Guns: how much longer will it take ....

And yet that hasn't stopped you from claiming you know what is in the regulations.

Everything after the first section requires a medical diagnosis of being unable to function in some way.

That is pretty funny.
This is the post where you made the statement.
https://able2know.org/topic/131081-67#post-6601745
You attack farmerman for not being able to point out any error on your part when he points out the same thing you now admit was an error on your part. Is the SS regulation about mental disabilities? Yes or no?

I am pointing to your statements and giving links to show why they are false. Your denying that the links prove you wrong doesn't make your statements true. It only makes you delusional.

Have you seen him declare, with his typical certainly and bluster, that he has a greater IQ than anyone on this board, and likely anyone he’s met in real life.

Actually, some countries appear to be able to deal with guns, and have a high gun ownership rate, without massacring themselves at nearly the rate that Americans do.

The available evidence would suggest that Americans are one of the peoples least able to deal with high gun ownership, and that they ought therefore to be amongst the peoples least able to buy guns unrestricted.

It would be, I suppose, fine if the gun nuts massacred each other...sadly they seem inclined to murder non gun-nuts at an alarming rate.

We can do nothing except hope that, at some stage, US leaders marshall some gonads, and deprive the mad folk of the ability to kill large numbers of innocents in the name of freedom and safety.

sceletera wrote:

Except you are clearly wrong.

Let me cite some of the examples:
1.) You claimed there was no focus on mental disabilities.

My error about "mental illness" verses "mental disability" does not justify a claim that I've made other untrue statements.

2.)

oralloy wrote:

No. The rule covered everyone who receives social security checks and can't handle their financials. No limitations to mental illness.

No, the rule did not cover everyone.

Quote:

(4) Has attained age 18, but has not
attained full retirement age; and

ibid. Page 91714
It exempted everyone under 18 and those that had reached retirement age. (Retirement is different based on when a person was born.)
That is even before we get to the other tests for who is adjudicated as a mental defective.

3.)

oralloy wrote:

Nope. I post facts. You're the one who is ignoring them.

Your statement about the rule covering everyone is clearly not a fact. This comment was referring to that statement.

4.)

oralloy wrote:

No such focus. It covered people who receive Social Security for any reason, if they do not handle their own finances.

This statement is also not true. The first requirement is

Quote:

(1) Has filed a claim based on
disability;

ibid Page 91714
Only those that have filed a disability claim are covered under the regulation

5.)

oralloy wrote:

I'm on record repeatedly linking to the executive order when Obama had it on his White House page

Since this is a regulation and not an executive order you couldn't have provided links to an executive order. Executive orders are all listed here:
https://www.federalregister.gov/executive-orders
When asked to point to the specific one, you posted links that use the term executive action which is in no way an Executive Order.
When I do a search for "oralloy" and "whitehouse.gov" which would be in any url linked to the whitehouse nothing comes up other than a link when you are discussing Bibi Netentahu. There are no other instances of you using "whitehouse.gov" on this site. Can you explain how you repeatedly did something that doesn't show up in a simple search?

Is there any significant difference between the two terms?

I'm not convinced that it wasn't an executive order, but if I should have said executive action, so what?

Feel free to explain why it matters whether something is called an executive order as opposed to an executive action.

sceletera wrote:

No, it doesn't remain valid.

Anorexia and claustrophobia are hardly mental illnesses.

sceletera wrote:

Your point is not valid because the regulations prove you wrong.

The regulations count anorexia and phobias.

sceletera wrote:

You are correct, anxiety disorder is listed.

That means you were incorrect when you earlier said:
"Phobias are clearly not covered under the regulation."

There was a difference between your post and Farmerman's post.

You provided evidence that I indeed was wrong to use the term mental disability instead of mental illness.

farmerman wrote:

The Congressional Review act in 2017 was used by Congress , working under recommendations of mr Trump did this:

Quote:

the measure being blocked from implementation would have required the Social Security Administration to send records of some beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. About 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs would have been affected.

No it didn't. There was no focus on mental disabilities.

oralloy wrote:

My error about "mental illness" verses "mental disability" does not justify a claim that I've made other untrue statements.

I certainly didn't make that claim.

I listed 4 other instances of you telling untruths with citations of why they were untrue.

None of them relied on your error of "mental illness" versus "mental disability".

Here they are again. They stand on their own and clearly point to your statements being untrue according to facts.

Your statement contains 2 untruths. The EO vs executive action confusion is only one of them.

You claimed to have repeatedly linked to it. The failure to find any link to whitehouse.gov posted by you shows your statement about linking to it repeatedly to be an untruth.

Whether it was an order or action is irrelevant for reaching the conclusion that you did not repeatedly link to the whitehouse website since a search revealed zero times of you making such a link.

If you wish to show this is not an untruth on your part you can falsify it by providing 2 instances of your linking to a statement or an EO by Obama on whitehouse.gov. Those instances must be before today's date and specific about the SS regulation.

Otherwise, we have a very clear case of your providing an untruth.

This seems to be a common practice on your part. It is a failing of logic.
If the requirement is A, B & C be met before D can occur then all three A, B & C must be met. You see that A is met and then declare the D occurs without testing for B & C.

Simply having a phobia is not covered under the regulation. Anxiety disorder to the point of inability to function is covered.

Anxiety disorder as a result of phobias is not simply a phobia. Phobias are only covered when they become more than a phobia.

In order for one to be reported to the NICS for a phobia not only must the phobia be so debilitating that one can't work. It must be documented by a doctor. It must be so debilitating that one can't function socially or outside one's home. It must be so debilitating that one can't manage their money and someone else has to do it for them.

Farmerman made a statement that was true and correct

and you without evidence claimed it was not true.

Succinct and to the point!

Actually, some countries appear to be able to deal with guns, and have a high gun ownership rate, without massacring themselves at nearly the rate that Americans do.

The available evidence would suggest that Americans are one of the peoples least able to deal with high gun ownership, and that they ought therefore to be amongst the peoples least able to buy guns unrestricted.

It would be, I suppose, fine if the gun nuts massacred each other...sadly they seem inclined to murder non gun-nuts at an alarming rate.

We can do nothing except hope that, at some stage, US leaders marshall some gonads, and deprive the mad folk of the ability to kill large numbers of innocents in the name of freedom and safety.