|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Obama Gun Grab on Social Security Recipients Part of Long-Term Citizen Disarmament End Game
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"'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,' The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday. 'There is no simple way to identify that group, but a strategy used by the Department of Veterans Affairs since the creation of the background check system is reporting anyone who has been declared incompetent to manage pension or disability payments and assigned a fiduciary.'" ... |
| Comment by:
laker1
(7/21/2015)
|
Next lists of prohibited;
1.anyone collecting disability
2.all whites buying guns (racists)
3. anyone living 100 miles of US borders (possible drug dealers)
4. all former military (patriot extremists)
5. anyone who has ever received counseling (crazy)
6.anyone who wants to purchase a gun (domestic terrorists)
7. White cops ( racists) |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(7/21/2015)
|
The 'crucial point' of this latest edict, like other before it, is it grants bureaucrats supremacy over constitutionally-enshrined "citizens' rights". Where does this precedent stop ? How long before some President ( or Congress) decide our bureaucracy can curtail/revoke individuals' first amendment rights ? Or their fifth ? All based upon their participation in an entitlement program based upon their age, or physical condition ?
Lots of retireds find assigning some fiduciary authority to trusted family to maintain a residence or other recurring obligations while they devote themselves to travel a convenience. Doubtless some bureaucrats would deem this a 'qualifying condition' under this new pogrom. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(7/21/2015)
|
The 'crucial point' of this latest edict, like other before it, is it grants bureaucrats supremacy over constitutionally-enshrined "citizens' rights". Where does this precedent stop ? How long before some President ( or Congress) decide our bureaucracy can curtail/revoke individuals' first amendment rights ? Or their fifth ? All based upon their participation in an entitlement program based upon their age, or physical condition ?
Lots of retireds find assigning some fiduciary authority to trusted family to maintain a residence or other recurring obligations while they devote themselves to travel a convenience. Doubtless some bureaucrats would deem this a 'qualifying condition' under this new pogrom. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
