obama not after your guns ?
Comments
-
So what you are saying is , you aren't competent?Godfather. said:
but obama doen't want our guns right........Gern Blansten said:Yeah...keeping mentally disabled people from owning guns is bad.
The Gern Blansten
Godfather._____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
Gun rights expanded in my state.Godfather. said:little by little gun rights are being restricted and everybody just keeps drinking the cool-aid.
how about the stories about these welfare folks using guns ? are they next to lose thier right to own a gun ? that's it folks just keep dringing the cool-aid....uncle obama will make everything better....he's a idiot.
Godfather.10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG0 -
Mine too. And it was REALLY nonrestrictive to begin with.callen said:
Gun rights expanded in my state.Godfather. said:little by little gun rights are being restricted and everybody just keeps drinking the cool-aid.
how about the stories about these welfare folks using guns ? are they next to lose thier right to own a gun ? that's it folks just keep dringing the cool-aid....uncle obama will make everything better....he's a idiot.
Godfather._____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
Why in the fuck do you say he should move his ass back to a place he's never even lived?Godfather. said:this president is a asshat, obama needs to move his stupid ass back to kenya.
Godfather.
What is this obsession some people have with him and Kenya? Makes no sense at all. Seems racist. Seems anti-everything. If Obama should move his ass back to Kenya, then it's just as reasonable to say that you should move your ass back to wherever your ancestors are from, since I'm pretty sure you're not Native American.With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
PJ_soul, it just seem like the farthest place away as long as he's gone I don't give a shit where he goes, fuck him.
Godfather.0 -
.
Don't fret....he'll only be in office for another 18 months or so. Then you'll get 8 years of Hillary so hang in there man.Godfather. said:PJ_soul, it just seem like the farthest place away as long as he's gone I don't give a shit where he goes, fuck him.
Godfather.
The Gern Blansten
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt20 -
Yeah Hilliard gets in there and heads will explode. Ha. Good chance.10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG0
-
HAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAAHA dang out of the pan and into the fire.Gern Blansten said:.
Don't fret....he'll only be in office for another 18 months or so. Then you'll get 8 years of Hillary so hang in there man.Godfather. said:PJ_soul, it just seem like the farthest place away as long as he's gone I don't give a shit where he goes, fuck him.
Godfather.
The Gern Blansten
Godfather.
0 -
Your 1st statement is blatantly racist- not to mention slightly comical presented with grammar structures that rival that of a slightly less than average 4 year old.Godfather. said:this president is a asshat, obama needs to move his stupid ass back to kenya.
Godfather.
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.
The push, which could potentially affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others, is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws that prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the United States illegally, and others, according to the paper.
The language of federal gun laws restricts ownership to people who are unable to manage their own affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease” – which could potentially affect a large group within Social Security, the LA Times reported.
If Social Security, which has never taken part in the background check system, uses the same standard as the Department of Veterans Affairs – which is the idea floated – then millions of beneficiaries could be affected, with about 4.2 million adults receiving monthly benefits that are managed by “representative payees.”
The latest move is part of the efforts by President Obama to strengthen gun control following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in 2012.
Critics are blasting the plan, saying that expanding the list of people who cannot own guns based on financial competence is wrongheaded.
The ban, they argue, would keep guns out of the hands of some dangerous people, but would also include people who simply have a bad memory or have a hard time balancing a checkbook.
The background check for gun ownership started in 1993 by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, named after White House Press Secretary James Brady, who was partially paralyzed after being shot in the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan.
Gun stores are required to run the names of potential buyers through a computerized system before every sale.
Click for the full story from the Los Angeles Times.
Sorry, man. Up until this point in time, I've hung in there with you; however your homophobic and racial attitudes reflect such a need for reform that I don't think I can take you seriously any more.
Is this a joke? Really uncool."My brain's a good brain!"0 -
First, see link for the full article.rr165892 said:GF,you know I fall right of center and I'm also gun owner with a CCP license.But I am also aware that we need to strengthen our resolve when it comes to who gets guns ,at least legally.
Who cares if there is more backround checks? If your legit,you should have no issue.No one is asking for an inventory of your arsenal.
When 1 idiot tried to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb,all of us paid for it by having to ridiculously take shoes off when getting on a plane.ONE GUY,ONE TIME.
So know we have multiple mass shootings of hundreds of innocent victims,including kids and families.We have done nothing!!!!! Not one fucking thing.Any gun owner who is responsible should have no issue with making it tougher for those who want to acquire,Espescially illegal immigrants and those already relying on the entitlements of the government tit.They should be more concerned with buying milk,books and clothes not Bullets and Guns.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-gun-law-20150718-story.html
I don't think GF explained himself well here (at all) - sorry, GF. If he's saying what I think he is, I completely agree with him (with the exception of the infantile name-calling of the President).
This law, if I understand it correctly, models its background checks on the Department of Veteran Affairs' background checks. In this, it stipulates that anyone who is incapable of handling their own financial affairs would be ineligible for the service requested. The way of checking this is by determining whether a person is able, him or herself, to collect Social Security on a regular basis (without a representative sent on his or her behalf).
Social Security is for those who are retired, disabled in a way, shape or form, or unemployed. The question at hand is really simple. Are there legitimate reasons why one might not want to or be able to collect his or her own Social Security regularly and/or assign someone else to do it for him or herself, but should still be deemed eligible to carry a weapon?
If there are none, then this is an effective background check.
If there are some, then this is an ineffective background check, as it prohibits some who should not be prohibited from carrying a weapon.
Really not much more to it than that.Post edited by benjs on'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10 -
I can't pretend to know each individuals circumstances, but if someone doesn't have the physical ability to cash their own check should they be able to wield a firearm?benjs said:
First, see link for the full article.rr165892 said:GF,you know I fall right of center and I'm also gun owner with a CCP license.But I am also aware that we need to strengthen our resolve when it comes to who gets guns ,at least legally.
Who cares if there is more backround checks? If your legit,you should have no issue.No one is asking for an inventory of your arsenal.
When 1 idiot tried to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb,all of us paid for it by having to ridiculously take shoes off when getting on a plane.ONE GUY,ONE TIME.
So know we have multiple mass shootings of hundreds of innocent victims,including kids and families.We have done nothing!!!!! Not one fucking thing.Any gun owner who is responsible should have no issue with making it tougher for those who want to acquire,Espescially illegal immigrants and those already relying on the entitlements of the government tit.They should be more concerned with buying milk,books and clothes not Bullets and Guns.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-gun-law-20150718-story.html
I don't think GF explained himself well here (at all) - sorry, GF. If he's saying what I think he is, I completely agree with him (with the exception of the infantile name-calling of the President).
This law, if I understand it correctly, models its background checks on the Department of Veteran Affairs' background checks. In this, it stipulates that anyone who is incapable of handling their own financial affairs would be ineligible for the service requested. The way of checking this is by determining whether a person is able, him or herself, to collect Social Security on a regular basis (without a representative sent on his or her behalf).
Social Security is for those who are retired, disabled in a way, shape or form, or unemployed. The question at hand is really simple. Are there legitimate reasons why one might not want to or be able to collect his or her own Social Security regularly and/or assign someone else to do it for him or herself, but should still be deemed eligible to carry a weapon?
If there are none, then this is an effective background check.
If there are some, then this is an ineffective background check, as it prohibits some who should not be prohibited from carrying a weapon.
Really not much more to it than that.0 -
Like I said above, the answer to that question is the answer to the question of whether or not this is a fair and effective background check!WhatYouTaughtMe said:
I can't pretend to know each individuals circumstances, but if someone doesn't have the physical ability to cash their own check should they be able to wield a firearm?benjs said:
First, see link for the full article.rr165892 said:GF,you know I fall right of center and I'm also gun owner with a CCP license.But I am also aware that we need to strengthen our resolve when it comes to who gets guns ,at least legally.
Who cares if there is more backround checks? If your legit,you should have no issue.No one is asking for an inventory of your arsenal.
When 1 idiot tried to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb,all of us paid for it by having to ridiculously take shoes off when getting on a plane.ONE GUY,ONE TIME.
So know we have multiple mass shootings of hundreds of innocent victims,including kids and families.We have done nothing!!!!! Not one fucking thing.Any gun owner who is responsible should have no issue with making it tougher for those who want to acquire,Espescially illegal immigrants and those already relying on the entitlements of the government tit.They should be more concerned with buying milk,books and clothes not Bullets and Guns.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-gun-law-20150718-story.html
I don't think GF explained himself well here (at all) - sorry, GF. If he's saying what I think he is, I completely agree with him (with the exception of the infantile name-calling of the President).
This law, if I understand it correctly, models its background checks on the Department of Veteran Affairs' background checks. In this, it stipulates that anyone who is incapable of handling their own financial affairs would be ineligible for the service requested. The way of checking this is by determining whether a person is able, him or herself, to collect Social Security on a regular basis (without a representative sent on his or her behalf).
Social Security is for those who are retired, disabled in a way, shape or form, or unemployed. The question at hand is really simple. Are there legitimate reasons why one might not want to or be able to collect his or her own Social Security regularly and/or assign someone else to do it for him or herself, but should still be deemed eligible to carry a weapon?
If there are none, then this is an effective background check.
If there are some, then this is an ineffective background check, as it prohibits some who should not be prohibited from carrying a weapon.
Really not much more to it than that.'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10 -
GF, is there a proper link to this story or not.....I'd like to read the entire article.Godfather. said:this president is a asshat, obama needs to move his stupid ass back to kenya.
Godfather.
As you may already know I did not vote for Obama in the first election. Now if as you say he's STUPID then what do you think of President George W. Bush and the condition he left this country in when he left office? I'm pretty sure in the 16+ months President Obama has left in office this country will not be anywhere in the condition GWB left it. Which to the current being elected into office by the people and for the citizenry.....not the SCOTUS.
I know now you obviously don't like BHO, he seems to get under your skin. However, just a suggestion when you make a post/thread pointing out his inefficiencies/disagreements one can do so without showing your obvious biases. Your threads can move along in a much more positive/progressive (forgive me for using the word progressive) fashion.
I also know you have your own style and substance to which you have stuck to through the years (ain't none of AMT participants are going to change that) but basically stick to the damn subject matter right, wrong or indifferent.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)0 -
So under what type of circumstances would someone not be able to handle their own affairs yet still carry a gun? I'm seriously asking without my mind made up. This specific rule seems like a complicated issue.benjs said:
Like I said above, the answer to that question is the answer to the question of whether or not this is a fair and effective background check!WhatYouTaughtMe said:
I can't pretend to know each individuals circumstances, but if someone doesn't have the physical ability to cash their own check should they be able to wield a firearm?benjs said:
First, see link for the full article.rr165892 said:GF,you know I fall right of center and I'm also gun owner with a CCP license.But I am also aware that we need to strengthen our resolve when it comes to who gets guns ,at least legally.
Who cares if there is more backround checks? If your legit,you should have no issue.No one is asking for an inventory of your arsenal.
When 1 idiot tried to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb,all of us paid for it by having to ridiculously take shoes off when getting on a plane.ONE GUY,ONE TIME.
So know we have multiple mass shootings of hundreds of innocent victims,including kids and families.We have done nothing!!!!! Not one fucking thing.Any gun owner who is responsible should have no issue with making it tougher for those who want to acquire,Espescially illegal immigrants and those already relying on the entitlements of the government tit.They should be more concerned with buying milk,books and clothes not Bullets and Guns.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-gun-law-20150718-story.html
I don't think GF explained himself well here (at all) - sorry, GF. If he's saying what I think he is, I completely agree with him (with the exception of the infantile name-calling of the President).
This law, if I understand it correctly, models its background checks on the Department of Veteran Affairs' background checks. In this, it stipulates that anyone who is incapable of handling their own financial affairs would be ineligible for the service requested. The way of checking this is by determining whether a person is able, him or herself, to collect Social Security on a regular basis (without a representative sent on his or her behalf).
Social Security is for those who are retired, disabled in a way, shape or form, or unemployed. The question at hand is really simple. Are there legitimate reasons why one might not want to or be able to collect his or her own Social Security regularly and/or assign someone else to do it for him or herself, but should still be deemed eligible to carry a weapon?
If there are none, then this is an effective background check.
If there are some, then this is an ineffective background check, as it prohibits some who should not be prohibited from carrying a weapon.
Really not much more to it than that.0 -
"pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs,"
If you don't have the mental capacity to manage your own affairs why should you be able to possess a firearm?
Obviously if you have applied for benefits under the guise of mental capacity and then you show up to fill out a gun permit a flag should go up.Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt20 -
Didn't you chastise folks for using the term "gun nuts" because resorting to name calling is a position of weakness or something like that?? It's ok for you but not others right?Godfather. said:little by little gun rights are being restricted and everybody just keeps drinking the cool-aid.
how about the stories about these welfare folks using guns ? are they next to lose thier right to own a gun ? that's it folks just keep dringing the cool-aid....uncle obama will make everything better....he's a idiot.
Godfather.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
well yes and your right, but obama is my exception LOL! just to clearify who did I name call ? other than obama ? if I have used any name calling (other than obama) I aploigize....yea yea I know it's wrong I'll try not to do that anymore.rgambs said:
Didn't you chastise folks for using the term "gun nuts" because resorting to name calling is a position of weakness or something like that?? It's ok for you but not others right?Godfather. said:little by little gun rights are being restricted and everybody just keeps drinking the cool-aid.
how about the stories about these welfare folks using guns ? are they next to lose thier right to own a gun ? that's it folks just keep dringing the cool-aid....uncle obama will make everything better....he's a idiot.
Godfather.
Godfather.
0 -
I was seriously asking as well, as I honestly don't know the answer! Nothing comes to mind, but if someone (Godfather) opposes this policy, someone (Godfather) should be able to answer this question.WhatYouTaughtMe said:
So under what type of circumstances would someone not be able to handle their own affairs yet still carry a gun? I'm seriously asking without my mind made up. This specific rule seems like a complicated issue.benjs said:
Like I said above, the answer to that question is the answer to the question of whether or not this is a fair and effective background check!WhatYouTaughtMe said:
I can't pretend to know each individuals circumstances, but if someone doesn't have the physical ability to cash their own check should they be able to wield a firearm?benjs said:
First, see link for the full article.rr165892 said:GF,you know I fall right of center and I'm also gun owner with a CCP license.But I am also aware that we need to strengthen our resolve when it comes to who gets guns ,at least legally.
Who cares if there is more backround checks? If your legit,you should have no issue.No one is asking for an inventory of your arsenal.
When 1 idiot tried to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb,all of us paid for it by having to ridiculously take shoes off when getting on a plane.ONE GUY,ONE TIME.
So know we have multiple mass shootings of hundreds of innocent victims,including kids and families.We have done nothing!!!!! Not one fucking thing.Any gun owner who is responsible should have no issue with making it tougher for those who want to acquire,Espescially illegal immigrants and those already relying on the entitlements of the government tit.They should be more concerned with buying milk,books and clothes not Bullets and Guns.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-gun-law-20150718-story.html
I don't think GF explained himself well here (at all) - sorry, GF. If he's saying what I think he is, I completely agree with him (with the exception of the infantile name-calling of the President).
This law, if I understand it correctly, models its background checks on the Department of Veteran Affairs' background checks. In this, it stipulates that anyone who is incapable of handling their own financial affairs would be ineligible for the service requested. The way of checking this is by determining whether a person is able, him or herself, to collect Social Security on a regular basis (without a representative sent on his or her behalf).
Social Security is for those who are retired, disabled in a way, shape or form, or unemployed. The question at hand is really simple. Are there legitimate reasons why one might not want to or be able to collect his or her own Social Security regularly and/or assign someone else to do it for him or herself, but should still be deemed eligible to carry a weapon?
If there are none, then this is an effective background check.
If there are some, then this is an ineffective background check, as it prohibits some who should not be prohibited from carrying a weapon.
Really not much more to it than that.'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10 -
Just Obama and those who drink his coolaid...but I don't really see a distinction lolGodfather. said:
well yes and your right, but obama is my exception LOL! just to clearify who did I name call ? other than obama ? if I have used any name calling (other than obama) I aploigize....yea yea I know it's wrong I'll try not to do that anymore.rgambs said:
Didn't you chastise folks for using the term "gun nuts" because resorting to name calling is a position of weakness or something like that?? It's ok for you but not others right?Godfather. said:little by little gun rights are being restricted and everybody just keeps drinking the cool-aid.
how about the stories about these welfare folks using guns ? are they next to lose thier right to own a gun ? that's it folks just keep dringing the cool-aid....uncle obama will make everything better....he's a idiot.
Godfather.
Godfather.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
can we move on to the real serious issue at hand?
WTF is that hat Ben put up?.Is it a mule,donkey,pig ,cow.dog,sock monkey?
i can't look away and think i somehow need to own one.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help