd Amendment Foundation with each purchase)

  28. Here’s another potential way to read it: Isn’t this move about the 30th item down the list of stuff they’d like to do to actually make a difference on guns? It positively reeks of “desperate for a win, any win.”

  29. I hope this massive level of discrimination gets declared as a violation of equal protection before it can be started.

    • “Why aren’t we shooting these tyrants already?”

      We’re waiting for you to lead by example.

      Get right on it, sport.

  30. That’s nice… now I get to choose between one of my essential liberties or getting a little assistance as I recover from having an orange sized mass removed from the middle of my brain.

      • Maybe – I don’t know enough to comment intelligently.

        Do read the article. I was surprised that a vet mentioned in it found range shooting to be therapeutic. I assumed gunfire, fireworks, or other loud noises triggered PTSD episodes. Looks like that’s not always the case.

      • Vets have been told for years to tell their case workers they have PTSD so they can get optimum benefits from Uncle Sam , what’s a little lie going to hurt if I can get full disability . I may get a little more sympathy from mom and dad or my boss , girlfriend or wife . I’m not saying all , of coarse , but when I was growing up I was around a lot of WWII vets and most had experienced hell beyond their descriptions and wouldn’t talk about it because of their own personal reasons . They used to call PTSD ( shellshock ) and believe me , you could usually tell when someone had it . I am not pointing fingers at everyone of our vets who claim PTSD but I know of several that only claimed it , to get benefits and meds . God bless o hero’s

        • Claiming PTSD was actively encouraged by the DAV rep who handled my case as I was getting out. The Army gave me a 10% rating, and the VA said I was 20%. He pressed me constantly (along with other guys in similar situations) to claim PTSD so I could get up to a 100% rating from the VA.

          I’ve heard the same thing from a lot of guys at the VFW; claim PTSD, so I can collect what I am owed by the .gov for pain & suffering.
          I know a couple guys from my last unit who did just that; and though there is nothing physically or mentally wrong with them (they never even left the wire or dodged any mortars), they have since gotten a complete free-ride for claiming PTSD.
          And the VA head-shrinkers make it easy, asking blatantly leading questions on PTSD screenings while handing out psych-meds like Skittles.
          Even members of my own family have told me that I definitely have PTSD, and I should claim it to get what I deserve.

          But I have never once considered doing so. I’ve had to omit a lot of things that happened in my career on PTSD questionaires to avoid it being automatically applied.
          I’ve known for a long time what is being lined up for those stuck with the PTSD label; and beyond that, I find it morally reprehensible to soak my fellow Americans just so I can sit on my ass & draw a disability check. Sure, I have nightmares and flashbacks about my combat experiences, at times have thoroughly self-medicated to put my memory on mute, or woken up in the middle of the night in cold sweats; but I fail to see how that make me a dangerous person who is unfit to keep & bear arms.

          In my opinion, I think this entire thing about PTSD is an abject failure (both willful and inadvertent) by our government and medical community to understand the permanent differences between soldiers & civilians….. and their policy of “reintegration” is complete horsepucky….. and the average low-information Americans have totally swallowed the idea. For thousands of years, warriors have been a seperate caste; they were never expected (or forced) by their leaders & countrymen to reintegrate into civilian life when the fighting stopped. They knew on a cultural level that even when the war ends, soldiers cannot simply hit the off-switch and when it’s tried, the results have always been….. messy.

          “A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he’s finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands, love a woman, build a house, change his son’s diaper; his hands remember the rifle. He will always remain a jarhead. And all the jarheads killing and dying, they will always be me. We are still in the desert.”
          – Anthony Swofford

        • Well, ladies and gentlemen, there you have it. We PotG can think beyond 1st order effects. You need some coaching.

          Not all individuals suffering from some sort of mental impairment are a danger to society. Each of them, nevertheless, is entitled to unfettered access to whatever care might alleviate the suffering. Just as some non-sufferers will take a disability check for a nonexistent illness; others who genuinely do suffer will avoid “outing” themselves when they fear the consequences of doing so.

          The German pilot who crashed his passenger-laden plane into the French Alps is a striking reminder of the problem we are dealing with. Sometimes, there is NO GOOD solution to a problem.

          I’m prepared to take this poster at his word; i.e., that though he suffers from PTSD he is no danger to pubic safety. Bear in mind he has a “brother” sufferer from PTSD who might be a danger; this brother is not seeking treatment either – simply because our “betters” threaten him with stripping him of his 2A civl rights. We are NOT safer because he remains untreated.

          Of all the mental-illness diagnoses only a few represent a marked threat to public safety; and, a couple more to personal safety. If we are interested in increasing access to mental health services we should de-list all the diagnoses without a strong correlation with violence to others.

          I THINK (but am not certain) that the PotG are willing to work with the mental-health practitioners and Congress to improve the laws disabling individuals of their 2A rights. However, this willingness to cooperate is predicated on an assumption of preserving liberty as the primary goal; promoting relief of suffering as a secondary goal; and, baring the minimum possible number of their 2A rights as a tertiary goal.

          So long as the primary goal of legislation is MAXIMIZING the number of people bared from their 2A rights we will fight all such gun-control regardless of tenor.

        • Anaxix, Thank you for your service. Most of the men and women I’ve met with PTSD (via 12-step programs) tell me that volunteer work at vet centers helps them too. Wish you the best in coping with this affliction.

        • Anthony ( Anaxis ) there was no place to leave a reply to you directly so I left it under my own hoping you will see it .
          In the name of my most blessed Lord and Savior , Jesus Christ , GOD BLESS YOU ! THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVCE and your superb comments . Americans are in YOUR debt . if you are ever in WV and need eye care , look me up . It’s on me .
          My father , uncles and cousins and descendants all served our country and my ‘ father in law ‘ was a dozer and heavy equipment operator in the Mystery Division in 1944 ( The Hellcats ) where he had a real shitty time , some people may know what am referring to , but needless to say . I appreciate your sacrifice and your decisions you have made . THANKS !

      • And no one that calls himself ‘God’ has any business on the internet. They should be kept in the nut hatch where they belong.

        • That’s 1st amendment and it’s ok, we all pretty much ignore the arrogance of the ‘ LOOK AT ME ‘ folks and just reply when needed .

      • By your logic most rape victims would be denied a firearm due to suffering PTSD. It is disturbing that you advocate to disarm rape victims!!!

      • People who suffer from PTSD should have their constitutional rights taken away??? Do you understand that most people get PTSD from fighting for your rights? You should be ashamed of yourself. Most shootings have nothing to do with PTSD or any other mental disorder. Furthermore, PTSD has so many varying degrees of symptoms, that you would surely be taking away the rights of people who are no danger to anyone. Allowing the president to take away and give rights to certain groups of non criminal citizens is the real mental disorder. Creating 2nd class citizens is not the answer to violent crime.

        • thank you.

          I have C-PTSD

          Look to Europe for the definition, since it is NOT in the DSM5 , due mainly to politics. The next ICD is supposedly going to officially add C-PTSD

          Complex-PTSD
          mine derived mainly from multiple decades long bullying by peers. And neglect by authority and parents in dealing with the former.
          I have learned the hard way by not fighting back, that I am the only one who can save me in a life or death situation. No one else will intervene until it is too late.

          I do not fit statistics, because I been told by professionals, that any normal average person, would have suicide no later than the first year of junior high if they were in my shoes.

          Strong will to live I guess.

        • I can’t believe I missed the PTSD post!

          I have to support you: PTSD should not disbar anyone from the use of arms. I am a sufferer (not nearly so much since I discovered medical marijuana), and it isn’t exactly regular PTSD: I have a number of traumas, some episodes, some over a period of time; and it’s messy because when I encounter a trigger it doesn’t always set off a flashback to the item it triggered — just as an example, I can encounter something reminding me of the agony of smoke inhalation, and the flashback that grabs me is from when my older brother and some of his friends tied me to a post, feet off the ground, and held a knife to my throat. It doesn’t fall into the C-PTSD category, but it’s more than complex enough for me.

          I just had to estimate ahead of time on situations I might face outside my normal routine. Might shopping in a certain run-down part of a familiar city set off a flashback? If so, maybe I shouldn’t carry. The medical marijuana is a great relief; since starting it I haven’t faced a single instance where I couldn’t overrule the flashback and keeping touch with reality (once like watching two shows on the same TV screen, but I knew which one was real). But even before, my concern was never that I might decide to randomly shoot someone, it was that I might lose control of my weapon because I became unaware of it.

      • WOW. bit biased? ignorant? prejudiced? Just because you have PTSD does not mean your automatically violent or don’t know right from wrong or can’t safely handle a firearm.. Not all PTSD is the same. It is all in HOW the PTSD manifests, that determines whether they are fit to use a firearm or not. No two people react the same way. There “might-be” similarities but that’s it.

        This is why the judicial system is so important. They are the only ones qualified to make that determination based on facts and evidence to each individual case.

        when it comes to anti-gun propaganda: All I can say is you bit the bait, hook, line, sinker, bobber, pole, the fisherman. and the fishing boat, in one go.

      • dear god,
        i’m a 6 year infantry veteran with ptsd. American Sniper was so intense that me and my wife had to leave due to my panic attacks. I do own 3 fire arms. An assault rifle, a glock 40, and a combat pump. I don’t want to hurt you or anyone else. I enjoy going to the range. not all loud noises or even noise in general causes us problems. it’s all very specific to each vet and i’ve been grenedered, ied’d, shot at and am mostly normal. the only real leathal force policy i follow is the one that says that if you endanger my newborn or wife by breaking into my home it will be a relative that sues me because i will put 2 to the chest and one in the head even if my guage is the closet fire arm. seems pretty fair to me. leave vets alone when the only thing you volunteer for is rubbing one out.

  31. “Targeting Americans with disabilities and trying to restrict their rights seems like a pretty slimy thing to do in my opinion. They haven’t done anything wrong, so why are they being punished?”

    To make them easier to target as victims, why else.

  32. The end game has always been a completely disarmed population with the state controlling the flow of all information. Keep this in mind and all of the Democrats proposals make perfect sense.

  33. It would be difficult to justify disenfranchising a disabled and/or elderly person if they have a C&R FFL license.

  34. I’ve said this for 2 years: It will come to the point that anyone taking medication (a list of hundreds) will lose their right to own a gun……. AND that no one in the residence will be allowed to own a gun. HOW MANY MILLION PEOPLE IS THAT?

  35. I said for a few years that this was going down… Not only those taking any one of hundreds of meds on Obama’s list, but ANYONE living under the same roof will no longer be able to own a gun. How many millions of people is that?

  36. “In short, anyone who is unable to manage their expenses for themselves would be prohibited from owning a firearm.”

    using this as a rule, all guns should be taken out of the hands of the federal government.

  37. i am disable an retire it looks like when shit hits the fan he will take us out because he wants to keep the people’s money but him and is goons want get mine

  38. I am 57 yrs old and disabled duve to severe back accident and injured spine. I am on disability permanently…while I do not own guns…I feel like this is discrimination…I have no mental problems…I worked and paid in to social security until I could no longer work…but if I wanted protection for self defense the president is saying cripple persons…that would be MORE vulnerable to be attacked…can no longer defend themselves??? Makes no sense…I can’t jump up and wrestle to get away from someone! This is stupid…..Lol now makes me want to go buy one….

  39. Is Steven Hawking mentally defective because he can not sign his own checks? If he were an American citizen on disability he would be arbitrarily declared as adjudicated mental defective because he can not write his own checks.

  40. I am disabled by not in my mind, I will keep my gun to protect myself. I don’t care anymore what OBAMA says. I have heard all I want to. What I am concerned about is getting a raise from Social Security because I don’t make enough to pay for my medicine. No one seems to care about the important thing. I am 65 years old and I have been one disability for 7 years. Who am I going shoot just the person that is trying to hurt me or take what belongs to me.

  41. The way you guys skew the facts constantly, its as if you WANT him to take your guns away, just so you have an excuse to USE those guns. Every year, someone’s trying to take away the guns, yet no one actually said that, and you still have your guns. In fact, gun laws have become more relaxed since Obama has taken office. Please show me a credible source of where guns were taken away and I’ll believe you. Fair warning: you won’t find shit on guns being taken away, so don’t try.

  42. “…Every year, someone’s trying to take away the guns, yet no one actually said that,”

    So, we don’t want to take your guns away (<- not the weasel-word, "want") but look at these people with "common sense" gun laws, like UK and Australia (<- where they did, indeed take guns away from gun owners who had committed no crimes.) What counts as declaring the intention, here? Until there's an actual door-kicking-down schedule published, no one has said they want to take away the guns?

    Also, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." (Also, how many Feinstein quotes would you like?)

    In practice, you may be able to "keep" your guns for some value of "keep" different from what one might casually understand that to mean.

    While I could point to any number of statements by this administration, its advocates and political allies that are more plainly, directly assertions of confiscation … the underlying problem here is that people who have guns believe they'll be able to "keep" their guns the same way they were able to "keep" their doctor. And we've seen, for example in DC, where despite several court rulings about the imposed ritual for owning a gun being so egregious it amounts to a ban … they keep doing that.

    You don't have to kick in the door and seize something to "keep" someone from having it. Just make it hard enough to get, for example.

    The current US administration had taken the weasel-wording to a new level, beyond even, for example, the one immediately previous. I wouldn't have thought it possible. But, there you are.

    So, among other things, "gun control" proposals by this this administration have The Excalibur Problem, referring to a great exchange from early on in that movie:

    Uther: "To kill and be king, is that all?"

    Merlin: "Perhaps not even, that."

    Uther: "You strike me with words harder than steel."

    Merlin: "You betrayed the Duke. You stole his wife. You took his castle. Now, no one trusts you."

    Like many other issues, the current federal administration has done more to damage progress on any number of issues than any in my memory. Ironically, the issues the administration and it's various spokesthings, allies and advocates also say are the most important.

  43. I don’t need a gun to give Obama a good kick in his ass what he is going to do ban my foot from being stuck up his butt, Obama is so mine set on killing the American people and replacing them with Muslim that is all he can think about, Now you can see what can happen when you give a black man to much power or if you give him a gun he will kill you, I hope this will be a lesson learn never put a Black man in power, or give him power

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *