HJS comments: So far, the Democrats have not impressed me as the party of trust, let alone the party of change. Change was not supposed to be a "Change for the Worse." Whenever members of Congress are told "Don't read it, just sign it", and meekly do just that, are they truly representatives of the people? Isn't that just getting too close to government-by-fiat? And the choices for his cabinet (should I be using a capital H for "his"?) of well-respected Democrats turned out to be a Rogues Gallery of tax cheats!
For a political party who loves to assess more taxes whenever possible, having well-respected Democrat tax
cheats doing the assessing is particularly onerous. This administration is in the tubes and does not know it. It has already shown disdain for the American people and the American way of life, and is now bent on becoming worse--they still have not given up their childish European wannabe games with shoes too big to walk in.
Now they have done it again! They are attacking the elderly as being useless and not worth protecting. Again the Democratic Party appears to be only representing itself! And now is the time for all good seniors--and everyone else--to come to the aid of themselves and their country!
HJS
Staff Reports
United Press International
Washington
Deputy Attorney General Designate David Ogdenis 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.
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?"
No comments:
Post a Comment