Posted on 01/17/2013 2:10:03 AM PST by Kaslin
For years now, we've heard from all types, ranging from the "over-informed" to the just plain ignorant, claiming that under President Obama the nation isn't just moving towards "socialism," but rather in a direction in which liberty truly disappears quickly and tyranny creeps in and takes its place.
But even for those who may have been primarily fiscal conservatives and who otherwise believed social policy should lean toward a "mind your own business" approach, several of the gun-control proposals coming from President Obama likely came as a shock.
I don't even want to get into what qualifies as a military assault weapon or any of the hardcore issues Obama addressed in his unveiling of new executive orders and proposed legislation related to the regulation of firearms. The two issues of universal background checks and some heightened degree of physician involvement in helping deal with guns in America are enough to cause many to gasp for air.
It has been an ongoing debate as to why the Second Amendment guarantees a right to keep and bear arms. We've all heard the strict interpretation of that right, holding closely to the amendment's language stating "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state ..." and suggesting that there was never an intent for citizens to simply carry all manner of firearms for whatever purpose they so choose. And then there are interpretations, as upheld by the Supreme Court, stating that the Second Amendment creates new rights that go beyond simply that of protecting against the taking of arms by a tyrannical government but instead allowing Americans to keep and preserve armed weapons for peaceful purposes and protection.
That's very simplistic history, but here is the nuance that cannot even be reduced to a "Cliffs Notes" explanation. Background checks for every sale of every gun in America is intrusion into our privacy and a concept that would likely have a chilling effect on the lawful transfer of weapons to a level beyond imagination. And, of course, sales between those who disregard laws like, oh, say, burglary, likely would tend to ignore background requirements.
Those in support of the White House's proposal will likely argue that there are few instances, other than gun shows, in which true casual sales take the place of commercial sales. But that argument skirts the real issue and the president's assertion that 40 percent of sales now require no background check. A blanket requirement related to personal transactions could be far-reaching. And since every transaction, even a gift, is regulated now by the IRS, would it take very long for the transfer of guns between family members or as an inheritance to qualify for the same background checks?
What we are really talking about here is the addition of more Americans into an ever-growing system of data, which whether by design or not seems destined to not only restrict our freedoms but shatter what little privacy we have remaining. The proposal has little chance of passage in the Congress, but it gives those who never considered the alleged "slippery slope" being created by the Obama administration strong reason to consider just how slippery it might be and where any slide might end up.
As for the second aspect of Obama's proposals, that of encouraging physicians to communicate with authorities about individuals who might exhibit mental illness in combination with gun ownership or making clear through Obamacare that doctors are given authority to question about gun ownership and advise on safety matters related to such ownership, well, that certainly sounds reasonable. But when one considers the massive electronic database being assembled under modern health care as we know it, the inability to preserve privacy with regard to health information and government's continuing effort to intrude into the private lives of citizens, the concept once again places a chill in the air -- or down the spine.
The medical establishment appears thrilled with the proposals related to physicians. And the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary moves a lot of people toward wanting "assault weapons" banned or controlled. But in the Sandy Hook case, the only way Obama's proposals with regard to background or physicians would have played a role would have been to institutionalize Adam Lanza for general mental illness before he committed his depraved crime or deny his mother, a victim of her son's attack, the right to bear arms because of her son's pre-existing mental problems. He apparently did not buy his weapons, instead taking them from her.
That would take a great deal of investigating, some very far-reaching action by medical professionals and the use of a crystal ball. If we get that far down the slope, we are in real trouble.
People are simple going to refuse to get help for ailments that are easily treatable, such as depression. This his yet another example of the long list of failed policies that arise out of wanting to appear to be “doing something.”
This his = This is
Encyclopedia of Herbal Medicine...by Andrew Chevalier is a good start.
At the range yesterday , my Doc, wo served as a United States Navy Hospital Corpsman asked questions about my weapon.........only to educate himself on the newer technolgy, said he was going to upgrade from his trusty 1911. He also said he was ordering a rubber stamp that says “no guns in this household” to be used on any & all future government forms if the forms asked such information.
I don’t think there is a real argument over what tgd 2nd amendment means. It’s clear as a bell. There are people who don’t like it and don’t Want it to be the law, is all.
Good article, and Matt is a good guy from what I’ve seen of him here in GA. I had a nice one-on-one chat with him at the state Republican convention last Summer, on the general subject of how TEA Partyers and Paulites really have a lot in common and need to work together more.
One thing he misses on the general subject, that I haven’t seen anyone exploring well, is the idea of a right to privacy. We have a major league Supreme Court case over a very contentious issue, Roe v. Wade, that is built around an “emanation from a penumbra” giving women a right to privacy, thus justifying making abortion legal.
Does this right to privacy suddenly go out the window when firearms are involved? How does that work?
I don’t want to get into an abortion debate here - but I do want to get into the idea of privacy. One thing the EU seems to do better than us is explicitly recognize a right to information privacy. I can think of few areas that I want more privacy than in my medical records and my firearms ownership.
The government needs to be kept guessing how many of us own how many firearms of what types. This is feature, not a bug, in the current background check schema. Just because we have the technology to keep up with serial numbers for everything does not mean we should. Technology is one thing - human systems, processes, and procedures are another, so first it would be ridiculously expensive (see Canada’s experience on this), second it wouldn’t prevent much crime, and finally the government ought to be wondering what the People really have, just to keep them a little more honest.
We have a right to privacy established by Roe v. Wade. We should use this argument in defending against some of the nonsense Obama is spewing in the wake of Sandy Hook and seeing if it will stick.
Suddenly HIPPAA isn’t so sacrosanct when it doesn’t protect the protected classes from the consequences of their lifestyle?
My Dr. Asked ‘Do you have guns in your house?’ I said ‘ My guns are not broke. My ribs are.’ He then asked ‘ Do you drink?’ “Yep.” ‘ How much?’ “Socially.” He asked for a number. I wouldn’t give it to him. Why? In PA the Dr. is required by DOT to have this info reported if he FEEEEEELS the number is too much and they take your license away, up your insurance and put you in a remedial class. Another money making scam. IF IT SAVES ONE PERSON’S LIFE, WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DO IT. I’m so sick and tired of that phrase. Why don’t they use it for homosexuals, rock climbers, parachutists or damn near anything where we could save ONE LIFE?
What has evolved is a restrictive government licensing system which can be more restrictive whenever they feel like it. Jaywalking? Denied. Reported my your neighbor or your doctor to be a gun nut? Denied. Belong to the Tea Party? Denied. The best part of their trap is that you, as a free American citizen have no right or ability to see your own file or rectify false or outdated data. As that one Navy vet recently found out, even a fistfight from 40 years ago is more than enough to deny buying and possessing his guns.
More than opposing weapon and magazine bans, we need to mobilize to stop the expansion of this naked grab for power. If we don't we deserve what happens to us next.
It will evolve into a universal background check into your family history, all possible relatives/connections that can have access to your house (and the chance to get their hands on guns).
Not to mention ‘private sales’. Just you wait.
IF ONLY Obama in the past had attempted to purchase a gun, we might know more about him then.
I wonder what sort of background check our founders insisted upon of the people back then in order for them to own guns? Hmmmmm..
WHY is any so-called conservative shocked at these actions?? Obama is and HAS BEEN a radical socialist. This is not surprising.
These stupid mass shootings are statistically NONEXISTANT events. the news media has made this mass shooting the event that everyone is talking about for the last month.
Less than 100 people get killed in mass shootings per year.
Criminals rape 300,000 women per year in the U.S.
Criminals invade 2.5 million homes per year . These last 2 are real events and threats.
100,000 Americans dies each year in accidents.
millions of Americans die in the U.S. each year of causes not by a mass shooter only less than 100 do.
There are 50, events per year where lighting kills Americans. There are just a handful now of mass shooting events. but the news media makes sure that every mass shooting is reported on trillions of times to every American and that the shooter is world famous more so than any star.
A while back, I went shopping for new eyeglass frames and got threatened with driver license confiscation if I didn’t buy the prescription they thought I should have. “I have to report that,” was the nice way to put it.
I bought the new glasses but since then have accepted the Soviet style of lying to people I used to deal with on an honest and fair basis.
And of course, I see quite well with the old glasses and the expensive new pair are in a drawer somewhere, utterly useless.
If anyone has young children that go for a wellness visit...the nurse will ask them if there are guns in the house...its part of the new electronic medical records
“My Dr. Asked ‘Do you have guns in your house?’”
If you really want trouble, tell him, “No, I usually either keep ‘em in the car or on my person...”
Seriously, in a similar vein to the “if it saves one person’s life we have an obligation to do it” hpocrisy — where I work we have the option to change insurance plans in October, to be effective in January. Each plan is supposed to provide uniform benefits. In other words if Joe down the hall has plan A, I have plan B, and Bonnie has plan C, all of our covered services / available treatments are the same. The overseer of the plan administration came out with new prior auths for 2013, one of which was initially reported as for low back surgery. It later turned out the language was for any condition related to low back pain for those who had not completed conservative care. Was told each plan can interpret implementation their own way.
I talked to them. They said the intent was not to limit care (it absolutely was) but for those poor unsuspecting first time back pain patients who find themselves on the operating table without having tried conservative care measures.
Then they could have written the language requiring prior auths for in-patient low back surgery (some injections are coded as outpatient surgery, this the clarification.)
But basically, if they were truly concerned about people trying conservative care measures first, maybe they should actually stop limiting access to those same measures...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.