We've often talked here about the Democratic Party's goal of making sure at least half the population is dependent on government in some way. Mitt Romney was skewered for his comment about the "47 percent," but the comment was completely valid and very pertinent because it referred to a permanent dependent class that will always vote for the party of government dependency.
That's how the Democrats intend to maintain permanent political power - by making sure that more than half the population is terrified of losing its government benefits.
But there is another reason Democrats want so many people dependent on government. When you are dependent on someone for your very day-to-day subsistence, that someone owns you, and has the power to decide the rules by which you will live. You see it already in the use of the IRS to harass conservative groups who depend on tax exemptions, and you're now seeing talk of extending that treatment to churches.
The Los Angeles Times now reports that the Obama Administration plans to use the same approach to limiting Americans' gun rights. The Constitution may say the right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed, but once you start accepting Social Security checks, buddy (which just about everyone will at some point), the issue of those checks decides which rights you can keep:
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."
There is no simple way to identify that group, but a strategy used by the Department of Veterans Affairs since the creation of the background check system is reporting anyone who has been declared incompetent to manage pension or disability payments and assigned a fiduciary.
If Social Security, which has never participated in the background check system, uses the same standard as the VA, millions of its beneficiaries would be affected. About 4.2 million adults receive monthly benefits that are managed by "representative payees."
Most sneaky and underhanded attempts I've ever seen to take away people's constitutional rights
This is one of the most sneaky and underhanded attempts I've ever seen to take away people's constitutional rights. The administration is arbitrarily deciding that more than 4 million people whose Social Security checks are issued to a designated representative on their behalf - for whatever reason - is now not entitled to protection under the Second Amendment.
You can argue the relevance of "marked subnormal intelligence" or "incompetency" or whatever else. In my opinion it would rule out Joe Biden. But it's beside the point. There is no constitutional basis for any of this, and as is usually the case the Obama Administration doesn't bother with Congress when deciding to deny constitutional rights to 4 million Americans. It just makes an administrative ruling and that's that.
The whole idea of constitutionally limited government in this country is that elected officials cannot simply do whatever they want, cannot make up laws as they go along regardless of the limits set forth in the Constitution, and cannot disregard the rights of the people that are inherent and did not come from government in the first place. The Obama Administration hates this proposition and has been pushing since day one to see how far it can go in violating these principles.
It's been remarkably successful because Republicans in Congress fear the media criticism that would accompany any fight against Obama, and a majority of the Supreme Court has apparently decided its job is to make bad laws work better rather than get rid of them as they should.
I don't care what you think about who should or shouldn't own guns. There is no legal basis for using Social Security status to take these rights away. But understand: As soon as you accept the beneficience of almighty government, you're beholden to its rules, which politicians and bureaucrats have decided do not need to be limited by whatever that dumb Constitution says.
Enjoy your check.
We've often talked here about the Democratic Party's goal of making sure at least half the population is dependent on government in some way. Mitt Romney was skewered for his comment about the "47 percent," but the comment was completely valid and very pertinent because it referred to a permanent dependent class that will always vote for the party of government dependency.
That's how the Democrats intend to maintain permanent political power - by making sure that more than half the population is terrified of losing its government benefits.
