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administration was likely hoping that this slow creep of new regulations would go unnoticed until it was too late to be repealed.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:
He can not do that! He thinks he is a damn king! Not going to be passed by Congress!
Screw him and the horse he rode in on!!!!
Ok mister president, you can talk the talk but can you walk the walk
On your feet or on your kness.
He is just a POS
Really! 1. Executive orders are not law, only congress is authorized to write laws! 2. Social Security is not an entitlement, it was contributory and persons living long enough to collect are merely withdrawing what ‘they’ have saved. 3. Social Security should be self sustaining if the politicians were not continuously putting their hands in the Social Security jar for money to continue supporting government programs that are not self sustaining.
While I don’t believe he can unilateral make this decision, the article headline is a tad disingenuous. It isn’t all social security beneficiaries who would be placed on the no-buy list, just those who collect disability and are unable to manage those funds due to mental impairment.
While this wouldn’t normally be seen as overreaching to the majority of us, there are still issues with decision making in that regard. Who decides on whether or not someone is unfit to manage their own funds? How does that process work? Can the issue be redressed in a timely manner?
Fight for your rights.
F**k you$#%&!@*
More horseshit from the right…..