Post by: MountainMan7640 on May 14, 2009, 06:39:16 PM
The order states
Guns To Be Banned For Elderly
Staff Reports
United Press International
Washington
Deputy Attorney General Designate David Ogden is circulating a draft of an executive order in which, among other things, firearms possession would be severely limited for people over 60.
An assistant to Ogden told us, "It appears that in these changing times, it is no longer necessary to allow the elderly to be armed. With all of their physical ailments and increasing senility, to leave them in control of a deadly weapon would be ludicrous."
While the Executive Order may sound too powerful, experts in Constitutional law state that it is not actually un-Constitutional.
"It's a question of wording." states Columbia Law Professor, Dr. John Braxton. "The Constitution forbids the Congress, that is, the legislative branch, from passing any laws infringing on gun ownership. The executive branch is not included in this proviso. As long as the Congress doesn't get involved, it's technically a non-issue."
The Justice Department was tossing the idea of a gun ban for seniors during the Carter and Clinton Administration, but public opinion stopped these initiatives. Now, the Obama White House believes differently.
An unnamed aide close to Ogden agreed to talk on the condition of anonymity.
"Clinton and Carter didn't have as much of a mandate as President Obama. They were both Southerners, and the Second Amendment was sacrosanct to their constituents. However, President Obama comes from a new sort of politics, where divisive issues like firearms do not apply to him."
"Quite frankly, it's a shame that no one has had the good conscience to have done this already. It's a simple process, and the majority of the American people will understand it and follow the law."
The enforcement mechanism for this particular executive order has not been published. It is likely that the confiscation of weapons will be similar to Great Britain 's handgun ban, in which citizens willingly gave the weapons to police.
It is expected that the executive order will be given around July 1, when senior-related gun deaths reach their peaks.
The aide to Ogden stated: "For eight years you see the rolling back of regulation, and crime has skyrocketed. In fact, in Massachusetts alone, murders have risen 50% since 2002. Armed robbery has also risen dramatically. With such circumstances, we must act boldly.."
I can't help but ask, "How much of this crime was committed by people over 60?" And how much of this crime
Now my question is does this also mean because of the reasons stated above ALL poloticians at that age cannot hold an office, ALL supreme court justices at that age cannot be a supreme court judge? I mean the list keeps going the way I would think.
If anyone can shed any light on this please let me know..
Gary aka MountainMan7640
Post by: lewy on May 14, 2009, 07:00:14 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on May 14, 2009, 07:28:25 PM
i sure hope that thats a rumer because its the most assanine thing that i have ever heard.....pays taxes you whole life, then retire and have your guns taken away? wont fly....no way.....
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Post by: ICEMAN on May 14, 2009, 07:40:09 PM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/elderly.asp
Post by: MountainMan7640 on May 14, 2009, 08:13:43 PM
Post by: Alpine Mojo on May 14, 2009, 09:04:24 PM
Post by: Bofire on May 16, 2009, 06:03:19 PM
but us old farts know the truth!! LOL.. old *censored*s with prostrate cancer, ulcers, arthritus,bad backs, hips, knees, half deaf and irritable!!!!!
Not even the Govt. is that stupid!1 I hope.
Carl aka Old Fart
Post by: MountainMan7640 on May 16, 2009, 09:14:54 PM
It is B.S. after reading ICEMAN I also found this on snoop dog, but then see poloticians never sease to amaze me with stupidy so you really never know..
Post by: TONTO on May 23, 2009, 11:52:24 PM
"Quite frankly, it's a shame that no one has had the good conscience to have done this already. It's a simple process, and the majority of the American people will understand it and follow the law." "
WTF???? :bdid:
Post by: Jerbear on May 24, 2009, 08:44:29 AM
Have you not heard? We are not getting a raise in our S.S. benefits next year, and possibly the year after. The *censored*s have already drawn a line in the sand. This will be remembered.
Post by: granola/hippyslayer on May 26, 2009, 12:33:18 PM
Now my question is does this also mean because of the reasons stated above ALL poloticians at that age cannot hold an office, ALL supreme court justices at that age cannot be a supreme court judge? I mean the list keeps going the way I would think.
If anyone can shed any light on this please let me know..
Gary aka MountainMan7640
[/quote]
:tup: :tup:
Post by: blindpig on May 28, 2009, 08:50:35 PM