President's Gun Control Proposals
- Thread starter hogdogs
- Start date
mrbatchelor
New member
While this is true, the problem with that strategy is that gobs of medical practices are jumping off the Medicare/Medicaid bandwagon as fast as they can due to changes enacted in the Affordable Healthcare Act.
(Unrelated rant: And the upshot us that the groups most underserved and at risk are pushed out the door even more. WooHoo. Unintended consequences.)
mrbatchelor
New member
I already always list my SSN because there's a guy with same name.
But the SSN was never supposed to be a national ID in the original incantation. Privacy. Yeah, right. Where's my glass of koolaide.
mrbatchelor
New member
I'm going to let my left side show here.
The real upshot of adding $40-50 per transfer to a private sale is going to block out legal transfers to many people in this country.
When I was young and had a newborn child I had one and only one semi-auto pistol in my house, and I got it by trading stuff with a friend at work. Specifically I traded a Ham radio I had built with my own labor. No background checks. No money. We were both happy with the trade.
I could not have purchased that gun outright at the time.
Now, 30 plus years later, I can afford to walk in a LGS and buy just about what I want as long as I don't get too starry eyed. Some price tags are too much. But almost any single handgun or long gun is within reach with proper budgeting even if not something I want.
But there are still guys in their early life with little to no money. And whole swaths of the working stiffs in this country that the $40-50 makes the go/no go difference in the sale.
Regardless of whether I have anything to hide or not, why do those folks get the shaft?
It's a regressive cost that shuts out people of lower means. Is the government going to subsidize it for those folks?
Last edited by a moderator:
He is alluding to gun controls origins in the Freedmen's Acts, as a means of keeping minorities from having weapons.
He is alluding to the point I frequently make, about how mandatory training, mandatory background checks, and other fees and time costs have much more impact on the poor than on the wealthy.
It all goes back to the powers that be denying rights to those who do not have power.
Does that answer your question?
He is alluding to the point I frequently make, about how mandatory training, mandatory background checks, and other fees and time costs have much more impact on the poor than on the wealthy.
It all goes back to the powers that be denying rights to those who do not have power.
Does that answer your question?
I do not like the way he was using the children who recently went through great and grave trauma. Nor do I think the President should be listening to the words of children rather he should do his own thinking. Actually, in his case he needs to listen to someone who is clear minded and not do his own thinking.
Shortwave - It is especailly sad that people like Donald Trump ( and others with connections) can get NYC Carry permits while average and "unimportant" people like you and I will never be issued a NYC Carry Permit.
Shortwave - It is especailly sad that people like Donald Trump ( and others with connections) can get NYC Carry permits while average and "unimportant" people like you and I will never be issued a NYC Carry Permit.
Last edited:
Yes, you are right skeeter.
But there's an old saying...don't hate the player, hate the game.
And I'd like to add to this old saying in this particular situation by adding "and hate the lawmakers involved in making the rules of this particular game".
The politicians in NYC that the people keep re-electing set the rules for the gun owning game in NYC:
If you have money...you get a permit.
If you know someone in power...you get a permit.
If you are a politician making the rules...you get a permit (or you don't need a permit cause you have an armed guard with you paid for out of the pockets of the same people that voted you in office).
Point is, the majority of the populace in NYC(and cities/states with similar laws) must like being treated like second class citizens when it comes to their rights to protect themselves rather then depending on 'big brother' to do it for them or these types of socialist politicians would never get into office.
I know I'm preaching to the choir but doesn't the murder rate in NYC, Washington DC, Chicago and the rest of the cities/states in the country with strict to no gun allowed laws prove anything to these people electing these socialist politicians.
These sheeple are even letting these politicians tell them how much pop they can drink!
I gotta go get me some meds....
Last edited:
mrbatchelor
New member
There is absolutly no reason to believe any random individual in a lower income neighborhood is less of a person.
And there's no reason to make their choices more restricted than they already are. However what's proposed hammers them way harder than it hammers me.
I assure you that an extra $50 on the price of a used handgun or rifle that I really want isn't going to be a deal breaker for me. And I suspect that "most" folks in my age bracket that are frequenting gun boards have the means to absorb that added cost while we grumble about it.
But quite honestly, the likelyhood that someone is going to break into my house in a relatively affluent neighborhood getting past the lights and alarms is far smaller than the likelyhood someone will break into a house in the predominantly black neighborhood several miles from me.
The economic reality - irrespective of any "I have nothing to hide" argument - is that a mandatory background check may very well keep a SD handgun out of financial reach of a single mom while it's just an inconvenience to most of us here. An extra $50 on a $700 1911 ticks me off, but an extra $50 on a $125 used revolver might have to go to rent instead, so no SD guns for poor people.
MB
And there's no reason to make their choices more restricted than they already are. However what's proposed hammers them way harder than it hammers me.
I assure you that an extra $50 on the price of a used handgun or rifle that I really want isn't going to be a deal breaker for me. And I suspect that "most" folks in my age bracket that are frequenting gun boards have the means to absorb that added cost while we grumble about it.
But quite honestly, the likelyhood that someone is going to break into my house in a relatively affluent neighborhood getting past the lights and alarms is far smaller than the likelyhood someone will break into a house in the predominantly black neighborhood several miles from me.
The economic reality - irrespective of any "I have nothing to hide" argument - is that a mandatory background check may very well keep a SD handgun out of financial reach of a single mom while it's just an inconvenience to most of us here. An extra $50 on a $700 1911 ticks me off, but an extra $50 on a $125 used revolver might have to go to rent instead, so no SD guns for poor people.
MB
Last edited by a moderator:
freedash22
New member
The new gun control laws
Obama has stated in the new laws that civilian AR-15s and AKs are now being targeted for banning.
What will happen to the companies who solely manufacture these fine rifles like Bravo Company Manufacturing (BCM), LWRC, Noveske and Bushmaster?
Are they going to lose like most of their customers (civilian market)? How will they make ends meet if the new laws take effect?
I hate to think will happen if those fine men and women lose their jobs and passion!
Obama has stated in the new laws that civilian AR-15s and AKs are now being targeted for banning.
What will happen to the companies who solely manufacture these fine rifles like Bravo Company Manufacturing (BCM), LWRC, Noveske and Bushmaster?
Are they going to lose like most of their customers (civilian market)? How will they make ends meet if the new laws take effect?
I hate to think will happen if those fine men and women lose their jobs and passion!
Most all of us here like to think of ourselves as responsible, conscientious and law abiding citizens, heck we are conscientious and law abiding. However, ideas like defunding the White House, walking off of LEO and security jobs, DHS jobs, even the military(all military personnel swore to protect the constitution, before loyalty to the president), etc, etc sound like good ideas to me.
To all of those out there who support Obama and like his ideas on Health care, gay marriage, or whatever, this gun fight is not helping you politically, or any other way. Its making mortal enemies of the people the weak depend on for help and protection. Make no mistake Obamas and Bloombergs of the World, you're the weak.
Many of us have tirelessly worked to help defend and protect all people and this country, while asking for no special thanks. To make the inane anti-second amendment proposals that this administration has, is an insult to those who have fought and died for this country and a disgrace to the ideals of our founders.
To all of those out there who support Obama and like his ideas on Health care, gay marriage, or whatever, this gun fight is not helping you politically, or any other way. Its making mortal enemies of the people the weak depend on for help and protection. Make no mistake Obamas and Bloombergs of the World, you're the weak.
Many of us have tirelessly worked to help defend and protect all people and this country, while asking for no special thanks. To make the inane anti-second amendment proposals that this administration has, is an insult to those who have fought and died for this country and a disgrace to the ideals of our founders.
I believe you may be correct nate45
I have talked to three people in which I am very close with that are Obama supporters. They are not happy!
Over the years we have had many very in-depth political conversations starting when Obama was first campaigning for his first term.
There are things that all these three people have in common:
1) They love to shoot.
2)Have their CCP.
3)Own firearms/mags/clips that will become illegal. One varmint hunts exclusively with a Bushmaster.
4)They believe strongly in the 2nd Amendment and don't believe it should be trampled on in any way.
5)All three of them know that these new proposed EO's will not address the problem at hand and feel Obama is taking the easy route out on the whole issue by catering to the anti-gun politico supporters of his party instead of coming up with ways that will really address the issue that would be effective.
6)They are not happy with the cheap Obama tactics in using kids to pull at the heartstrings of the American public to try and pass these EO's....
....and ...
...7)Although they knew Obama was anti-gun from the onset, they all felt that Obama had too much on his plate to ever have time to do what he's trying to now do.
In short, they all three agree with a lot of the other political views Obama has but do not agree in any way with Obama's views on guns and are strongly against what he's doing now but they rolled the dice that Obama would never do what he's doing now.
They lost!
Too, today, they realize that by voting for Obama, they are partially responsible for what is going on now in the gun arena, are ashamed for voting for him and two of them have apologized to me personally for getting me into this mess by voting the way they did and went further to donate generously to the NRA and wrote our Senators/Congressmen to help in the fight against these proposed EO's.
FWIW, I do believe that these three will never again gamble with casting their vote on a politician regardless of party affiliation when said politician has a background of not believing in our Constitution as it's written.
Last edited:
Absolutely. Keep in mind that virtually all medical records are computerized and on a worldwide information network. It's not a piece of paper buried in a file cabinet in some remote doctor's office.
Remember, nowadays when you see the doctor, you always sign an agreement that your medical information can be shared with other parties (e.g. insurance companies). So your "gun ownership" will be on your electronic record, in your health insurance/Medicare/Medicaid records, etc. AND identified via your Social Security number for whoever else wants it.
Right now, if I had the time and money, I would go to some isolated gun show or some small town newspaper ads and buy the guns I need "off the record." Slippery slope, indeed.
BigJim5945
New member
I'm waiting for actual laws to be proposed before getting my panties in a bunch. The EOs were a nice little flourish but didn't actually do anything. The legislation as proposed has almost no chance getting through. Gun manufacturers are driving the hysteria to get more sales, and I'm not buying into it
This president, like everyone that has come before him, will say lots of things. What he does and what he says he will do are two very different things.
This president, like everyone that has come before him, will say lots of things. What he does and what he says he will do are two very different things.
I'm not sure how true that is .
Sure there are some company's like CTD that do some bs stuff but I don't think Ruger , Colt , Marlin etc have anything to do with this .
Do you really think this would be happening if there was not a real push in congress for a new AWB . Yes , it's looking less likely that anything big will get passed but 2 or 3 weeks ago not so much . Look at NY and what they just did . CA is trying to pass some real strict laws as well . The media and the government are pushing this panic . The gun manufacturers don't need to do anything but make guns as fast as they can .
I think feistein will try to introduce her bill on Tuesday . We will start to get a real idea of what is going on an who is for it .
No, the people who are willing to pay scalper's prices are driving the hysteria. The businesses that are selling guns, ammo, and accessories at ridiculous prices right now would not be able to do so if no one was willing to pay those prices. The hysteria will only end when enough people lose their fear of new gun control legislation and become unwilling to pay scalper's prices, but until then guns, ammo, and accessories will continue to sell for whatever people are willing to pay.
Although this is the goal it is doubtful it will ever be achieved concerning all the records of the past... People in general tend to be lazy, things get lost and there's a whole lot of records out there. Now current and future records will be a bit different and even at that keep in mind all this record keeping incurs real dollar cost.
Also there are limits on why your information can be sent too and there are specific time limits unless very specific actions occur...
Finally federal law (HIPPA) mandates that all HIPPA information traveling across the internet must be encrypted....
Stevie-Ray
New member
Anybody that pays a visit to a hospital once a year or so knows this is crap.
SerenityNetworks
New member
That the information isn't readily available or organized in a fashion that allows usability for those that could legitimately use the information does not mean that the information isn't there and can't be 'mined' by any agency or government willing to expend the resources to do so.
Alabama Shooter
New member
At risk of going further afield into medical records I will point out that hospitals and clinics are all different. Some do a better job than others. Pharmacies use different methods of record keeping too. There is no standardized system except in certain cases of required reporting.
The accuracy of the record is often times directly proportional to the interest of the party to the record. Once it is out there, it is out there; even if it wrong.
The accuracy of the record is often times directly proportional to the interest of the party to the record. Once it is out there, it is out there; even if it wrong.