Hidden Gun Restrictions in HC Bill?

This is a discussion on Hidden Gun Restrictions in HC Bill? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I thank everyone for their replies....

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 120

Thread: Hidden Gun Restrictions in HC Bill?

  1. #31
    Senior Member Array jframe38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    620
    I thank everyone for their replies.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    VIP Member
    Array 64zebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Panhandle of Texas
    Posts
    6,437
    I agree that there is not a blatant anti-gun/confiscation/turn your guns in or else restriction or portion of the bill.........

    .....BUT.....how many times have we heard from the antis that they know they have to gradually ease into their agenda piece by piece......
    "Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. Prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - Attorney General Janet Reno
    that is just one example
    they know they can't come in with one stroke of the pen and get rid of private gun ownership
    but they also know they can use little bits...bit by bit and backdoor tactics to begin limiting new purchases of guns, then keep going from there
    if you don't believe this administration and congress will go forward with anti-2A agendas disguised as other stuff then you need to get your head out of the sand, and I'm not saying we all need to wear tinfoil hats, but the art of deception is in play here and as citizens we should not take their word for it, we should not say "oh this bill is just xxxxxxx, its not that harmful"....then the next year the bill is expanded or a supporting bill is passed and the bits continue all under the guise of the betterment of the people/society
    LEO/CHL
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "I got a touch of hangover bureaucrat, don't push me"
    --G.W. McClintock

    Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
    If loose gun laws are good for criminals why do criminals support gun control?

  4. #33
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263
    Hopyard -
    Have to disagree with you this time. The difference between Auto insurance requirements and health insurance requirements is that driving has been long held as a privelidge. The state licenses you and you pay fees for the privelige to drive on tax payer funded roadways. If you don't want to, can't afford to, or are forbidden to, then you are welcome to use public transportation, walk, or bum a ride from someone else.

    Hospitals and clinics, for the most part, and at least so far, are private organizations.

    And just because Romney care has been going on in Mass, doesn't make it constitutional. My city can hang a sign that bans conceal carry and it doesn't make it legal. Show me where Romney care has been challenged by a court and upheld.

    Further, since I cannot buy insurance across state lines to find a better deal, there is no interstate commerce. Therefore, the commerce clause wouldn't allow the Fed to mandate on residents of a state that they must purchase anything.

    These cases will be heard, who wins will be interesting.

    And to add some sense of On-Topic content; I believe had there really been some glaring or even hint of anti-2A writing in the bill, it would have come out much sooner in an effort to further garner opposition to it.
    Last edited by tinkerinWstuff; March 23rd, 2010 at 03:43 PM. Reason: on-topic message...
    "Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

    Who is John Galt?

  5. #34
    Member Array Holger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff View Post
    Hopyard -
    Have to disagree with you this time. The difference between Auto insurance requirements and health insurance requirements is that driving has been long held as a privelidge. The state licenses you and you pay fees for the privelige to drive on tax payer funded roadways. If you don't want to, can't afford to, or are forbidden to, then you are welcome to use public transportation, walk, or bum a ride from someone else.
    Spot on. We don't make a 25 yr old healthy young man living in NYC and taking the subway buy a car insurance policy to offset the costs incurred by a poor driver in Montana. Why should the same young man be forced to buy an insurance policy he neither wants or thinks he needs to offset the costs incurred by a 400 lb, unhealthy, smoking heart attack victim in Chicago?

    Oh, that's right...because the Government knows better what he needs than he. My bad.

  6. #35
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,595

    re: Tinkerin

    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff View Post
    Hopyard -
    Have to disagree with you this time. The difference between Auto insurance requirements and health insurance requirements is that driving has been long held as a privelidge. The state licenses you and you pay fees for the privelige to drive on tax payer funded roadways. If you don't want to, can't afford to, or are forbidden to, then you are welcome to use public transportation, walk, or bum a ride from someone else.

    Hospitals and clinics, for the most part, and at least so far, are private organizations.

    And just because Romney care has been going on in Mass, doesn't make it constitutional. My city can hang a sign that bans conceal carry and it doesn't make it legal. Show me where Romney care has been challenged by a court and upheld.

    Further, since I cannot buy insurance across state lines to find a better deal, there is no interstate commerce. Therefore, the commerce clause wouldn't allow the Fed to mandate on residents of a state that they must purchase anything.

    These cases will be heard, who wins will be interesting.

    And to add some sense of On-Topic content; I believe had there really been some glaring or even hint of anti-2A writing in the bill, it would have come out much sooner in an effort to further garner opposition to it.
    1) People move in interstate commerce.
    2) People get sick when away from their home state. At a minimum that give Uncle some interest in providing insurance that covers you when you move about.

    3) Almost every item used to provide health care moves in interstate commerce.

    4) Uncle has an interest in preserving the quality of life of its citizens.
    This is pretty well established in things like the food stamp program, Medicaid, and housing programs--including special loan programs to maintain "family farms."

    I suppose you would prefer that Uncle collect a tax (as it does for Medicare) and turn the money over to the insurance companies instead of having put into place a purchase mandate? Would you be happier with single payer and Uncle collecting a "tax" instead of an insurance company collecting a premium.

    Anyway this has drifted from the initial question about a back door to gun control.

    Tom 357 has shown exactly how the law is anything but a back door to gun control or ammo control, and he has also shown us (indirectly) why the dang thing runs 2000 + pages. There are lots of issues similar to the gun owner protections Tom 357 pointed out that are in there to make things work while protecting rights. Just look at how long and detailed that one section Tom cited is. Yet without it, we'd all be sitting here really worried instead of pretend worried.

    Let's be honest about the suppose Constitutional issue...mmm, can't, not in this forum. So let me just say I'm pretty upset that my tax dollars are funding my state's Attny General to fight this thing. It is a waste of my tax payer dollar and it is money being spent on something I disagree with. Especially so since my state already has the nations highest % of uninsured people. (I had that one out with Self Defense before he got banned. No need for me to look up the stats again.)

  7. #36
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263
    QUOTE=Hopyard;1550431]1) People move in interstate commerce.
    2) People get sick when away from their home state. At a minimum that give Uncle some interest in providing insurance that covers you when you move about.

    3) Almost every item used to provide health care moves in interstate commerce.

    4) Uncle has an interest in preserving the quality of life of its citizens.
    This is pretty well established in things like the food stamp program, Medicaid, and housing programs--including special loan programs to maintain "family farms."[/quote]

    By that arguement, we might as well do away with state governments all together I guess. Ya know, the wind blows across states, dust moves, the sun shines....

    I suppose you would prefer that Uncle collect a tax (as it does for Medicare) and turn the money over to the insurance companies instead of having put into place a purchase mandate? Would you be happier with single payer and Uncle collecting a "tax" instead of an insurance company collecting a premium.
    I would have prefered a lot of things but as you mention below, not the place for the discussion... Lets just say this, if the thing was so great for all of us, then why the hell was it so tough to get passed? Seems they could have taken smaller bites at pieces we could "all" agree on instead of buying the whole cow all at once without a proper freezer to keep it from spoiling.

    Anyway this has drifted from the initial question about a back door to gun control.

    Tom 357 has shown exactly how the law is anything but a back door to gun control or ammo control, and he has also shown us (indirectly) why the dang thing runs 2000 + pages. There are lots of issues similar to the gun owner protections Tom 357 pointed out that are in there to make things work while protecting rights. Just look at how long and detailed that one section Tom cited is. Yet without it, we'd all be sitting here really worried instead of pretend worried.
    valid point there

    Let's be honest about the suppose Constitutional issue...mmm, can't, not in this forum. So let me just say I'm pretty upset that my tax dollars are funding my state's Attny General to fight this thing. It is a waste of my tax payer dollar and it is money being spent on something I disagree with. Especially so since my state already has the nations highest % of uninsured people. (I had that one out with Self Defense before he got banned. No need for me to look up the stats again.)
    And more than 50% of americans based on several different source polls wished their elected representatives wouldn't have used their tax dollars to pass the bill as it was.... I also miss SD's contributions :)
    "Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

    Who is John Galt?

  8. #37
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,595

    re: Holger

    Quote Originally Posted by Holger View Post
    Spot on. We don't make a 25 yr old healthy young man living in NYC and taking the subway buy a car insurance policy to offset the costs incurred by a poor driver in Montana. Why should the same young man be forced to buy an insurance policy he neither wants or thinks he needs
    Because he may think he doesn't need it, but he really has no way to know. Let's see, what risks does a young man of 25 run:

    1) Contracts an STD
    2) Sustains a sports injury
    3) Wakes up with appendicitis
    4) Discovers a hernia
    5) testicular cancer
    6) Slip on sidewalk ice and breaks a wrist
    7) having been irresponsible and fathered 3 kids by 22, a vasectomy is needed
    8) depression, bipolar, schizo, substance abuse

    The idea that 20 somethings don't need health insurance is absurd.

    What about the young woman instead of the young man.

    1) Contracts an STD
    2) Sustains a sports injury
    3) Wake up with appendicitis
    4) Discovers a lump in her breast
    5) Pregnant-- congrats. Now she needs prenatal care.
    6) Gets harmed by violent boy friend
    7) Post-partum depression

    Again, it is pure myth that 20 somethings are invincible, don't need insurance, don't get sick, and therefore don't need insurance.

    I thought I didn't need insurance when I was young too. It never occurred to me that while riding my bike the pedal would shear off and I'd break my collar bone as I rolled.

    I thought I didn't need insurance, until one morning as I was getting ready to leave on a diving trip to Cayman I woke up with huge red splotches all over my torso. (Turned out to be nothing, but it could have been a major health issue as well.)

    EVERYONE needs health insurance and access to appropriate care for their condition. With some good luck, you will never use it. With some bad luck, you can be sick at 22 and dead by 24.

    Insurance spreads the risk among healthy and unhealthy, lucky and unlucky, and since NO ONE can predict in which category they will find themselves--even if they are young-- we need to get that age category covered; which the new bill does, through 26, if necessary via the parent's policy.

  9. #38
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    EVERYONE needs health insurance and access to appropriate care for their condition. With some good luck, you will never use it. With some bad luck, you can be sick at 22 and dead by 24.

    Insurance spreads the risk among healthy and unhealthy, lucky and unlucky, and since NO ONE can predict in which category they will find themselves--even if they are young-- we need to get that age category covered; which the new bill does, through 26, if necessary via the parent's policy.
    No, everyone doesn't NEED it. They "should" have it. Ever heard of personal responsibility and life choices? If a guy wants to roll the dice and risk a $15,000 hospital bill for an injury then so be it. Oh, and why is it that it's $15,000 regardless of insurance? The bill does nothing to address the real "cost" of medical services, only socialize the risk. If they wanted to address cost of the real services, there would have been TORT reform.

    What if a guy just wants to have a major medical insurance plan for crisis situations and not a full blown plan??

    Oh, the Feds decided we shouldn't have that "choice" in the "Free" country.

    Because you (Hopy) want something, you'll argue it anyway you want without factual basis, whether it makes sense or not. We see this here on the forum with 2A issues all the time. Someone wants gun rights so they argue "OH the Second Ammendment, my state has to let me....." But then when it suits the arguement, we turn it the other way and shout "States rights, states rights!!"
    "Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

    Who is John Galt?

  10. #39
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,595

    re:Jmac00

    Quote Originally Posted by Jmac00 View Post
    The "other problem" with the Health care bill is COST:
    An example was given in your post stating that,

    " Medicare has a similar record. In 1965, Congressional budgeters said that it would cost $12 billion in 1990. Its actual cost that year was $90 billion. Whoops. The hospitalization program alone was supposed to cost $9 billion but wound up costing $67 billion. These aren't small forecasting errors."

    Overlooked in comments such as the above is the huge amount of both wage and price inflation on everything which has occurred since 1965, or since 1990. In 1976 my wife's pre-natal visits cost 9 bucks each. My cable service 6 bucks a month.

    Anyway, this thread was started about back door efforts at gun control thought by some to be embedded in the new legislation. Tom 357 's post seems to have shown that idea to be flat wrong.

    (I don't particularly like the new law, but most of the reasons I see people post here, or elsewhere on the net, for being against it seem to me to be far from realistic.)

  11. #40
    Distinguished Member Array razor02097's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,974
    Hopyard nobody needs health insurance. They should be responsible enough to know what to buy and when to buy it. Why do people insist on this ridiculous health reform crap?

    I AM 20 something and when I went to school I carried a catastrophic type health policy that if I had developed something or was hurt really bad I wouldn't burden my parents or jeopardize my future. I wasn't forced to buy that policy. I CHOSE to have it. It still cost me $180 a month! Versus a $600 a month health policy. All the doctor visits and such I paid OUT OF POCKET! That is what I chose. I should have the freedom to do that!

    Gee I thought this was America where we have the freedom to choose what we want?

    I dunno about the rest of you but having the government "reform" the health insurance spells disaster in every way.
    Look at how well they run government programs like Medicare....oh wait....
    Look at how much they have reduced the national debt.... oh wait....
    They can't do anything right what makes you think they can "reform" health care for the better?



    As for the gun control in the health care bill... no its most likely just a myth. The government will be reserving real special bills for gun control.
    There is something about firing 4,200 thirty millimeter rounds/min that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

  12. #41
    Senior Member Array Jmac00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    894
    well I hate to throw a bucket of water on this little flame war over Health care.

    But its pretty much a done deal. The citizens of this country are no longer AS FREE as we use to be and our freedoms our eroding at a record pace.

    The government is now in control of the financial, automotive, labor, health care sectors. The America we knew 3 years a go is no more.

    The GOOD NEWS, November is only 8 months away, ACORN is bankrupt and I AM GOING TO VOTE
    HAPPY NEW YEAR
    INFIDELS

  13. #42
    Distinguished Member Array Guardian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wichita Falls, Texas
    Posts
    1,618
    Quote Originally Posted by Janq View Post
    If any person of any relation to anything (aside from active investigation of a crime) ever asks you any question what so ever about your individual right to keep or possess guns, there is no law current nor mandate in this health care bill pending requiring a person to;

    1) Answer at all;
    2) Answer with any degree of truthfulness
    3) Continue in the immediate doing business with said persons as related to any business what so ever.

    - Janq

    "Just say 'No'." - Nancy Reagan
    This sums it up for me.
    "I dislike death, however, there are some things I dislike more than death. Therefore, there are times when I will not avoid danger" Mencius"

  14. #43
    Senior Member Array DPro.40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    611
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    These lawsuits are for show. They will go nowhere. Most states already have laws mandating that you buy auto insurance; and you get fined if you drive without it. This new law isn't really different in principle.

    Mass. has for several years now had a law that everyone must buy health insurance or pay a penalty at tax time. The new law isn't really different in principle from the MA law.

    The present new law is exactly parallel to the one Romney endorsed when he was MA Governor. It is effectively the MA Health Insurance law.
    And MA is going bankrupt because of the medical cost imposed on the state. Thats what the law suite is about. States say they cant afford the cost and I don't want the government telling me I have to buy government health care or the IRS will come knocking. It has already been spoken that the fed law will supersede any state law blocking the health care purchase requirement. Thats what the suites are about. Liberties! Ignoring the constitution and government take over. What else is hidden in the 2000 pages. No one knows what gun liberties have been lost until the bill is read, understood and applied. I think the suites have merit. I'm disappointed more states didn't join in.
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
    Ronald Reagan

  15. #44
    Member Array DZcarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by razor02097 View Post
    Hopyard nobody needs health insurance. They should be responsible enough to know what to buy and when to buy it. Why do people insist on this ridiculous health reform crap?

    I AM 20 something and when I went to school I carried a catastrophic type health policy that if I had developed something or was hurt really bad I wouldn't burden my parents or jeopardize my future. I wasn't forced to buy that policy. I CHOSE to have it. It still cost me $180 a month! Versus a $600 a month health policy. All the doctor visits and such I paid OUT OF POCKET! That is what I chose. I should have the freedom to do that!

    Gee I thought this was America where we have the freedom to choose what we want?

    I dunno about the rest of you but having the government "reform" the health insurance spells disaster in every way.
    Look at how well they run government programs like Medicare....oh wait....
    Look at how much they have reduced the national debt.... oh wait....
    They can't do anything right what makes you think they can "reform" health care for the better?



    As for the gun control in the health care bill... no its most likely just a myth. The government will be reserving real special bills for gun control.
    I'm sure similar arguments were made when the country mandates that we all must have car insurance.

    What's more, to challenge the government's right to mandate insurance coverage for the good of the people is to indirectly challenge the legality of car insurance regulation. Should they win these suits it will also become unconstitutional to mandate car insurance.

    It is for that reason the the courts will likely hesitate to rule in favor of these state attorney generals.

    Furthermore, requiring everyone to have health insurance is not a violation of any individual right so far as I can see. They aren't requiring you to go to a doctor or to receive treatment you don't want.

    As for the personal responsibility argument, that goes out the window the moment an uninsured person gets suddenly ill and must go to the doctor for treatment. If said person does not have health insurance the costs will likely be so high that said person cannot foot the bill. Guess who pays for it under our current system? You and me!

  16. #45
    Senior Member Array DPro.40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    611
    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff View Post
    Hopyard -
    Have to disagree with you this time. The difference between Auto insurance requirements and health insurance requirements is that driving has been long held as a privelidge.
    No, actually the difference in mandated auto insurance and health care insurance is mandated auto insurance is to protect fellow drivers from those who refuse to carry insurance to protect others. Thats where the uninsured motorist coverage comes in. Mandated health care is not to protect the public but to provide excess from the haves to buy for the have nots.
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
    Ronald Reagan

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. How many states have hi-cap mag restrictions?
    By Sticks in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: July 14th, 2010, 08:52 PM
  2. D.C. Gun restrictions in Senate
    By jfl in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 24th, 2009, 06:33 PM
  3. Carry restrictions?
    By jimbolyard in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: August 6th, 2008, 03:44 AM
  4. OC Age Restrictions
    By Geo2020 in forum Defensive Knives & Other Weapons
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: August 14th, 2006, 02:29 PM
  5. Range restrictions
    By ptmmatssc in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 11th, 2006, 05:43 PM

Search tags for this page

ppo jeopardize ccw

Click on a term to search for related topics.