Guns to Be Banned for Elderly (Is the story real or satire??)

Jumping in Pools blogspot ^ | January 27, 2009 | Staff Reports, UPI

[CedarDave]

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 to 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.

[Starfleet Command]

Satire. “Jumping in Pools” is always satire, but so damned close to reality that it is divided only by time.

[yazoo]

“firearms possession would be severely limited to people over 60.”

The way I read it, it means only people over 60 will be allowed to have firearms. They’ll probably send it to committee where they will add amendments only allowing blind people over 60 with arthritis and dementia to own guns.

[yazoo]

“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.”

This guys an idiot. Is he claiming the executive could ban churches and close down all media?

[VeryConservativeOldGuy]

This is the second post linked from that blog tonight and both only identify themselves as satire in the tags for the post.

Poor form to say the least.

This stuff can spread way to fast if people buy into it.

[School of Rational Thought]

Has to be satire. Most of the shooting stories of burgulars are old timers defending themselves.

[Red in Blue PA]

I have said for awhile now that all satire posts should have (SATIRE) in quotes directly behind the title.

Wish FR would make that a rule. Sometimes I think people just post this stuff to see how many people they can rile up.

[Grampa Dave]

Nothing the Zer0’s thugs try or do will amaze me.

Yesterday, I stopped at our local Walmart to get some fresh ammo.

They were basically out of home defense ammo:

No 2 3/4” 12 gauge buckshot, only a few boxes of 3 inch mag buck shot and a few boxes of rifled slugs

Zero 357 ammo, 45 and 38 and 9 mm.

One box of 30/06 ammo, zero 223 and 30 cal ammo.

There was plenty of bird shot and steel duck and geese loads.

The guy in charge of guns and ammo, whom I have known for close to a decade, has not been able to get defensive ammo since December.

[Dead Corpse]

The Constitution forbids the Congress, that is, the legislative branch, from passing any laws infringing on gun ownership.

Actually "doctor", it simply says "shall not be infringed". It doesn't mention by who at all. Lacking the 1st Amendments specificity, Art 6 paragraph 2's scope applies as does the 10th Amendments provisos.

IOW, an EO infringing RKBA is equally as unConstitutional as damn near every piece of Federal legislation going back to, and including, the NFA of '34.

[TexasRepublic]

It’s a mute point — at the rate a revolution is becoming necessary, I don’t expect to live to 60.

[dlagwa]

Now might be a good time to view the popular vote, as I remember, Obama did NOT carry the popular vote. He only received the majority of electoral votes due to an old tradition of fifty-one percent of popular vote in a state equals ALL the electoral votes of that state to be cast for that candidate. Example 51% of California popular vote equals 100% of electoral college votes to that candidate. You can see how we get a President that the majority of Americans did NOT vote for. By the way the voting of the electoral college is tradition and not even made compulsory by law. Conceivably you could have a state's 51% go to a candidate and the electoral college reps vote for whoever they want.

[dlagwa]

We must keep in mind the intent of law as well as some limitations the Founding Fathers did instill(wisely)or luckily, sometimes the same thing. These two Bill of Rights:
Article the eleventh [Amendment IX]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article the twelfth [Amendment X]/p>
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The 9th amendment stating in plain english The enumeration(listing) in the Constitution shall NOT be construed(given meaning or intention of) to deny(withhold the possession of) or disparage(depreciate or belittle) others(rights) retained by the People.
And the Tenth Powers not directly delegated to the U.S. shall be retained by the States, or to the people.
My point is no where in the Constitution does it give the Executive Branch the right to circumvent the Bill of Rights with or without the approval of Congress. Only by direct amendment and specifically outlining those powers to the Executive branch could any such Presidential order be enforced. Unless of course he did it and no one resisted or challenged the orders validity.
I shall be running for Gov of KS with NO experience and NO indebtedness to any special interest Only the benefit of my fellow Kansans motivate me to attempt to protect our state from the lunacy that is eroding our Republic.
My profession is EMS and I plan to continue it upon the completion of two terms, Max.
Keep ‘em oiled, it could be another taxation without representation cause for our kids and grand kids regarding this spending (stimulus package) spree of self indulgence. God Bless America and more importantly Her people who are Her heart.

[Irish Eyes]

First he wants to take away good health care for the elderly (60?) and now he wants to disarm them. Getting more unbelievable by the moment.

[larry hagedon]

The new game in town is lets make fools of Conservatives with phoney stories like this one. When it grows legs and is posted all over the net on Conservative blogs, the Libs that wrote it have a good laugh.

Triple check all such stories folks. Google em and check em out. This one is a hoax.

[CedarDave]

This one is a hoax.

Indeed. I got burned by thinking Jumping in Pools was legit. Take a little bit of truth, add well-founded suspicions regarding power grabs by the new administration and inject with over-the-top rumor and you get Jumping in Pools stories. They do make fools of us and set the stage for us not knowing what's true and proposed or not.