President Trump Signs Bill Reversing Obama Treachery On Guns And The Elderly
BY Herschel Smith
7 years, 9 months ago
President Trump killed a regulation that would have tightened gun background checks Tuesday, signing a bill to undo one of his predecessor’s executive actions following the San Bernardino shootings in 2015.
The Obama administration rule required the Social Security Administration to submit records of mentally disabled people to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the FBI database used to determine whether someone can buy a firearm under the 1993 Brady Bill.
Ooooo … hold me Uncle Bob, I’m askeerd!!! The oogey boogey man’s gonna’ gettcha!!! Quick. Look under the bed, in the closet. Somebody’s there, I just know it!!! All those severely, seriously, horribly, terminally, mentally ill to the point they cannot do finances are coming for me!!!
Good. Trump undid Obama’s treachery concerning the elderly who want someone else to do their finances for them but still want a means of self defense. This should never have been done in the first place, and it was worth the price of admission. Go to hell, Obama.
Now, there’s much more treachery to undo. Get busy.
On March 1, 2017 at 12:02 pm, Archer said:
I just love the implication that the SSA rule was enacted in response to the San Bernadino shooting, as if the rule would or could have prevented it.
The SB attackers were young(er), not on SSA benefits, and handled their own finances until their self-inflicted demises (not to mention, they got their guns illegally to begin with). It’s about as unrelated as you can get. Apples and oranges.
Kinda reminds me of the “two cows” definition of “surrealism”: You have two cows. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons. Only a MSM reporter could find that connection plausible.
On March 1, 2017 at 12:42 pm, Fred said:
San Bernadino was an attack by islam on Christian America.
On March 1, 2017 at 1:24 pm, Archer said:
Exactly. So why is USA Today implying that the SSA rule disarming the elderly is a response to the San Bernadino terrorist attack?’
The rule itself is (was) bad enough, but to justify it by invoking a completely unrelated attack is not just questionable; it’s reprehensible.