In an ever constant struggle with our 2nd Amendment rights, those in charge of our goobernment are willing to do whatever it takes to get that gun grabbing ball on the roll. It would seem as though taking the rights away from those on social security is the next play. And, as usual, it's all done in the name of mental health.
However, this newest gun-grab isn't without its own issues, as some speculate that some who are eligible for social security benefits won't come forward to collect it out of fear that their rights may be stripped away. But, then again, maybe that's just a side benefit. After all, our social security has been in shambles for a long time.
But, this begs the question: How will they try to strip the rights of We the People this time?
Well, the basic gist is that if you collect social security and – for whatever reason – need someone else to manage your money, then you've clearly got a mental disorder. But, there are issues with this thinking, and I'm sure I don't need to explain them for you.
But I will anyway. For example, I know someone who is old enough to collect these “benefits.” This person does not manage her own money, but it isn't because she is mentally sick. Rather, she just inherited a few hundred thousand bucks and doesn't know what to do with it because she's never had that much all at once. Furthermore, she wants it to last up until she passes away so she still has enough after she's decided to stop working.
Under this proposal, she would be ineligible to purchase a firearm.
Some estimates have concluded that there are about 1.5 million people without mental illnesses who do collect social security but don't manage their own money. These are issues like memory loss or those who just don't give a flying fornication about having to manage their money any longer. After all, they've done so for the past half decade, or so.
So, what's the problem? Don't we want people who are nuts to NOT have guns? Well, sure. But that's not the point. First, and foremost, this is unconstitutional. Obviously, the “shall not be infringed” section of the 2A will be violated, but what else?
The 1st section of the 14th Amendment states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state dprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And the 5th Amendment states:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
After some detailed research, I found out that there is only one command that is repeated throughout our Bill of Rights, and that is: “…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” as it is written in both Amendments above. So, it would seem that the authors of the Law wanted to make sure that life, liberty and property couldn't be taken away without following procedures.
And, when you take into account that what they are trying to take away are rights protected under the 2nd Amendment, you really gotta wonder what's in their Kool Aid.
What are your thoughts on this? Do you think this is the next step in stripping Americans of their rights? Or, do you feel as though elderly Americans should not have access to guns? Let us know.
Absolute Rights covered this story, here.