That's comforting. ...But what if it becomes a requirement for you to ask and document?Quote:
Originally Posted by DocT65
That's comforting. ...But what if it becomes a requirement for you to ask and document?Quote:
Originally Posted by DocT65
Agreed, and I'll tell my doc to go **** himself if/when he asks. And instruct my children to give a more polite, but same, answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by tdw63
No offense taken...Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunder71
But when you start putting a picture puzzle together on your kitchen table, you don't have to have all the pieces to figure out what it is.
Mark my words, he's going for it. I hope I'm wrong. We'll find out soon enough. :icon_neutral:
You're correct, if you have to have a back ground check for a private sale, that means going through an FFL, that ain't private no mo.Quote:
Originally Posted by DRM
Unless they devise a means to do so through a Smartphone for example, that simply comes back with a 'Yay' or 'Nay', I see no other means by which it could happen.
I really have no problem doing the sale at an FFL, and I'm sure some would welcome the flood of $10/$20 transactions that would inevitably happen.
Co-Worker:
"Why do you need more than 10 rounds? What are you going to do with and assualt rifle anyways?"
My response:
"Why do you need a multiple purse's?"
Co-Worker:
"Well not all purses are comfortable in all occasions. Some fit the situation better than others"
Me:
"Exactly. You have your reasons for "needing" multiple purse's, I have my reasons for "needing" 10 plus rounds and an AR. Regardless if you think I need an AR or I think you need a Louis Voutton(sp?) purse's, the gov't shouldn't be telling us what we do and don't need."
Co-Worker:
"Ohh..... yeah guess not"
What could happen, private party sales through an FFL only? Of course they can happen, it'll be the cornerstone for his argument for a full database of weapons that everyone owns. Once they know you own it, you'll have to sell it legally because much like the FFLs themselves, you'll be subject to a short notice (or no notice) inquiry to make sure you still own the firearms you have on record...Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunder71
Are they armed? Weren't we told armed officers in schools was the absolute worst thing that could ever be done in the history of man?Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard58
How wil this affect law enforcement officers? We carry 46 rounds of .40 cal at a time. 90 rounds of .223. On duty.
If my rifle is personally owned but department inspected and maintained then what? 10 round mags for personal practice and 20-30 rounders for duty?
There is nothing that says you can't ask the doctor if they are having any trouble in the bedroom department with their spouse as a response to their question about your guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by tdw63
My and my wife's doctors both know we carry guns, and teach classes. We have been to their home and carried while doing so. For most people I think my above response would be appropriate, but since my doc. will never ask, I guess I won't ask him either. :rofl:
A few thoughts here.
1. 17 does NOT violate Dr. patient confidentiality. There are already laws on the books in every state that make all healthcare workers mandated reporters. In most states, clergy are mandated reporters as well. What that means (though it's a little different in each state), is that if someone is suicidal, or if they are going to commit a crime, the mandated reporter MUST inform the proper authorities. This is a reaffirmation of a law already on the books.
2. CDC research is offbase because guns and gun violence is NOT a disease and as such, there is no mandate for the Center for Disease Control to research it.
3. No where in these statements does it mention "gun registration." If we start yelling and screaming about gun registration out of this set of proposals, all it will do is make us look like we're reactionary, and that will turn the average person against us because they will not want to side with reactionaries. Sure, we can argue that his proposal is reactionary, but it's a lost argument on the average person.
4. If a doc. asks me if I have a gun in my house, my answer to him is that I make it a point not to tell anyone anything I have in my home.
5. This could have been a whole lot worse. I think the NRA and us gunowners should focus on the issue of doctors trying to teach gun control and asking about it. Also push on what is meant by doing checks on weapons seized before they are returned. Make the president spend his political capital on these issues and he won't have enough for pushing gun control through the house and senate.
On a side note: Check your state laws before getting all up in arms about a traffic stop equaling losing your weapon for a year. That's fallacious at best and could very well be illegal for that to happen. For instance, in my state, it is mandated by law that the weapon cannot be taken from a person except during a stop, and must be returned at the end of the stop.
Let's be LOGICAL and engage reason here before we react, or we will end up looking just as silly as those who are reactionary and want to ban all guns.
All in one spot:
- Preventing Gun Violence, at whitehouse.gov: Now is the time to do something about gun violence.
- which includes a PDF document of the plan: Now Is The Time -- The President's plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun violence, Jan 16 2013 (wh.gov/now-is-the-time).
- List of executive actions planned as part of push (though no specific executive actions are identified beyond the intended plan to take these steps): List of Exec Actions Obama Plans to Take.
We absolutely have to fight this 'what you need and don't need' premise to the 2nd Amendment. It is the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of Needs. The Founding Fathers intended for individuals to be able to arm and organize themselves in order to defend themselves against tyranny, by force, if necessary. I immediately dismiss the notion that we need high-capacity magazines or 'assault weapons'. It is a flawed and fundamentally incorrect premise.Quote:
Originally Posted by DandLfam
The minute we let others, especially politicians, decide that we do not need things that we have a right to, we lose.
The problem is getting that candidate who knows what freedom means elected to be the next president.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Luttrel
These EO's attack freedom and overshadow the Second Amendment.
This DOJ that is responsible for hundreds of murders by ordering LGS's to sell "assault weapons" to bloody drug gangs while calling for tougher gun control is now charged AGAIN with interfering with the private sector. I smell the reek of hubris.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1MoreGoodGuy
There are other expansive government actions under the category of, "Know-what's-best-for-you" down to the state level where the feds already encroach.
Several orders involve what a free society calls, "doctors", but what are increasingly slaves by the socialist name of, "health care provider" with attempts to define ACA with a view toward the current agenda. I want to see doctors stand up for freedom and not be accolytes of gun control. We need more Ron Pauls.
Lastly, there seems to be some consideration of criminalizing the owner of record of a lost or stolen gun.
A lot of these are creepy and possible only with the relatively new mass storage technology. Does every market revolution precipitate socialist and expansive government as did the Industrial Revolution? I say, "Hell no!".
I apologize in advance for not reading every post in this thread before replying so if I'm beating a dead horse, forgive me. But...
I read several comments stating something to the effect of, "Well, that's not too bad". To that I say yea, it's much worse than that.
If this....
"Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks."
doesn't scare the crap out of you, I don't know what will. Exactly who is the esteemed AG going to deem "dangerous" and thereby prohibit from having guns?