POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

[Drew S.]

with (A) you don't know how far it has progressed. with (B) you know it has progressed to the point where they are mental incapable of managing their affairs. They could be a multi-millionaire and be unable to manage their finances. It has nothing to do with being poor.

I think you are confusing 'can't manage their finances' (as in does not spend money wisely) with being mentally incapable of managing finances.

You're way too smart to actually believe this. As soon as it gets diagnosed you would want to take them away. Depending on how much money they have it could be a long time before they are broke(you would want to take away control of their finances as well.)

 

[BassAle]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

You're way too smart to actually believe this. As soon as it gets diagnosed you would want to take them away. Depending on how much money they have it could be a long time before they are broke(you would want to take away control of their finances as well.)

I'm just stating the reason with linking it with being deemed incapable of managing finances.

do you understand the difference between being deemed mentally incapable of managing finances and being broke? It does not sound like it.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

You're way too smart to actually believe this. As soon as it gets diagnosed you would want to take them away. Depending on how much money they have it could be a long time before they are broke(you would want to take away control of their finances as well.)

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING BROKE

The financial aspect only has to do with someone who has a representative managing their disability benefits.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Drew I'm not going to think any less of you if you just back down from this ridiculous argument that has zero facts to support it...

 

[Handyman]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

I'm going to ask everyone a question...should someone with Alzheimer's be banned from owning guns because (A) they have Alzheimer's or (B) they have Alzheimer's and can't manage their finances?

Well at least now you are tacitly admitting you completely got this wrong. Progress I guess. Now I wonder though if you can actually read...

Clown,

Are you think of Verne Gagne? He wasnt in ECW in the 70s (technically ECW didnt exist then) but your point is correct. He had dementia and killed his roommate thinking he was his wrestling opponent.

 

[BassAle]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING BROKE

The financial aspect only has to do with someone who has a representative managing their disability benefits.

I think this must hit very close to home for Drew because he must be very close to being deemed mentally incapable of managing his affairs

 

[aparch]

Yes. They should not have a gun. In either circumstance.

ETA: In fact, I'll go a step further. In the case of B, I really don't want them to have a gun. If they are so incapacitated that they can't even manage their own finances, they are well beyond the time that their guns should have been taken away. Well beyond.

Case B is just an extreme example of case A.

ETA2: And if there is a database of A or B and a database of people who can't own guns, I want those databases linked. I don't want mentally ill people to have access to firearms.

Personally, I think the line in the sand is between A and B. With A, we have some wiggle room. Bad test taking, forgetfulness, good days/bad days. Sh** happens.

With B we have a clear "this person can barely handle the concept of Velcro shoes, let alone his checkbook."

Let's not help grease the slippery slope by opening it to everyone who has Alzheimer's.

 

[Drew S.]

Drew I'm not going to think any less of you if you just back down from this ridiculous argument that has zero facts to support it...

Yes, you are right that they can be two different things. But please concede it's ridiculous to think that the point in which it makes sense to take someone's guns away is when they can no longer manage their finances. At that point the mailman or kid across the street could already be dead.

 

[BassAle]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Yes, you are right that they can be two different things. But please concede it's ridiculous to think that the point in which it makes sense to take someone's guns away is when they can no longer manage their finances. At that point the mailman or kid across the street could already be dead.

so now you've gone from arguing "this is an assault on the poor's second amendment rights" to "this isn't strict enough"?

can you admit you have been confusing being broke with being mentally incapable of managing finances?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Oh snap!


*edit* This isn't an endorsement for Infowars.

Do take a look sometime, even if you don't have any intentions of supporting them; it isn't as "out there" as some pundits claim it to be. They have quite the diverse and intelligent set of correspondents, too, even if some of them were discovered through vehemently countering protests *coughowencough*.

BeforeItsNews, on the other hand, now that's some "out there" stuff you gotta be careful about...

 

[Drew S.]

so now you've gone from arguing "this is an assault on the poor's second amendment rights" to "this isn't strict enough"?

can you admit you have been confusing being broke with being mentally incapable of managing finances?

Are you contending that most of the people who this happens to have the money but don't pay because they forget or some other reason? I'm sure there are cases where this happens but would think it's a small minority. It would be interesting to see some data around this(not trying to say you're wrong but it wouldn't be what I would suspect.)

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

From Investor's Business Daily:
Are We Going To Freak Out Every Time Trump Does What He Promised?

The countries involved in the 90-day suspension — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen — weren't named in Trump's executive order. They were listed by the Obama administration as countries of special concern under a 2015 law that requires anyone who even visited one of these terror-prone countries to undergo special scrutiny before coming to the U.S. — even if they hail from a country that otherwise doesn't require a visa to visit the U.S.

President Obama himself barred large groups of immigrants from entering the U.S. at least six times out of national security concerns, according to a review last June by the Washington Examiner. In 2011, the administration suspended refugee processing from Iraq for six months to make sure terrorists weren't exploiting the program.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

I'm so glad we're wasting time in here on Gun Control or lack therof today. Especially while the Statue of Liberty burns.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Personally, I think the line in the sand is between A and B. With A, we have some wiggle room. Bad test taking, forgetfulness, good days/bad days. Sh** happens.

With B we have a clear "this person can barely handle the concept of Velcro shoes, let alone his checkbook."

Let's not help grease the slippery slope by opening it to everyone who has Alzheimer's.

I think I agree with that. But on the other hand, how do you make the determination when A progresses to B? For certain mental illnesses, the first diagnosis of A, they should have their access to firearms removed. From the list I provided earlier, I would say (at first glance), intellectual disability (as defined by the criteria in Title 20, section 404, Appendix I, part 12.00), schizophrenic, paranoid, and other psychotic disorders, autistic disorders and other pervasive developmental disorders. As for the others on the list, I just don't know enough as to how the could be diagnosed and still function (case A) to where we draw the line on case B.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Are We Going To Freak Out Every Time Trump Does What He Promised?

Yes, because politicians are supposed to lie through their teeth.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

I'm so glad we're wasting time in here on Gun Control or lack therof today. Especially while the Statue of Liberty burns.

It's been a fake flame for a while now.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Clown,

Are you think of Verne Gagne? He wasnt in ECW in the 70s (technically ECW didnt exist then) but your point is correct. He had dementia and killed his roommate thinking he was his wrestling opponent.

Yeah, that was the guy. I had forgotten about the roommate dying during the process, only remembered the part about putting some of the aides into the ER. Like I said, I'm not a wrestling fan, so I don't know which outfit was around when. I can only imagine what would've happened if someone with that man's size also had a weapon available to him, or if he was a trained soldier.

Both of my parents passed away with mental illness issues. My dad constantly thought he was on an air force or army base as he served in both branches. If you get someone who actually served in combat, suffering from such memory or awareness issues, and has a weapon available to them, you might have to put the unfortunate man in grave in order to protect everyone else.

 

[Kepler]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

I think I agree with that. But on the other hand, how do you make the determination when A progresses to B? For certain mental illnesses, the first diagnosis of A, they should have their access to firearms removed. From the list I provided earlier, I would say (at first glance), intellectual disability (as defined by the criteria in Title 20, section 404, Appendix I, part 12.00), schizophrenic, paranoid, and other psychotic disorders, autistic disorders and other pervasive developmental disorders. As for the others on the list, I just don't know enough as to how the could be diagnosed and still function (case A) to where we draw the line on case B.

Are there similar prohibitions on driving due to The Crazy? If so, that's a place to start.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Are you contending that most of the people who this happens to have the money but don't pay because they forget or some other reason? I'm sure there are cases where this happens but would think it's a small minority. It would be interesting to see some data around this(not trying to say you're wrong but it wouldn't be what I would suspect.)

The text says nothing about ability to pay. It has to do with whether a representative has been assigned to handle their disability benefits. Do you not understand when this occurs? I gave you a link to the exact section that explains when this applies:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/co...llapsed=true&selectedYearFrom=2016&ycord=1520

or

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2...R-2016-title20-vol2-part404-subpartP-app1.xml

or

https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/404/404-app-p01.htm

or

Just find it yourself in the CFR. Title 20, Part 404, Subpart P, Subgroup, Appendix 1.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Are there similar prohibitions on driving due to The Crazy? If so, that's a place to start.

Yes, in MN a doctor can have the state revoke a person's DL if the family isn't in a position (or unwilling) to take away that person's keys.

I had to hide my mom's keys, happened after the first time she got lost on the roads. Dad was easier since he'd had a leg amputated and physically couldn't drive at that point.