Barack Obama is once again circumventing the legislative process in order to push his administration’s unpopular leftist agenda. First, it was illegal immigration, then transgender bathrooms. This time, it’s guns.
Earlier this year, the White House announced new policies for those receiving social security benefits in conjunction with the president’s January 5th executive order on gun ownership. When it was released, few seemed to notice that the order allowed the administration to withhold Second Amendment rights from those who collect social security.
The move makes little logical sense. Social Security beneficiaries have never proven themselves as particularly violent or incapable of gun ownership. Instead, it seems as if this is part of Obama’s larger plan to slowly and surreptitiously restrict gun ownership whenever and wherever possible.
The administration was likely hoping that this slow creep of new regulations would go unnoticed until it was too late to be repealed. Fortunately, the watchful eyes of conservative media caught them in the act.
See Obama’s secret gun ban on the next page:
What a pos!! No surprise though.
He’s a POS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This needs to go to court. There is no Executive privilege to suspend the constitution or people’s constitutional rights.
He, and Hillary will stop at nothing to disarm law abiding American citizens! Sneaky, underhanded, back door, constitutional breaking laws being written by our Dictator in Chief. He has continually gone against his oath to uphold the Constitution from the day he entered office. A few years back that would have been considered Treason!
That’s not even college level, any 10 year old should understand this concept, which is the foundation of our country’s political system.
This is so wrong and against the Second Amendment.
I’m about to file for SS, try and take my guns.
Not really. The law has been in effect for years and the social security collectors affected are those who can’t take care of themselves mentally. They are also at a much higher risk of suicide. I suspect that those who want to arm them want to enable them to commit suicide so they don’t have to pay the bills.
I actually commented on a White House post yesterday. It was about the ADA. Where if not mistaken, he was using hearing tone technology with a guest. I asked the legitimate type question of, how he plans on attempting a policy being non discrimitory with the question being in comments of an ADA related Facebook post. Technically they will always need to prove risk of harm to restrict a right with no criminal charges. Laws do not allow non hospitalization of risk of harm decisions. During a matching timeline of a knife attack in Japan. There’s textbook of not being allowed to discriminate based off a diagnosis and laws/policy already clarify the true use of payee representatives. They’re trying to use demographic studies of others in indivual care. Epic fail on their part. Risk of harm decisions are a yes or no. Like a terror level risk at airports. One minute they can fly, until a decision of no commercial/private planes. They’re attempting excusable discrimination. The one topic he deserves at minimal, an impeachment court date.
So let’s take guns away from those who probably need them most.the elderly and disabled who need all the help they can get to defend themselves.when was the last time you saw the elderly go on shooting ranmpages ? Most crimes are committed by people aged 16-30year olds. You don’t see old people go on terrorism sprees,or gang activity.