TexasCHLforum.com

rotor wrote:1. This topic has been beaten to death
2. The right to own a firearm predates the constitution. We would still be doing "hail to the king" without firearms.
3. You don't compromise on a "right". You don't accept loss of something guaranteed by the constitution.
4. Same as 1

It would perhaps be more accurate to say that our right to keep and bear arms is not recognized by many levels of government, and only begrudgingly recognized, subject to arbitrary limitation, by the Feds. Yeah, we have the right, but you can fully exercise that right only if you're willing to die or go to prison.

cb1000rider wrote:

VMI77 wrote: I have to disagree about the diagnosis of mental disorders. A doctor should not unilaterally have the power to deny someone a Constitutional right. The only way anyone should be stripped of their right to bear arms is by a full hearing in a court of law. And if the government loses it should have to pay the costs of the defendant whose rights it was trying to strip.

Give that power to one or perhaps a series of doctors and we'll have fewer gun deaths at the cost of constitutional rights. Fewer gun deaths could lead to the re-granting of the rights that we're already guaranteed.

Think we have a 2nd amendment right? Try carrying a shotgun through the neighborhood and see what happens. Also, we're going to have to compromise. Two sides that pick "their way" and are unwilling to make any compromise around the edges are doomed to gridlock and lack of progress. Choosing lack of progress can certainly be strategic, but if we really want change, some compromise is necessary. And discussion with people that we don't agree with is necessary too.

I guess I'm saying that we've already lost the constitutional right. Demonstrations don't work. Legislation seems to work - you've got to explicitly define what is OK. I'd trade the possibility that a doctor could take away my right to purchase a new gun (not my right to own one) for a little more carry flexibility in terms of what I can realistically carry.

Is this any different than what is already being asked for on the background check when purchasing one? I believe there is a question about being treated for a mental health condition.

BTW, I'm surprised to see you criticize the Republican party... I don't disagree with most of your points, I'm just a little surprised.

I haven't had much taste for the Republican party since the party establishment tried to sink Goldwater and Reagan. But at least back then the establishment made some concessions to its base. Now the establishment RINOs are in-your-face antithetical to the principles the Party has supposedly represented. Insane McCain, McRomneycare, lyin' Ryan, give me a break. What it amounts to now is nothing more than a bunch of old psychopaths and sociopaths willing to do anything to keep themselves in power and their recent display over the shutdown was absolutely revolting. I'm for defunding it and only supporting those candidates who are willing to stand on principle and represent their base.

You know what they say though, all politics are local. In that sense, and in your optimistic sense that something can be achieved through legislation, our only hope is the House, where there still are a few sensible Democrats and enough sensible Republicans to at least block some of the bad stuff. The Senate is a complete loss. We've got these RINO's eating their own young in order to keep their decrepit hands grasping the rungs of power. We've got the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States in power and the Senate Republicans, and some of the house, have done nothing but cower before The One, obfuscate, and participate in political theater --thereby surrendering all moral authority. Some want to retain their power at any cost, some are afraid to be called names by the Dems and their MSM water carriers; only a handful represent the people that elected them. And what a truly pathetic spectacle it is to see those afraid of being labeled racists and Tea Partiers tuck their tails between their legs and whimper while being called seditionists, traitors, and terrorists.

I have to disagree with you about compromise and background checks. Compromise is no longer possible because as you allude to yourself, we've already given so much away that "compromise" can only mean concession. To the libs compromise means letting them have their way. The only thing they ever offer in return is letting us keep what little piece of the cake we have left for a little longer.

On background checks...I can't see anyway the anti-gun people are going to let someone who is prohibited from buying a new gun keep the ones they already have. It's much more likely that they'll come take YOUR guns when your spouse, or other family member living in your home, is prohibited from buying guns. I agree we don't have a right to keep and bear arms....what we have is temporary permission, in some parts of the country, to keep and bear arms. I agree that demonstrations don't work....they're nothing more than political theater promoting the illusion that politicians care what the electorate thinks. It helps keep people docile to let them believe they have any role in this so called "democracy." Voting doesn't work anymore either, at the national level. Voting, for now, can still influence what happens at the local level --at least if you don't live somewhere where voting has been marginalized by one faction or the other (note, I don't say side, or Party here, but faction, as in which particular group or family is vying for more power within the criminal enterprise).

I don't share your optimism. We're locked on course on a path that only leads into the abyss, and the psychos running the show are putting the pedal to the metal. The current system cannot be changed enough to avert catastrophe, and even if it could, there is no will to do it, either from the majority of the population or our rulers. The only thing we can do is be the best people we can be and prepare ourselves and our families for what is coming. But while the outcome is pretty certain, the timing is not. How long can this debt system continue? No one knows or can predict when the system will implode. Could be ten years from now, or even longer, or it could be just about anytime, depending on unpredictable events.

cb1000rider wrote:Inflammatory to this group anyway... I'm surprised that it wasn't posed as fact! Thanks for recognizing it for what it is.


VMI77,
I've got to admit, you've got some valid cases. Personally, I'm not against using medical history (such as MD diagnosis of mental disorders) for allow/disallow purchase of firearms. I already deal with that for other licenses. I know I'm in the minority.

You're right that medical history could be used to harass. Using it would be political suicide, but you certainly could leak it and the damage would be done. You've got a valid concern there.... Just remember that it's "equal" on both sides of the political isle - that is, one party has no more or no less interest in gathering that information. As long as both sides have it or don't have it, they're equal. I'm concerned about the government getting other information - but not particularly my medical history... Maybe it's just me..

I'm not a party guy. I've loathed the Republican party establishment since I was in high school. I like a few outsiders in the Party, and I've liked some of the outsiders in the Democratic Party over the years. At this point the Republican Party is worse than useless as it represents nothing but self-interest and has completely abandoned what little principle it has ever stood for. And really, it's not equal on both sides of the aisle. For one thing, the Repugs have proven time after time that they are absolutely gutless. For another thing, as the "shutdown" demonstrated, via the conduct of the NPS, the bureaucracy is mostly under the control of the Democrats, and beholden to the Democratic party. Also, it's not the parties one needs to fear, it's the alphabet agencies, like the NSA, that pretty much do what they want.

Knowledge is power. Secret knowledge is leveraged power. I hesitate to call the those power mad psychopaths in Congress "representatives," so I'll call them "lawmakers." The real danger of this information lies less in how it may be used against me as an individual, but how it may be used to influence law and policies when it is used to control "lawmakers," judges, military brass, and governors. I'm really not all that worried about the data the NSA is collecting on me, for example, but how the data they're collecting on those with political and economic power is being used to influence law and policy.

I have to disagree about the diagnosis of mental disorders. A doctor should not unilaterally have the power to deny someone a Constitutional right. The only way anyone should be stripped of their right to bear arms is by a full hearing in a court of law. And if the government loses it should have to pay the costs of the defendant whose rights it was trying to strip.

cb1000rider wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote: Have you seen the so-called "privacy" notice on the Obamacare site?

Within the “Terms and Conditions” source code of the ObamaCare web site, at least when it’s working, is this disclaimer: “You have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system. At any time, and for any lawful Government purpose, the government may monitor, intercept, and search and seize any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system. Any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system may be disclosed or used for any lawful Government purpose.”

No, I hadn't. It's a government system and the fact that they might use data on their own site doesn't surprise me.
I think my debate is this: The government has the capacity to steal health records that are on the internet. What purpose does it serve to do so? I understand why the government would want my contact list and phone records.

They don't have to "steal" them when they already own them. Use your imagination.....like they're already doing in NY, exploiting medical and mental treatments for taking away gun rights?....investigating parents of political opponents for child abuse, or just parents in general, when their children are treated for, well, all kinds of things?....embarrassing political political opponents who have had venereal disease or abortions or past histories of drug use?....targeting those with records of past drug use for investigation or to coerce into being snitches?....and eventually, to ensure you're "eating right" and not smoking or using alcohol. The thing is it doesn't really matter what they don't do now, since as you have already conceded, such information will eventually be abused --and once they have it, they have it, you can't get it back. If you want to see some of the other potential for abusing this data, check out the film "The Lives of Others," about how the Stasi used this kind of information in the old East Germany.

Edited to add:

BTW, there have been articles claiming that the Uaffordable Care Act includes involuntary home inspections for people like smokers and veterans. One state legislature even voted on a law to make such inspections illegal (didn't pass). I don't know if it is true or not, but we'll see.

cb1000rider wrote:

E.Marquez wrote:It's been years now, but I did have a Peds doc ask about guns in the house once when I had our youngest son at the doc. I responded by asking her if she participated in a very personal sexual act.. she declined to respond, and understood at that point why I asked.. I said I apologize for asking a personal question I had no right to ask.
She was actually a good doc, and we were happy to have her.... This was in Oregon, 2002..

In 2002 the CDC released several studies that had to do with gun ownership and children. I understand why a pediatrician might try to educate parents. If everyone practiced appropriate safety around children, we wouldn't have such statistics.

Course, trampolines are dangerous to kids too. I'm not offended by a discussion about them.

Doctors can ask me whatever they want that might facilitate a reasonable discussion. I can choose to not answer if I don't want to.

Instead of just believing that there are no nefarious intentions, why don't you check out the AAP website? They are openly anti-gun and and use their professional association to advance the gun control agenda. The AAP is run by left-wing extremists. Their policy paper is downright scary....they advocate gun confiscation, among other things:

The AAP continues to support a number of specific measures to reduce the destructive effects of guns in the lives of children and adolescents through the
implementation of the following recommendations.

-Enact a strong, effective assault weapon ban;

-Eliminate the gun show loophole and require mandatory background checks and
waiting periods before all firearm purchases;

-Ban on high-capacity magazines;

-Enact strong handgun regulations; and

-Require safe firearm storage under federal law.

Here's what they say about an assault weapons ban: they seek confiscation.

It should ban possession, manufacture, transfer, sale, and import of assault weapons. Current assault weapons should not be excluded
from the ban by “grandfathering” them. The ban should include stiff penalties for violating the statute. Civil and criminal sanctions should be included. The ban should also include a prohibition on the purchase, sale, or possession of detachable ammunition magazines with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds.

Here's what they say about firearm storage: they want to make guns useless for self-defense.

Safe Gun Storage
Safe gun storage (guns unloaded and locked, ammunition locked separately) reduces unintentional injury and suicide risk for children and adolescents. In addition, a number of design options have been proposed to decrease the likelihood of unintentional injury by a firearm, as well as limiting access by unauthorized users. The AAP urges that guns be subject to consumer product regulations regarding child access, safety, and design. These include trigger locks, lock boxes, personalized safety mechanisms, and trigger pressures that are too high for young children.

Child access prevention (CAP) laws establish criminal penalties for owners who do not store their firearms appropriately (e.g., unloaded, in a locked compartment). The best CAP laws make it a felony offense for a gun owner if an injury results from a child accessing an unsecured gun.

So, have a gun ready for self-defense, go to prison.

And on their spying activities:

As noted in a request for information (RFI) letter dated December 27, pediatricians should have no deterrents to ask whether a gun is in the home. In fact, Section 2713 of the ACA requires that insurers offer Bright Futures services for no copay in all non-grandfathered plans. The Bright Futures guidelines for well -child visits include anticipatory guidance regarding whether firearms are in the home.

On anti-gun propaganda and censorship:

The AAP policy statement on media violence recommends the development of quality, violence -free programming and constructive dialogue among child health and education advocates, the 7 Federal Communications Commission, and the television and motion picture industries, as well as toy, video game, and other software manufactures and designers, in an effort to reduce the romanticization of guns in the popular media as a means of resolving conflict.

There's a lot more to see there. These are not people who are open to rational discussion, these are anti-gun extremists exploiting professional credibility to advance a political agenda. They also use the current left-wing trope of "firearm safety" when what they really mean is the total elimination of the private ownership of firearms:

The absence of guns in homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents.

jmra wrote:I have been asked by the pediatrician but not any other doctors.

That's because the AAP is openly anti-gun (just check out their website) and actively pushing pediatricians to ask if there is a gun in the house. And if you let your child see the doctor without a parent present, they will ask the child.