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.
Yeah. They tried that Shiite on me when they found out I had insurance. They were gonna replace the frames but then I had to go through a whole exam and they said the prescription was wrong. Overall, the price would have been $300 and all I wanted was a $25.00 frame replacement. “ We have to report this to DOT.” I said go ahead, You gave me these 8 months ago.
Doctors and nurses are now IRS agents with a government provided medical license.
Thanks to obamacare and his EOs, obama and the demonrats have nullified doctor/patient privilege and confidentiality, transforming doctors and nurses into government agents acting on the government's behalf instead of those in their care.
Whatever you tell them, you are telling the government.
Your care, your history and medical records, your tests and test results, your prescriptions and everything else about you now belongs to those paying the bills, not you.
Shut up and enjoy the free healthcare.
The very best thing about the Universal Background Checks is that it’s going to force gun owners into the open. The very worst reflex gun owners have in this country is to try and hide, either socially or politically, their support for the right to self-defense and the moral authority of doing so.
Responsible owners need to stop with the ‘my guns fell in the lake’ dodge and stand up for their rights proudly and vocally. Retreating, hiding, being afraid; these things all telegraph to the left (and the middle) that gun owners are morally weak and up to no good.
The correct answer to “Do you have any guns?” is “Of course I do. Any morally upstanding, able bodied citizen should be armed.” When they ask why you *need* a gun, tell them, “Because I don’t choose to live at the mercy of criminals or tyrants. If you choose to live at the mercy of your fellow man, that’s your decision, but your freedom ultimately rests upon people like me.”
This is the 21st century. You * can’t * hide. You must stand up for yourself and your beliefs publicly. Free men and women shouldn’t hide, and, in the end, they can’t.
Sorry, but it is nobody’s business what I have in my house.
The very best thing about the Universal Background Checks is that it’s going to force gun owners into the open. The very worst reflex gun owners have in this country is to try and hide, either socially or politically, their support for the right to self-defense and the moral authority of doing so.
Responsible owners need to stop with the ‘my guns fell in the lake’ dodge and stand up for their rights proudly and vocally. Retreating, hiding, being afraid; these things all telegraph to the left (and the middle) that gun owners are morally weak and up to no good.
The correct answer to “Do you have any guns?” is “Of course I do. Any morally upstanding, able bodied citizen should be armed.” When they ask why you *need* a gun, tell them, “Because I don’t choose to live at the mercy of criminals or tyrants. If you choose to live at the mercy of your fellow man, that’s your decision, but your freedom ultimately rests upon people like me.”
This is the 21st century. You * can’t * hide. You must stand up for yourself and your beliefs publicly. Free men and women shouldn’t hide, and, in the end, they can’t.
In principle, no, it isn't. In practice, we're well past the point where that's going to be respected.
America is moving into a dark phase. Your right to privacy, however valid, is for all intents and purposes gone, and it isn't coming back unless we survive what's coming next.
Your comments are thought provoking and I like them. I am unsure if it will necessarily force ownership into the open. It should be none of their business if weapons are possessed. However, depending on how you answer the questions, and what their opinions are, you might risk the chance of losing your priveleges or rights at their whim. Firearms are nothing more than a tool. The tool can be used as a piece of rescue equipment, for killing game, or for other purposes. Some are being brainwashed into believing that ‘for other purposes’ means you might harm others, and for that they will see to it that weapons are taken away. If a bunch of people started using screwdrivers as murder weapons, do you think they would institute a ban or waiting period on them?
Me: "No." End of conversation.
Or simply lie about having guns.
“Hey Doc, I’ve been a little depressed since The Kenyan got re-elected”.. “No guns for you missy”
Absolutely, it is fascistic, now. It started with the insurance companies intimidating the practitioners, and now the government is set to take over insurance and more broadly, “health care.”
Whether or not there was a law saying it was mandatory to report someone for having a driver’s license and a pair of glasses not acceptable to the optometrist...he has already become accustomed to covering his fanny.
I don’t seriously thinks it’s a shakedown tactic meant to maximize sales, that’s just a side benefit.
And while you may be able to defy them and deal with the consequences, I am in no position to forfeit my DL and fight “City Hall” to get it back. As they say nowadays, that is not the hill I want to die on.
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.