Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: “Pork” Bailout Bill Could Ban Guns for Millions of Americans GOA Press Release

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://gunowners.org/a021109.htm

    Wednesday, February 11, 2009

    The Obama administration is putting a lot of pressure on Congress to slam through the most recent $800+ billion bailout package before anyone has an opportunity to read it.

    The Obama administration intones that the details are unimportant. The only thing that matters is the “bigness.” And, by shipping a bill of nearly $900 billion (plus interest) to our children and grandchildren, the package is really, really big –- bigger, in fact, than the budget of our entire government for the first 170 years of our country’s existence.

    But now that some of the details are finally starting to leak out of Washington, Gun Owners -– and a lot of other analysts -– are beginning to look at the fine print. And some of it is particularly scary.

    Of particular concern to gun owners are sections 13101 through 13434 of HR 1, which would set up the infrastructure to computerize the medical records of ALL AMERICANS in a government-coordinated database.

    True, the bill doesn’t mandate that the data will be in a giant computer under the Oval Office. But it does mandate that your medical records be reduced to a computerized form which is available to it in a second.

    This it would do by establishing a National Coordinator for Health Information Technology –- tasked with, among other things, “providing information to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care.”

    It should be scary enough that a government bureaucrat is directed by statute to try to influence your doctor’s decisions with respect to your medical care.

    But of even greater concern to gun owners is the fact that a government-coordinated database (which government can freely access) will now contain all records of government-provided and private psychiatric treatment -– including, in particular, the drugs which were prescribed.

    Remember last year’s “NICS Improvement Act” otherwise known as the Veterans Disarmament Act? This law codified ATF’s attempts to make you a prohibited person on the basis of a government psychiatrist’s finding that you are a “danger” –- without a finding by any court. Well, roughly 150,000 battle-scarred veterans have already been unfairly stripped of their gun rights by the government.

    But people who, as kids, were diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder... or seniors with Alzheimer’s... or police with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder... or people who are now theoretically covered by the new law... these people have, generally, not suffered the consequences of its sanctions YET. And the chief reason is that their records are not easily available to the government in a central, easily retrievable, computerized form.

    The bailout bill would change all of that. It would push increasingly hard to force your private psychiatrist or government-sanctioned psychiatrist to turn over your psychiatric records to a massive database. This would be mandated immediately if your doctor does business with the government.

    This would supposedly save Medicare money in connection with medical treatment. And, the sponsors insist, they would work very hard to protect your privacy.

    But this turns the concept of “privacy” on its head. The privacy which is MOST important is privacy from the prying eyes of government –- not privacy of government data against the prying eyes of others. After all, many government data bases have been hacked in recent years, with mountains of information stolen.

    So, once the government has access to these computerized psychiatric records, the stage will be set for using that database to take away the gun rights of those with Alzheimer’s, those with ADD, and those with PTSD.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    I guess we'll all have to start using underground mafia doctors.

  3. #3
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but as a matter of practicality, I don't believe anyone would win in the court of public opinion a case that argues for persons diagnosed with Alzheimer’s or PTSD being able to own firearms.

    I could be wrong, I just don't think the general public will have much of a problem with these two particular prohibitions.

    TFred

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Oh my! To call PTSD in anyway equivalent with Alzheimer's is saddening. To accept such a disarmament calls Pastor Niemoller to mind and his sorry lesson.

    If a felon be properly disbarred his rights under color of law then all can be disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony, even to suffering a disorder.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Oh my! To call PTSD in anyway equivalent with Alzheimer's is saddening. To accept such a disarmament calls Pastor Niemoller to mind and his sorry lesson.

    If a felon be properly disbarred his rights under color of law then all can be disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony, even to suffering a disorder.
    "Can," and "will" are two different things. Has an attempt been done to sufficiently "lower the bar" of felony to cause such hypothetical case? In fact, if the bar is only a felony, then making the misdemeanor crime of DV a felony instead will allow those guilty of the misdemeanor crime of DV to regain their rights in the same manner that some felons can regain their rights.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Texas, United States
    Posts
    130

    Post imported post

    As someone with PTSD I find it incredibly disturbing that my diagnosis after not only serving in Iraq but also being shot in the head would disqualify me from exercising a right I actually shed blood for. They may tell me I can't buy weapons from stores, but I will keep my weapons with the last bit of blood in my body

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    forever_frost wrote:
    As someone with PTSD I find it incredibly disturbing that my diagnosis after not only serving in Iraq but also being shot in the head would disqualify me from exercising a right I actually shed blood for. They may tell me I can't buy weapons from stores, but I will keep my weapons with the last bit of blood in my body
    I agree with you on this. Have you been prevented from purchasing a firearm?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    forever_frost wrote:
    As someone with PTSD I find it incredibly disturbing that my diagnosis after not only serving in Iraq but also being shot in the head would disqualify me from exercising a right I actually shed blood for. They may tell me I can't buy weapons from stores, but I will keep my weapons with the last bit of blood in my body
    Couldn't agree more with you.

    Just remember, though, it's not because you have PTSD that they would try to disarm you, that's just the latest excuse on the list of excuses. They want to disarm all of us, veterans and otherwise, and they'll add as many items to that list as they can, until the right to bear arms is only a theory, kind of like it is (still) in the District of Columbia or NY City.

    So they're not picking on you because you are a veteran, they are just using you as the latest punching bag. The rest of us are in line behind you, to be used as tomorrow's punching bags.

    I can't tell people this enough: you have to swallow your fear of, or distaste for, certain citizens (and even non-citizens) and stick up for the rights of all men everywhere, because after they disarm felons, and then foreigners, and those seeking mental health services, such as counciling or treatment of PTSD, they will eventually come around to you. You are on the list. Like Ben Franklin once drew in his cartoon, "Join or die".



  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    forever_frost wrote:
    As someone with PTSD I find it incredibly disturbing that my diagnosis after not only serving in Iraq but also being shot in the head would disqualify me from exercising a right I actually shed blood for. They may tell me I can't buy weapons from stores, but I will keep my weapons with the last bit of blood in my body
    Couldn't agree more with you.

    Just remember, though, it's not because you have PTSD that they would try to disarm you, that's just the latest excuse on the list of excuses.
    A very big problem with the mental health angle is that so many mental health issues are imprecise and open to wide interpretation, and thereby, abuse.

    I've read where some psych's have said that almost every human being has serious mental health problems.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    503

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    I've read where some psych's have said that almost every human being has serious mental health problems.
    You hit the nail on the head! We are human, we are flesh and blood we are animals and WE ALL HAVE PROBLEMS! Sometimes the people that believe they are perfect and those "mentally impaired" are subservient are the messed up ones, I mean look at Hitler!! He killed all those "mentally impaired" people, and he was the craziest SOB of his time. The US is f**ed up right now, we need to keep organized and in good faith so when the time comes we are well organized and ready.



    Ben

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    How we each handle our challenges is the fuzzy line between brilliant and bonkers.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    If we all had no mental quirks than we would have no personalities. We would be a race of robots.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but as a matter of practicality, I don't believe anyone would win in the court of public opinion a case that argues for persons diagnosed with Alzheimer’s or PTSD being able to own kitchen knives, scissors, sharpened pencils, or a driver's license.

    I could be wrong, I just don't think the general public will have much of a problem with these particular prohibitions.

    TFred
    Brought that back to the obvious: It's not the tool that's the problem.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Texas, United States
    Posts
    130

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    forever_frost wrote:
    As someone with PTSD I find it incredibly disturbing that my diagnosis after not only serving in Iraq but also being shot in the head would disqualify me from exercising a right I actually shed blood for. They may tell me I can't buy weapons from stores, but I will keep my weapons with the last bit of blood in my body
    I agree with you on this. Have you been prevented from purchasing a firearm?


    No, I haven't. I haven't bought from a store in a long while, but they gave me a CHL since my diagnosis and I don't see a problem in the immediate future, especially as slow as government is, but..... God help us if they ever get efficient

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    forever_frost wrote:
    wrightme wrote:
    forever_frost wrote:
    As someone with PTSD I find it incredibly disturbing that my diagnosis after not only serving in Iraq but also being shot in the head would disqualify me from exercising a right I actually shed blood for. They may tell me I can't buy weapons from stores, but I will keep my weapons with the last bit of blood in my body
    I agree with you on this. Have you been prevented from purchasing a firearm?


    No, I haven't. I haven't bought from a store in a long while, but they gave me a CHL since my diagnosis and I don't see a problem in the immediate future, especially as slow as government is, but..... God help us if they ever get efficient
    As I see it, the two bills in discussion here are mandating efficiency. IMHO, the true battle should be fought at the existing definitions of terms used by the BATFE. THAT is the problem. The rest is simply implementation.

    As an example, if I was convicted of a crime of domestic violence, by statute, I have become a prohibited person. If I walk in to a store and attempt to purchase a firearm, and pass the NICS check, I have not somehow become a non-prohibited person, I simply have not been entered into the system efficiently. It would be useless to cry about a bill that mandates efficiency. It would be useful to fight for a bill to remove the DV crime from the prohibited person list.

    To take this to the topic at hand, if the VA and BATFE are using the existing definitions of "mentally adjudicated" to add PTSD veterans to the NICS list, the problem is not HR2640 or the current stimulus bill, the problem is the definition! Changing the efficiency of the system is not creating newly prohibited persons, the definition created prohibited persons. The subsequent bills are simply efficiency mandates.


    Fight the definition, not the efficiency.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but as a matter of practicality, I don't believe anyone would win in the court of public opinion a case that argues for persons diagnosed with Alzheimer’s or PTSD being able to own firearms.
    Did you realize that being diagnosed with PTSD doesn't even have to mean someone must leave the service? And that there are a good number of LEOs out there classified as disabled veterans due to military-related PTSD?

    If PTSD doesn't keep someone from carrying guns for the government, it shouldn't stop them from carrying guns in any other circumstance, either.



  17. #17
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Just a reminder, everyone, you're preaching to the choir here!

    My point is that if we start making a big deal out of an attempt to prohibit Alzheimer's and PTSD folks from owning firearms, the Brady Bunch is going to trot out 98 year old grandmothers who can't remember their children or grandchildren, much less be able to discern a dangerous intruder from grandpa who went to the kitchen for a glass of water, and they'll dig up some poor vet who has to sleep alone in a locked room because someone who disturbs him in his sleep sets off some sort of a violent reaction due to his treatment in Viet Nam's Hanoi Hilton.

    Maybe it's movie fiction and in real life extremely rare, but the general public will buy it, and call us the crazy ones. In many ways it's a war of terminologies, and Alzheimer's and PTSD are two words that we can't win with.

    That's all I'm saying.

    TFred


  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    *chip* *chip* *chip*

    Man, I hate the sound of my rights eroding in the morning.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    We only have ourselves to blame. We have allowed them to bastardize and ignore the Constitution for nearly 100 years and because they toss the general public a few bones, no one complains. The way these guys see it, pick of the minority groups first and the only ones left will be easy to pacify.

    The Federal Reserve - Unconstitutional

    Welfare - Unconstitutional

    Social Security - Unconstitutional

    Medicare - Unconstitutional

    Medicaid - Unconstitutional

    The National Endowment for the Arts - Unconstitutional

    The National Science Foundation - Unconstitutional

    In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution states ‘To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.’

    I will assume that most of you know of the US Patent Office and understand what a Copyright or a Patent is, so I will not go into any length to explain them here.

    Suffice it to say that any legislation that takes money from anyone to give it to anyone else under the guise of ‘promoting the progress of science and useful arts’ is in direct violation of the United States Constitution.

    The phrase in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution referenced above was clearly meant to encourage people to discover and invent by giving them the sole right to their discoveries and inventions and using the power of the US Government to protect that right.

    No matter what the intentions of the US Government are in taking money from one group of people and giving it to another group of people to promote the progress of science and useful arts, it does not reduce in any way the unconstitutionality of the act. In fact, it makes what government does all that more dangerous.

    As Chief Justice John Marshall said in the above referenced quote, ‘The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed.’ Translated into modern English, what the Chief Justice so eloquently wrote is that if the government ignores the limits placed upon it, then our Constitution is abolished and we are stuck living with a government with unlimited power.

    In other words, we’re living in a Tyranny.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

Posting Permissions

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