The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

thevideographer said:
Yes. Childproofing the house has been a pretty big deal for the last 30 years or so. Proper storage methods is one of the responsibilities of owning a gun.
Click to expand...

Ok, yes, it's been a pretty big deal. But is it a question on a form when you take your child to the doctor? Can the information be used against you in any way?

My point is that there's a HUGE difference between taking personal responsibility (locking up your guns, childproofing your house) and having someone butting into your personal life to make sure you're doing it. Put the repercussions in place for NOT doing what you should (they already are), and stay the hell out of my business otherwise.
 
TFaudree_ERAU said:
Kids drink the dish detergent under the sink and die because there aren't child proof locks on the cabinets. Are pediatricians asking parents if they've childproofed their kitchen?
Click to expand...

Yep! As well as reminding parents about outlet protects, cords for drapes and other potential hazards.
 
TFaudree_ERAU said:
Ok, yes, it's been a pretty big deal. But is it a question on a form when you take your child to the doctor? Can the information be used against you in any way?
Click to expand...

I think you are reading more into this than there appears to be. I don't see anything in the executive order that would suggest this is meant to be data mining against gun owners. It sounds like an educational component and nothing else. If data is being fed somewhere to be used against gun owners, then I would agree with your concern. I guess it is something to watch, but based on how it is worded I have zero initial concerns.
 
Acadia said:
I think you are reading more into this than there appears to be. I don't see anything in the executive order that would suggest this is meant to be data mining against gun owners. It sounds like an educational component and nothing else. If data is being fed somewhere to be used against gun owners, then I would agree with your concern. I guess it is something to watch, but based on how it is worded I have zero initial concerns.
Click to expand...

  • Issuing a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research gun violence.
No possibility of data mining to accomplish this?
 
TFaudree_ERAU said:
  • Issuing a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research gun violence.
No possibility of data mining to accomplish this?
Click to expand...


Not in the way you are worried about if it is general info not tied to any specific person. So if you choose to answer yes I own guns and yes I keep them secured in a safe, then possibly that info could be useful in stats about gun ownership. The privacy of your medical records are protected by HIPPA, so I am not sure that sharing of info could even happen without your consent and you aren't even required to answer any such questions in the first place.

Again if that info is going into a file that says so and so owns guns, that would be inappropriate and I would take issue with that. I bet this is not the case though.
 
Acadia said:
The privacy of your medical records are protected by HIPPA, so I am not sure that sharing of info could even happen without your consent and you aren't even required to answer any such questions in the first place.
Click to expand...

  • Addressing unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
What are these unnecessary legal barriers he speaks of? Could it be...oh, maybe...the fact that what you say to a doctor should be kept private?
 
Couple of thoughts.

The CDC is supposed to study gun violence. Will this study include the use of guns by people taking SSRI's and such? Will they go after that sacred cow, which happens to have significantly more money and lobbying power than the NRA and all gun makers combined?

Is anyone angry over the absolute vapidity of these actions? After Newtown Obama promised action. He then assigned Biden and gave him until the end of January. Now, half-way through January we are expected to believe a comprehensive study has been conducted, alternatives and plans made and the entire thing presented in something like three weeks. It reeks of non-effectual grandstanding with very little actual study. Does anyone take this as a slap in the face to the victims of Newtown?
 
jynxyjoe said:
Is there a validity to the argument that laws don't prevent crime, only punish them? That makes sense to me but I'm wondering if some of our higher thinkers would comment. jtrain609, darrenf come to mind.

General sense is that if you have laws against murder, that doesn't prevent murder, it just punishes it. Make all the laws you want to outlaw "assault" rifles, the wrong kind of people will possess them anyhow.
Click to expand...

Haha, I get the joke, but since you "asked"... Not quite sure how a law can prevent a "crime", since if the law doesn't exist for an action, then the action isn't a crime. As far as preventing something once we make it a crime, I'd have to say, that depends.... Speed limits, I would bet most of the populace drives a bit slower as a result. Crimes of passion however, no, I don't think laws are as effective. As far as someone who is looney tunes and places no value on human life, well, there is no stopping those people no matter what law you draft.

That said, I am damn pissed I can't find any magazines right now!
 
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1358374855.045764.jpg
 
WacoFan said:
Is anyone angry over the absolute vapidity of these actions? After Newtown Obama promised action. He then assigned Biden and gave him until the end of January. Now, half-way through January we are expected to believe a comprehensive study has been conducted, alternatives and plans made and the entire thing presented in something like three weeks. It reeks of non-effectual grandstanding with very little actual study. Does anyone take this as a slap in the face to the victims of Newtown?
Click to expand...

Earlier you were faulting Obama for predicted knee jerk and over reaching proposals, now he has come out essentially wanting to learn a hec of a lot more and focus on the many areas we can to help reduce gun violence, and you are faulting him for not doing enough?
 
Acadia said:
Earlier you were faulting Obama for predicted knee jerk and over reaching proposals, now he has come out essentially wanting to learn a hec of a lot more and focus on the many areas we can to help reduce gun violence, and you are faulting him for not doing enough?
Click to expand...

He ignored violence in Hollywood/media. He ignored psychiatric drugs. He focused on guns. It takes six months for the NTSB to study even a simple plane crash, are we to believe that Biden and the rest were able to accomplish the kind of study that needed to occur in three weeks? They didn't go after Hollywood (key constituency) or the drug companies (key constituency) and went after the only group that generally wouldn't like him/support him anyway (guns). Do you honestly believe that anything worthwhile has happened over the last three weeks? Do you think the measures adopted today will do anything to prevent the next Newtown?
 
WacoFan said:
He ignored violence in Hollywood/media. He ignored psychiatric drugs. He focused on guns. It takes six months for the NTSB to study even a simple plane crash, are we to believe that Biden and the rest were able to accomplish the kind of study that needed to occur in three weeks? They didn't go after Hollywood (key constituency) or the drug companies (key constituency) and went after the only group that generally wouldn't like him/support him anyway (guns). Do you honestly believe that anything worthwhile has happened over the last three weeks? Do you think the measures adopted today will do anything to prevent the next Newtown?
Click to expand...

Just like the 'Fast and Furious' hearings. Its alarming stuff.
 
WacoFan said:
He ignored violence in Hollywood/media. He ignored psychiatric drugs. He focused on guns. It takes six months for the NTSB to study even a simple plane crash, are we to believe that Biden and the rest were able to accomplish the kind of study that needed to occur in three weeks? They didn't go after Hollywood (key constituency) or the drug companies (key constituency) and went after the only group that generally wouldn't like him/support him anyway (guns). Do you honestly believe that anything worthwhile has happened over the last three weeks? Do you think the measures adopted today will do anything to prevent the next Newtown?
Click to expand...

  • 14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
  • 18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
  • 20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
  • 21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
  • 22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
  • 23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
The CDC directive is a step at understanding the different reasons for gun violence and that can easily include media and medication impacts. As you said, such information gathering will take time and this is merely step one. Nothing can likely prevent a Newton from happening again, but these all seems like reasonable steps towards reducing the instances.

While I disagree with urging congress to pass an assault weapons ban, I am confident that universal background checks would be a good thing in the long term for gun crime in general, so I do hope that is seriously considered.
 
Acadia said:
  • 14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
  • 18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
  • 20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
  • 21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
  • 22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
  • 23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
The CDC directive is a step at understanding the different reasons for gun violence and that can easily include media and medication impacts. As you said, such information gathering will take time and this is merely step one. Nothing can likely prevent a Newton from happening again, but these all seems like reasonable steps towards reducing the instances.

While I disagree with urging congress to pass an assault weapons ban, I am confident that universal background checks would be a good thing in the long term for gun crime in general, so I do hope that is seriously considered.
Click to expand...

Since there has been overwhelming silence about SSRI's I will wait and see if that is actually studied. My guess is "No". Talk about a huge lobby and a cash cow - the pharmaceutical lobby and SSRI's would qualify. No way they allow the government to pierce that. We'll see though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top