Universal Background Checks and Physician Reporting Are Just Plain Frightening
Advertise with us Click for Rates
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18
  1. #1
    Ancient Gaseous Emanation Popeye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sacramento area, CA
    Posts
    53,267

    Default Universal Background Checks and Physician Reporting Are Just Plain Frightening

    Matt Towery
    Jan 17, 2013


    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.



    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    The difference between a Socialist and a Communist is that the Socialist doesn't have all the guns yet.

  2. #2
    . NGF Addict! 1shot1k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,082

    Default

    Good write up and a good article...



    I also "heard" today....at least some of the kenyans "action orders" were federal
    illegal per law....already handled previously by Congress previously....such as
    certain "data" keeping.....


    Good report...


    1shot
    Texas CHL Instructor
    2009 - 2013

  3. #3
    Senior Member NGF Addict!
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    6,403

    Default

    Having read each of the Executive Orders, I find them onerous and ominous. Orders 1-4, 16 and 17 especially so. Essentially, a physician, other health care provider, or mental health therapist will be allowed to gather information and report it to the government, and ultimately to the NICS. President Obama would have you believe this is all about keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill. Sounds good, eh? Remember, when dealing with liberals, nothing is as it appears - there is always a hidden agenda and a secret goal.

    Under these Orders, because of the personal political orientation of the doctor, shrink or therapist, a citizen may be denied the RKBA. What's missing? Due process! No judge, no adjudication, no witnesses, evidence or testimony. Worse yet, this establishes a precedent under which a citizen may be denied any of his civil rights without due process. How long will it be before Democrats, knowing that most "gun people" are Republicans or Independents begin to make the seemingly logical case that if a citizen is too unstable to buy a firearm, he must also, by definition, be unable to cast a reasoned vote. The smoke screen is gun violence and public safety - don't be fooled - the agenda is negating the Bill of Rights and the Constitution through the innocent looking, well intended, health care system. And ending the privacy of the doctor-patient realtionship means the priest-penitent and the husband-wife priviledge can't be far behind.

    Anybody who contemplates seeing a shrink ought to have his head examined.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    NationalGunForum.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Senior Member NGF Addict!
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    5,733

    Default

    And you add to that all this new talk of "Future crimes"
    Minority Report has arrived: Maryland and Pennsylvania using computers to predict future crimes

    Read more: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    Follow us: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] | [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    They are opening a new computer; a massive computer data base; they claim they can store every bit of information about everyone on the planet for one hundred years. This whole deal gets very surreal.
    Last edited by underdog; 01-17-2013 at 12:17 AM.

  6. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    115

    Default

    I read through the 23 "executive orders", and found nothing about anyone if them that was concrete, or anything I could put my finger on. Lots of bluster and window dressing. 16." Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes". What exactly does this mean? Is a doctor able to get personal information about firearms? Are patients required to disclose fire arm information to their doctor??? It doesn't sound like there are any disclosure requirements in this order. Maybe it's possible that obama has met his match trying to tinker with the 2nd amendment.

  7. #6
    Senior Member AGust82's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Plainville,CT
    Posts
    1,032

    Default

    No one's ever lied to a doctor before? Talk about a toothless law that would be. My guns have nothing to do with my sore throat. I plan to act accordingly.
    Hidden Content
    Advertise your affiliations and push your beliefs on others.

  8. #7
    Super Moderator NGF Addict!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Goliad, Texas
    Posts
    13,994

    Default

    When my doctor asks me about gun ownership, she's fired.

    Alan

  9. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Maybe that same mental health report could be used to make the mentally ill ineligible for public office. For example those with an irrational phobia of guns.

  10. #9
    "You talkin to me?" NGF Addict! Viper123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    SEUSA
    Posts
    3,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Popeye View Post
    Matt Towery
    Jan 17, 2013


    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.



    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    +1000
    Beware the Fury of a patient man

    1st Corinthians 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners


    Diversity/assimilation has no place for individualism.... For these to work... the individuals involved must work together in order to achieve a common goal




  11. #10
    Senior Member NGF Addict!
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    5,733

    Default

    Where we are:
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

    Search tags for this page

    how can universal background checks restrict gun ownership

    ,

    universal backgrounds proposed legislation registration

    Click on a term to search for related topics.