Over 60 turn in your guns

[Twincannons]

Guns to Be Banned for Elderly
Staff Reports, UPI
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 to people over age 60.​

An assistant toOgdentold 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 Departmentwas 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 toOgdenagreed 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 toGreat 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 toOgdenstated: "For eight years you see the rolling back of regulation, and crime has skyrocketed. In fact, inMassachusettsalone, murders have risen 50% since 2002. Armed robbery has also risen dramatically. With such circumstances, we must act boldly."​

Folks, I can't help but ask, "How much of this crime was committed by people over 60?" And how much ofthis crime was committed on people over 60 who are unarmed? And, how many peace officers will have to retire because they are over 60? Where is the END to this insanity?​

 

[txinvestigator]

Ya got a link to that? It reads like a piece from the Onion.

I'm gonna go ahead a raise the flag


It ain't real.

 

[DCortez]

People over 60 need bazookas. In my 40's and can tell you I'm putting my name on the list as my eyesight isn't getting stronger.

 

[OldGringo]

Gee, i'm 60, tell'm to come get them ;-) Morons!

 

[308nato]

I'am 69 and mr. Heston said it for me" out of my cold dead hands" and it
wont be easy.

 

[txinvestigator]

Guys, it ain't real..........

 

[ambidextrous1]

I'll be 77 next month, and can still do the "El Presidente" in less thanten seconds.

I wouldn't object to being tested for proficiency & safe firearm handling every year or so, in lieu of the proposed Executive Order.

An arbitrary age limit is 'bad think'; having said that, we have to admit that some individuals in their 70s, or 60s, or 50s, etc should probably not be allowed to posess firearms, knives, baseball bats, hatchets, automobiles. etc, etc.

What does such a ruling lead to/ And where does it end? I fear Incrementalism; but what do I know, at my age?

 

[JKTex]

Guys, it ain't real..........

Well, I think it's real, sort of. Real, but not what it says, and made to sound like something it's not. You know, another one of those foil hat, the sky is falling gimmick's that people keep falling for.

I saw it come up on another forum but the article actually had a bill referenced, but that was misinterpreted and to boot, there's already law prohibiting what the story claims.

If that doesn't make sense, lets just stick with, "Guys, it ain't real......"

 

[SIG_Fiend]

...but what do I know, at my age?

I would say probably a large amount more than the average citizen in this country. Though considering the average citizen in this country, I guess that's not really saying a whole lot.

 

[Pappy]

I'm 73 and no one is taking my guns....period!!!!!

Isn't this profiling???

 

[Slotback]

It's b.s.

 

[cuate]

I turned 77 yesterday also, but I have young eyes, steady hands, years of shooting practice, fired expert in Marine Corps, still an accurate old fart and only way those turds in Washington or the US is taking my guns is in exchange for toys like 1928 Thompson, Uzi, Real Galil that will shoot semi or F/A, 1918 BAR, etc. etc, etc........MOLON LABE.... Come and get 'em if you dare !!!!!

 

[hoytinak]

Yeah it's kinda like the "Gun Free Zone" video...it's not real.

I did print it up, gonna take it to work tonight. Our older guards will believe it (man they believe everything since he got elected ) but I'll get a kick outta it. Had to make the font bigger so they could read it though.

 

[lonewolf23c]

That's a bunch of BS. The government can try all it wants but I don't think they realize that a lot of old people will still fight to keep their guns.

I'm only 26 but I don't want to see anyone lose their guns because of something like that, and I doubt that it would happen either.

The government knows not to do anything that stupid, there's too many rednecks with guns in the country that have an itchy trigger finger, so like everyone else has said "Come on and just try and take em". I'll give you the bullets first if that's ok with you.

 

[atticus]

It's not just senior citizens' guns

The thrust of King Hussein's health care scheme is to ration health care, just like they do in England. That means that, for example, if a 68 year old needs a heart procedure, but the government says he won't benefit from it for a long enough time period (because he'll die soon), then he doesn't get the procedure. Period. In England, if you have macular degeneration (a progressive eye disorder), you have to go blind in one eye first, before they will consider treating you. In Obama's world, the old are expendible. They don't count as human beings.
Gun ownership is a flash point for freedom in this country. And it's one of the few guaranteed personal rights that the present Supreme Court understands (as in the Heller case). When Obama appoints replacements for Ginsberg and Stevens and Souter on the Supreme Court, do you think he'll look to the NRA for recommendations?

 

[txinvestigator]

The thrust of King Hussein's health care scheme is to ration health care, just like they do in England. That means that, for example, if a 68 year old needs a heart procedure, but the government says he won't benefit from it for a long enough time period (because he'll die soon), then he doesn't get the procedure. Period. In England, if you have macular degeneration (a progressive eye disorder), you have to go blind in one eye first, before they will consider treating you. In Obama's world, the old are expendible. They don't count as human beings.
Gun ownership is a flash point for freedom in this country. And it's one of the few guaranteed personal rights that the present Supreme Court understands (as in the Heller case). When Obama appoints replacements for Ginsberg and Stevens and Souter on the Supreme Court, do you think he'll look to the NRA for recommendations?

When is the replacement of Ginsberg and Stevens and Souter due?

 

[Pappy]

When is the replacement of Ginsberg and Stevens and Souter due?

Don't know, but, you can be sure that the vote on the 2nd amendment won't be 6-5 in favor!!!!

 

[txinvestigator]

Don't know, but, you can be sure that the vote on the 2nd amendment won't be 6-5 in favor!!!!

Exactly. The answer is, "don't know". Atticus wrote as if President Obama was to be replacing them any day now, and tht meant the theme of the lie on which this thread is based was actually possible or impending.

 

[atticus]

Nope, Ginsberg, Stevens, and Souter are still actively serving on the Supreme Court. However, they are the most likely to be the first retirements during Obama's presidency. If they don't die first, they will most likely retire while Obama is president so that he (and not some other president) will be the one to appoint a successor. I don't think anything in my post implies that Obama will be replacing them any day now.

 

[robocop10mm]

The three most likely to retire or die are already solidly anti gun. Any appointments made will not upset the status quo.