Obama to ban gun ownership to Social Security recipients!

[righteousdude2]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...htmlws-main-bb|dl25|sec1_lnk3&pLid=1915577551

Two thoughts:

1) Will this get the elderly riled up? Or those on social security disability riled up? It should.

2) This is almost like what will happen when folks receive the mark of the beast. If you are on social security and the government knows who you are, they can come in and order that those on SS programs, and unable to care for themselves, to surrender their guns!

For me, the second point is the scariest part of the whole issue. Those living off the federal government, can and will be pushed to oblige with the laws of the land or face losing their income!

 

[wpe3bql]

I've been on Social Security for about 4.5 years now. Based on current actuary data, I probably will have about 20 or so more years to live (Hopefully it'd be less than that....I'm hoping Jesus will take me out of this sin-cursed world before that! I guess only time will tell about that though.).

I know that I'll NEVER get back the value of the money I've put into the Social Security system over the 50+ years that I've "donated":smilewinkgrin: to it.

And now our beloved POTUS wants to ban gun ownership for us poo' folks if we take it upon ourselves to act out our 2d Amendment rights.

Of course, I'm sure he'd rather just declare ALL of the Ten Bill of Rights null and void by means of Executive Order.....and our spineless GOP-controlled Legislative Branch would probably let him get away with doing so, don't you think so??!!?? :tear:

 

[righteousdude2]

I've been on Social Security for about 4.5 years now. Based on current actuary data, I probably will have about 20 or so more years to live (Hopefully it'd be less than that....I'm hoping Jesus will take me out of this sin-cursed world before that! I guess only time will tell about that though.).

I know that I'll NEVER get back the value of the money I've put into the Social Security system over the 50+ years that I've "donated":smilewinkgrin: to it.

And now our beloved POTUS wants to ban gun ownership for us poo' folks if we take it upon ourselves to act out our 2d Amendment rights.

Of course, I'm sure he'd rather just declare ALL of the Ten Bill of Rights null and void by means of Executive Order.....and our spineless GOP-controlled Legislative Branch would probably let him get away with doing so, don't you think so??!!?? :tear:

Great points. One group of spineless folks yo forgot to mention is the American voter who continues to permit the decline in this country because they fear being inconvenienced.

 

[InTheLight]

Read the article. Just another example of a misleading headline by RD2.

Obama wants to prohibit Social Security recipients that can't care for themselves from owning guns, not prohibit all Social Security recipients from owning guns.

Anyway, I would oppose this.

 

[carpro]

Read the article. Just another example of a misleading headline by RD2.

Obama wants to prohibit Social Security recipients that can't care for themselves from owning guns, not prohibit all Social Security recipients from owning guns.

Anyway, I would oppose this.

It's another bite out the apple for gun control, but it will have no real impact.

 

[InTheLight]

It's another bite out the apple for gun control, but it will have no real impact.

True, true. Unless we're missing the numerous news stories of elderly invalids committing murder with guns.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...htmlws-main-bb|dl25|sec1_lnk3&pLid=1915577551

Two thoughts:

1) Will this get the elderly riled up? Or those on social security disability riled up? It should.

2) This is almost like what will happen when folks receive the mark of the beast. If you are on social security and the government knows who you are, they can come in and order that those on SS programs, and unable to care for themselves, to surrender their guns!

For me, the second point is the scariest part of the whole issue. Those living off the federal government, can and will be pushed to oblige with the laws of the land or face losing their income!

Meanwhile, the proverbial frog in the pot has no idea that the temperature just went up another degree.

 

[carpro]

True, true. Unless we're missing the numerous news stories of elderly invalids committing murder with guns.

They're not exactly busting out of nursing homes and lining up at the local gun store either.

Most of them already own all the guns they will ever own and probably 99.9% of those have no public record of ownership.

But it's the "bite" that's important to gun control advocates.

 

[Revmitchell]

Read the article. Just another example of a misleading headline by RD2.

Obama wants to prohibit Social Security recipients that can't care for themselves from owning guns, not prohibit all Social Security recipients from owning guns.

Anyway, I would oppose this.

The word "all" was never used.

 

[Don]

The word "all" was never used.

The "all" was implied, since the thread title didn't identify that it was only a certain segment of social security recipients. Kinda like saying "dogs are mean."

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Guns & Bibles......says the tyrant

 

[exscentric]

I heard on the news that the order from higher up that brought this about in SSA was sent out to a number of government agencies so there will most likely be a few more gun grabs coming along shortly from other corners of the administration.

 

[InTheLight]

The "all" was implied, since the thread title didn't identify that it was only a certain segment of social security recipients. Kinda like saying "dogs are mean."

Thank you, Don.

 

[Revmitchell]

The "all" was implied, since the thread title didn't identify that it was only a certain segment of social security recipients. Kinda like saying "dogs are mean."

No it wasn't. You do not get to assert it was implied. If he never had any intentions of that being the implication then it was not, in fact, implied. Implication is based on the intent of the person not on how you want to interpret it. Good grief you guys look to tear down every little detail. Some people need to get a life. See the title and then move on to the article and read it in full for yourself. Titles are never meant to be exhaustive. This nitpicking is absurd and childish. As long as there is an opportunity to read the article and information in full then there is no room for such over the top accusations.

I would also say that if there is a question about the intent of someone's post you should ask for clarification rather than assume the worst. Otherwise your behavior is worse than your accusation.

This is why we have so much bickering around here. Everyone wants to be everyone else critic. Grow up

 

[InTheLight]

No it wasn't. You do not get to assert it was implied. If he never had any intentions of that being the implication then it was not, in fact, implied. Implication is based on the intent of the person not on how you want to interpret it.

Here is the headline of the article:
Obama Admin Looks to Ban Some Social Security Recipients from Owning Guns


Here is the first sentence of the article:

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

Based on prior history, and this is not a stretch, the intent of the person posting the OP was to bring derision on Obama. By leaving out the crucial detail about ONLY certain SS recipients would be affected he deliberately obfuscated the issue.

 

[Revmitchell]

Here is the headline of the article:

Obama Admin Looks to Ban Some Social Security Recipients from Owning Guns





Here is the first sentence of the article:



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



Based on prior history, and this is not a stretch, the intent of the person posting the OP was to bring derision on Obama. By leaving out the crucial detail about ONLY certain SS recipients would be affected he deliberately obfuscated the issue.

Did u first ask him for clarification?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Revmitchell]

Here is the headline of the article:

Obama Admin Looks to Ban Some Social Security Recipients from Owning Guns





Here is the first sentence of the article:



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



Based on prior history, and this is not a stretch, the intent of the person posting the OP was to bring derision on Obama. By leaving out the crucial detail about ONLY certain SS recipients would be affected he deliberately obfuscated the issue.

Did he withhold a direct link to the article where you could read it in full for yourself? Were you able to read the article in full to gain all the pertinent info?

If you can answer yes then you have no room for complaint.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[InTheLight]

Did u first ask him for clarification?

No, because I'm certain it would have brought a snarky comment. "Dim Lights" or somesuch.

 

[InTheLight]

Did he withhold a direct link to the article where you could read it in full for yourself? Were you able to read the article in full to gain all the pertinent info?

If you can answer yes then you have no room for complaint.

He gave a link. I read the OP title and I avoided the article at first. I looked at it and said, "That can't be accurate". When I finally got around to reading the linked article my suspicions were confirmed. This is a frequent occurrence with RD2's threads. Misleading titles or titles that don't match the content or threads with polls with titles that don't match the poll question, etc. It's just sloppy writing. Why should anyone have to endure it?

 

[Revmitchell]

No, because I'm certain it would have brought a snarky comment. "Dim Lights" or somesuch.

Then you cannot be certain and it is inappropriate to make such claims. Just because you do not like his views does not give license for taking the risk that you may be bearing false witness.


Quite honestly the title of ops whether I make them or someone else means little to nothing to me. And it shouldn't to anyone. Look to see the content and deal with that instead of derailing threads because of a personal pet peeve on thread titles.