Comments as to veracity??
Make elderly people less independent, more fearful, and taking away their peace of mind. This is horrible.
Which state AG is this?
Seniors are apt to be assault victims anyway; to disarm them would be condemning them to death or disability.
I certainly hope it’s satire. This is ridiculous.
“”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 obvious attempt to circumvent the Constitution should be taken very seriously by freedom loving people in this country. There is a dangerous notion embedded there; one that should be watched very, very closely.
It’s time to refresh the tree of Liberty, IMO.
Oh, darned, looks like we’ll have to have the armed insurrection start earlier than planned or we’ll run out of baby-boomers to man it.
It has to be BS
Barama wouldn’t target the elderly. He will disarm all of us equally
But, I have to assume this is satire. People do not automatically forfeit their rights when they reach 60. Well, maybe in an Obama world they do.
True or not I cannot comment upon. I can say that it is unconstitutional. Constitutional rights do not hinge upon age. The public welfare argument has to be predicated upon some imminent danger. The one dangerous elderly person with a gun is countered by the 99.99% that aren’t dangerous. If you apply that to other age groups, none of us get guns.
I have to think this is satire. But, with the bunch we have in power, who knows? The fact that I even consider the possibility that this could be true says a lot about our sad current state of affairs.
Uh...the BOR is not limited by any branch of the government.
Satire - 2nd amendment, the most important amendment, BUMP!
As budgets tighten as more people hop aboard the freebie express, sounds like a solid plan to me.
/s
Hey Dave..........I call Barbra Streisand on this. I’ve seen other “fanciful” articles from this source.
They won’t get me, anyway........I’m too far in the boondocks.
But I still say B.S.
Okay by me as long as I can keep my Bushmaster .50 semi.
first...they take away guns from the unfit because they think it’s too dangerous.
Then...they take away guns from the TOO fit, because they think they don’t need them.
Then...they take away guns from the poor, because they think it’s too tempting for them to do crime.
Then...they take away guns from the rich, because they think it’s not right. They can just hire a body guard.
See where I’m going with this? There’s always SOME reason to take guns away from SOMEONE. It never ends. Not until there’s only one person left that is allowed to own a gun.
"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."
Sounds like a form of executive terrorism to me.
All I can say is "Just try it, Obbie, just try it." We will have a Constitutional emergency.
I'm 63 and have been shooting most of my life, so I'm in good practice.
--
If the elderly can be prohibited form gun ownership, then there is a certain ethnic group that has a lopsided record with gun death and violence, so then that group should be banned from gun ownership as well.
I'm willing to bet that there are plenty of skilled elderly gunowners who don't have any particular reason to fear incarceration or death and who would do something along the lines of what the protagonists in "Unintended Consequences" did.
Keep your powder dry, history is about to repeat itself, remember Lexington and Concord!
1. This is almost certainly satire ... for now.
2. "Congress" is only mentioned one time in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment begins: "Congress shall make no law ...." The rest of the restrictions on government action are sweeping and apply to the entire government. The second Amendment is clear to anyone who understands English (except to those who hate freedom and want power over the little people) "... shall not be infringed." This isn't a restricted "Congress shall not" but a more general "shall not". If it was just a question of wording, the NRA could become a non-political club for shooters, since the wording is unambiguous. Unfortunately, it's a question of politics, and the other side doesn't care what the words used to say. In their "Living Constitution", the words now mean whatever they claim the Founding Fathers would have written if Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi had stood in for George Mason and James Madison.
It's time to pray for America.
From what I have seen since January 20th, it is ludicrous to leave certain people in their 40's in control of deadly weapons