White House wants to disarm some seniors; afraid of a revolt? Or, are there even more cuts to Social Security in the works?

Guns

What criminal would bother this gal?

Seeking tighter controls over firearm purchases, the Obama administration is pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, a move that could affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others.

The push is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws regulating who gets reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, which is used to prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the country illegally and others.

A potentially large group within Social Security are people who, in the language of federal gun laws, are unable to manage their own affairs due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.” – Chicago Tribune, July 21, 2015

President Obama’s hometown newspaper hasn’t noticed that their city is a murder destination, despite bans on guns for the law-abiding, but oodles of firearms on the black market, primarily imported from Indiana. As one wealthy windy wit explained “if people want protection, do what I do, hire security guards.”

Were it so easy to have your own Secret Service in some of Chicago’s rough neighborhoods! The average Social Security check is about $1,400 a month, and then you have to deduct three or four thousand a year for Part B, deductibles, catastrophic insurance.  A good security guard should run you twice your gross earnings, and you need three a shift. Of course, you can dip into your average senior savings of $38,000 to pay for those hired guns, but the first year’s bill will be some $60 grand more than your Social Security.

I would love to ask Josh “The Earnest”, how taking guns away from poor people, protects them from crooks with guns. Maybe, he could ask a sympathetic top advisor like Susan “The Rice is Right” or Valerie “Born in Iran” Jarrett, but I think the obvious answer would elude them.

Another aspect seems odd. Why take away guns from old folks with judgement, and allow young people with little experience and often poor judgment to buy them in states where self protection is legal?  Should we trust an 18-year-old just back from Syria more than a 66-year-old college professor in a wheelchair.

Reports say (this is the new “leak the idea from the White House era) – the bigwigs want the Social Security Administration to use our personal medical records to keep the slightest disabled from having guns to protect themselves. For example, if you have a problem balancing your checkbook at 68 and need help from your son, you are considered “disabled” because of demonstrated incompetence.

Another measure is “marked subnormal intelligence” – a condition that doesn’t prevent gun access by government officials, elected or career. Only seniors would undergo this special IQ test, probably a special one that evaluates knowledge of popular bands making noise in the past three years.

Wheelchair probably means no gun. A shaky hand is an obvious no-no. Watching FOX News seems like a caution flag for any control freak in charge of this program.

Who will decide? Will Obama create a commission, or just leave it up to John Kerry and his merry band of blunderers.

Some of my best friends have lived in the worst neighborhoods, where 10 or 20 burglaries a year on one city block is not unusual. I remember one old fellow had a small business that was burglarized 26 times in 11 months, had two armed robberies and a foiled kidnapping. He was in a city where it was impossible to get a hidden carry permit.

A few years ago I started commenting on various blogs that seniors, who opposed cuts in Social Security, should demonstrate in mass, carrying sharpened pitchforks (they are officially “farm implements”), wielding buckets of boiling tar and tossing bags of feathers.

I suggested that if that didn’t stop the humiliation of the senior class, who knew what would happen if millions of seniors, angered beyond belief, and having access to guns at local stores, might do in protest? I recall saying “they have the least to lose with the fewest years remaining.”

Someone in the super duper power circles probably read this and decided that many “aggressive” senior Americans shouldn’t have guns, because they could be a danger to government oppressors and fools.

Sadly, I wasn’t really serious then, but now?

3 responses

  1. Linda Donaldson | Reply

    Roll yourself to your local Walmart now…someone just dropped off a gunshot victim at one today…and arm in advance of being declared incompetent. Bet they’d still let you vote, though. No gun, but they’ll probably get volunteers to drag you to the polls.

    Like

  2. […] current Social Security program is regressive, and pays a lower percentage in retirement pension, the more you contribute. […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: