Another Step Down The Slippery Slope

The Los Angeles Times reported that president Obama was ready/planning to issue yet another executive order. This time it's to restrict the gun rights of those on Social Security who are deemed "unfit".

Of course, this immediately begs "What is the definiton of unfit?".

Besides the obvious category of physically unfit - which is a definition question unto itself, The VA reports names under a category in gun control regulations known as "adjudicated as a mental defective" terminology that derives from decades-old laws. Its only criterion is whether somebody has appointed a fiduciary representative. Is this the definiton? Who knows what will actually be used - but it one definition under HIPPA.

Assuming that it is for a moment, let's say I have a degree of macular degeneration that does not allow me to easily read small print.

So, doing banking by myself, either on a computer or at an actual bank, becomes problematic. Therefore, I appoint a friend/family member to perform banking functions for me.

Now, remember, it's just fine print I have trouble seeing NOT a full sized human intruder, etc., from whom I need to defend myself.

But, I now fall into the VA's definition of "adjudicated as a mental defective". It is easy to see where I'm going with this. It gets even better. If you are a veteran, the VA can "question" your mental ability AND If you are determined by the VA unable to manage your VA benefits, the VA will conduct a field examination to appoint a fiduciary to assist you. So, in this case, the govenmnet can "decree" you to be "adjudicated as a mental defective". And, you'll have little recourse. "Stupid is as a stupid executive orders." (Sorry, Forrest!)

By the above definition of fiduciarily "unfit", no one in the government should be allowed to own guns. Why? The nation is $18+ Trillion dollars in debt, the nation spends way more than it takes in, borrows millions and millions of dollars each day just to operate, AND has appointed the Federal Reserve (a non-government organization) as its banker. To me that pretty much defines "fiduciarily unfit" - as well as meeting the VA's definiton of "adjudicated as a mental defective".

One can fairly bet on what will be coming very shortly. The use of the EPR (electronic patient records) to see if you have ever told your doctor that you feel down, or depressed. They’ll then use that report to label you as unfit to own a firearm. The IRS will already have access to them via the ObamaCare act. All it takes is an executive order to share that information with the FBI NICS system and you’re screwed. Won’t matter the situation - your grandmother died so you answered yes to feeling depressed - and presto! You are now mentally incompetent and unable to purchase a firearm (or ammo depending on the district in which you might reside).

And I thought the HIPAA laws meant something. Silly me!

Then, a look at welfare should come to mind. If one is on welfare, then clearly they are not competent to manage their own finances. If they were they wouldn't be on welfare, one could argue. So, no one who has a temporary financial setback can own guns? I guess not.

Now, consider this:

Should Obama issue his executive order on this, aside from doing such would violate the 2nd Amendment, it might well be that persons like the following would be dead post his order:

Person 1

Person 2

Person 3

Person 4

Person 5

Oh, there are many more. But, you get the point.

Of course you and I both can come up with definitions for people who should not own guns. I mean besides dangerous criminals - illegally here or not.

People with advanced Alzheimers, Dementia, severe Psychosis, etc., are the most obvious choices. But, to use the Social Security database to single out people so that Obama can inforce gun control which both houses of Congress have refused to do? A very dangerous overreach of authority is in play here.

And, does he think that senior citizens are helpless to do anything about their freedoms being denied? An immature premise on his part.

Does the president view Social Security recipients the same way he views those on welfare; i.e., they are beholding to the government because the government is "giving" them money? Well, if he is, he is sadly mistaken. Those receiving Social Security are doing so because they were forced into an insurance contract; in fact a "ponzi" scheme at that. Now, since they've paid the "premiums" all their working lives, they now are collecting what is owed them. The government is not "giving" them anything.

This entire subject is an indication of the slippery slope of freedom degradation on which we are headed.

Things like this are only one of the progressive political element's "tools" to divide the people of our great country.

Don't be fooled.

Don't put up with it.

Contact your representatives and demand our freedoms back!