Death of the 2nd amendment, the thread

[Gtracer]

So I keep reading that another gun ban won't happen... it won't pass congress... But I also recall a year ago reading a metric shit ton about how Obama won't get re-elected, the people are just not going to get fooled like that again. I still don't feel good about this and even if they don't pass the first attempt, they'll just keep ramming away at congress till they get what they want. This isn't like a trial where there's no double jeopardy.

He has 4 more years to try right...

[bird_dog0347]

So I keep reading that another gun ban won't happen... it won't pass congress... But I also recall a year ago reading a metric shit ton about how Obama won't get re-elected, the people are just not going to get fooled like that again. I still don't feel good about this and even if they don't pass the first attempt, they'll just keep ramming away at congress till they get what they want. This isn't like a trial where there's no double jeopardy.

[stevo]

I disagree.

"16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."

That does not change anything about (5) which is a specific right given to the individual - not the doctor. "No individual shall be required to disclose any information under any data collection activity"

Doctors could always ask if they wanted to (optional from 1). Individuals have the specific right to decline to answer (5).

Nothing has changed here other than Obama saying he's going to clarify that medical professionals can ask if they want to. He can't make any changes to the ACT itself without involving both houses of Congress. His #16 is nothing more than a government memo/public service announcement.

I guess we can agree to disagree on what the changing of the phrase "may not require the disclosure" means, but I'll stand by my original comment:

...allows doctors to question...

Stevo

[Moose242]

Lol, those EOs are useless as fuck.

[Baba Ganoush]

If any of this passes, it will merely make crimes out of activities that should be legal, and only increase the size of the illegal and unregistered firearm market. What a cluster-fuck.

People will still get guns, laws won't stop it. It only allows for more government in private, law abiding citizens' lives.

[motoman]

Response from NRA.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2013/statement-from-the-national-rifle-association-of-america.aspx

Fairfax, Va. – Throughout its history, the National Rifle Association has led efforts to promote safety and responsible gun ownership. Keeping our children and society safe remains our top priority.

The NRA will continue to focus on keeping our children safe and securing our schools, fixing our broken mental health system, and prosecuting violent criminals to the fullest extent of the law. We look forward to working with Congress on a bi-partisan basis to find real solutions to protecting America’s most valuable asset – our children.

Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation. Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy.

[BERNIE MOSFET]

Not all of you!

Demonstrably so.

[racrguy]

Can?

We do.

Demonstrably so.

[Chas_svo]

Wouldn't those EOs land him and several in his administration in prison?

Oh yeah, laws are for us little people.

[Nash B.]

Can?

We do.

Not all of you!

[BERNIE MOSFET]

I would mostly agree. I think he meant to be encouraging (or I hope he did), but I would say even "secular people" (stealing his terminology) can still have good morals. I don't think it would take a law for you to know killing little kids is wrong, whether you are Christian, Buddhist, Atheist or Agnostic. It's common sense.

"Do not kill, to not rape, do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace" - Boondock Saints

Can?

We do.

[Binky]

You are correct, but the EO (BCOOP can spin it how he chooses, it is an EO that is forcing the change to a law already on the books) #16 changes (5).

Also, #16 allows the removal of the "legal barriers" that would stop specific information being passed from doctors to data bases about their opinion on the mental status of people that they deemed as mentally ill. A doctor previously would not be able to report to a data base that the person in question possessed firearms since it was illegal for them to ask, this EO would allow them to report that information.


Stevo

I disagree.

"16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."

That does not change anything about (5) which is a specific right given to the individual - not the doctor. "No individual shall be required to disclose any information under any data collection activity"

Doctors could always ask if they wanted to (optional from 1). Individuals have the specific right to decline to answer (5).

Nothing has changed here other than Obama saying he's going to clarify that medical professionals can ask if they want to. He can't make any changes to the ACT itself without involving both houses of Congress. His #16 is nothing more than a government memo/public service announcement.

[slow06]

The whole message contained in this particular statement is wrong.

I would mostly agree. I think he meant to be encouraging (or I hope he did), but I would say even "secular people" (stealing his terminology) can still have good morals. I don't think it would take a law for you to know killing little kids is wrong, whether you are Christian, Buddhist, Atheist or Agnostic. It's common sense.

"Do not kill, to not rape, do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace" - Boondock Saints

[lowthreeohz]

Lol Paul. Death of the 2nd (amendment) thread.

[8mpg]

so nothing big as of yet