ObamaCare Could be Used to Ban Guns in Home Self-Defense - Vote

ObamaCare Could be Used to Ban Guns in Home Self-Defense - Vote

This is a discussion on ObamaCare Could be Used to Ban Guns in Home Self-Defense - Vote within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Grass Roots North Carolina, P.O. Box 10684, Raleigh, NC 27605 919-664-8565, Welcome to GRNC , GRNC Alert Hotline: (919) 562-4137 GRNC Alert 10-10-09: ObamaCare Could ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 45

Thread: ObamaCare Could be Used to Ban Guns in Home Self-Defense - Vote

  1. #1
    Member Array grandma4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    459

    ObamaCare Could be Used to Ban Guns in Home Self-Defense - Vote

    Grass Roots North Carolina, P.O. Box 10684, Raleigh, NC 27605

    919-664-8565, Welcome to GRNC, GRNC Alert Hotline: (919) 562-4137

    GRNC Alert 10-10-09:

    ObamaCare Could be Used to Ban Guns in Home Self-Defense - Vote
    Tuesday

    The following alert sent out by Gun Owners of American points out a
    hidden danger in Obama Care to gun owners. Of special note, such
    shenanigans are already being deployed in North Carolina with the
    state employees' health plan to control personal behavior. As was
    announced this week, both smokers and the obese will be charged higher
    premiums on their health insurance. Do you want the state or federal
    government deciding your lifestyle?

    ---------------

    Friday, October 9, 2009

    Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has something to say to
    gun owners: "Own a gun; lose your coverage!"

    Baucus' socialized health care bill comes up for a Finance Committee
    vote on Tuesday. We have waited and waited and waited for the shifty
    Baucus to release legislative language. But he has refused to release
    anything but a summary -- and we will never have a Congressional
    Budget Office cost assessment based on actual legislation. Even the
    summary was kept secret for a long time.

    But, on the basis of the summary, the Baucus bill (which is still
    unnumbered) tells us virtually nothing about what kind of policy
    Americans will be required to purchase under penalty of law -- nor the
    consequences. It simply says:

    * "all U.S. citizens and legal residents would be required to
    purchase coverage through (1) the individual market...";

    * "individuals would be required to report on their federal income
    tax return the months for which they maintain the required minimum
    health coverage...";

    * in addition to an extensive list of statutorily mandated coverage,
    HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would be empowered to "define and
    update the categories of treatments, items, and services..." within an
    insurance plan which would be covered in a policy constituting
    "required minimum health coverage."

    ObamaCare and gun control

    It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration
    will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as
    excessively dangerous activities. And, given Sebelius'
    well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment -- she vetoed
    concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas -- we presume she
    will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and
    self-defense using a firearm. It is even possible that the
    Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a
    household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.

    The ObamaCare bill already contains language that will punish
    Americans who engage in unhealthy behavior by allowing insurers to
    charge them higher insurance premiums. (What constitutes an unhealthy
    lifestyle is, of course, to be defined by legislators.) Don't be
    surprised if an anti-gun nut like Sebelius uses this line of thinking
    to impose ObamaCare policies which result in a back-door gun ban on
    any American who owns "dangerous" firearms.

    After all, insurers already (and routinely) drop homeowners from
    their policies for owning certain types of guns or for refusing to use
    trigger locks (that is, for keeping their guns ready for
    self-defense!). While not all insurers practice this anti-gun
    behavior, Gun Owners of America has documented that some do --
    Prudential and State Farm being two of the most well-known.

    The good news is that because homeowner insurance is private (and is
    still subject to the free market) you can go to another company if one
    drops you. But what are you going to do under nationalized ObamaCare
    when the regulations written by Secretary Sebelius suspend the
    applicability of your government-mandated policy because of your gun
    ownership?

    All of this is in addition to something that GOA has been warning you
    about for several months ... the certainty that minimum acceptable
    policies will dump your gun information into a federal database ... a
    certainty that is reinforced by language in the summary providing for
    a study to "encourage increased meaningful use of electronic health
    records."

    Remember, the federal government has already denied more than 150,000
    military veterans the right to own guns, without their being convicted
    of a crime or receiving any due process of law. They were denied
    because of medical information (such as PTSD) that the FBI later
    determined disqualified these veterans to own guns.

    Is this what we need on a national level being applied to every gun
    owner in America?

    Incidentally, failure to comply would subject the average family to
    $1,500 in fines -- and possibly more for a household with older teens.
    And, although a Schumer amendment purports to exempt Americans from
    prison sentences for non-purchase of an ObamaPolicy -- something which
    was never at issue -- it doesn't prohibit them from being sent to
    prison for a year and fined an additional $25,000 under the Internal
    Revenue Code for non-payment of the initial fines.

    IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED

    * Contact Sen. Kay Hagan 202-224-6342, Fax: 202-228-2563,
    Contact Kay Hagan | Kay Hagan | U.S. Senator for North Carolina

    * Contact Sen. Richard Burr 202-224-3154, Fax: 202-228-2981,
    Richard Burr, United States Senator of North Carolina: Email Me About Issues and Legislation


    Ask him or her, in the strongest terms, to vote against the phony
    Baucus bill.

    You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
    http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your senators the
    pre-written e-mail message below.

    ----- Pre-written letter -----

    Dear Senator:

    You already know that the phony Baucus bill:

    * Is predicated on $283 billion in phony "cuts" which have never,
    never ever been realized since a similar commitment to cut Medicare
    costs in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 -- and will never, never ever
    be realized under the Baucus bill;

    * Requires massive numbers of Americans to have government-approved
    insurance which the CBO predicts will be more expensive than current
    policies;

    * Refuses to provide a cost for these policies, making it almost
    certain that more and more Americans will find insurance beyond their
    reach;

    * Has no legislative language and nothing but a CBO "guesstimate" of
    the cost and benefits, based on a summary.

    On the basis of the summary, the Baucus bill tells us virtually
    nothing about what kind of policy Americans will be required to
    purchase under penalty of law -- nor the consequences. It does say
    that the "Secretary of HHS would be required to
    define and update the categories of treatments, items, and
    services..." within an insurance plan which would be covered in a
    policy constituting "required minimum health coverage."

    This could spell trouble for gun owners.

    It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration
    will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as
    excessively dangerous activities. And, given Sebelius'
    well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment -- she vetoed
    concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas -- I presume she
    will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and
    self-defense using a firearm. It is even possible that the
    Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a
    household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.

    This is, of course, in addition to the certainty that minimum
    acceptable policies will dump my gun information into a federal
    database -- a certainty that is reinforced by language in the summary
    providing for a study to "encourage increased meaningful use of
    electronic health records."

    Incidentally, failure to comply would subject the average family to
    $1,500 in fines -- and possibly more for a household with older teens.
    And, although a Schumer amendment purports to exempt Americans from
    prison sentences for non-purchase of an ObamaPolicy -- something which
    was never at issue -- it doesn't prohibit them from being sent to
    prison for a year and fined an additional $25,000 under the Internal
    Revenue Code for non-payment of the initial fines.

    Please oppose the Baucus bill.

    Sincerely,

    ----------------------

    You may find your NC representative by going here:

    Representatives

    Well there you have it. Can this really happen in the United States of America?????? God have mercy on our Nation.
    2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array JAT40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    ma
    Posts
    2,366
    Just wondering, if I refuse to comply and refuse to pay the fines can I successfully request a trail by jury of my piers? If so and every gun owning patriot in America dose same, the Judicial system would grind to a halt. No?
    While people are saying "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, ... and they will not escape. 1Th 5:3

  3. #3
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263
    Nothing but hype.

    This would never make it thru a SCOTUS challenge considering what just happened last year with DC's gun laws. Think for yourselves people. The 2A protects our rights to bear arms for lawful purposes and the SCOTUS affirmed that last year. Stop the panic.

    I'm no fan of Obamacare but beating the gun rights drum to create fear of it is the wrong way to go and demeans the gun rights movement.

    People need to focus on the real facts like what it will do to the deficit or the constitutionality of forcing people to buy healthcare. Creating panic and attempting to link it to guns just makes the opposition to O-care sound like a bunch of right wing fanatics.

    People who choose to smoke or who are obese cost the system more money, there is no question about that and it's a completely different arguement than the 2A right protected by the Constitution of the United States.

    As an aside to the comments in the letter about lifestyle choices (i.e. tobacco use and obesity); No one throws a fit when people with car accidents or speeding tickets pay more for auto insurance.
    "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?

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array rodc13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    2,753
    This is just contrived nonsense. Another attempt to inject a blatantly political thread under the fabricated guise of a Second Amendment issue.

    Why not take the health care debate to a political forum instead of cluttering DefensiveCarry.com?
    Cheers,
    Rod
    "We're paratroopers. We're supposed to be surrounded!" Dick Winters

  5. #5
    Member Array Stranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    102
    --deleted--
    Last edited by Stranger; October 10th, 2009 at 11:49 PM. Reason: Deleted because the post above and below are correct

  6. #6
    Distinguished Member Array mr.stuart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    usa-southeast texas
    Posts
    1,733
    Quote Originally Posted by rodc13 View Post
    This is just contrived nonsense. Another attempt to inject a blatantly political thread under the fabricated guise of a Second Amendment issue.

    Why not take the health care debate to a political forum instead of cluttering DefensiveCarry.com?
    I agree

  7. #7
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,340
    Rod and Stuart...

    Im defending the OP not the thread.

    How can you both selfishly attack this poster for putting up a thread that he clearly found else where and posted thinking "Maybe we should understand what is going on that is or could be deeper than just health care".

    What is blatantly obvious is that you simply adore Obama's attempted socialized health care program and you feel that someone is attacking your belief in his royal holy designation by God to place forced govt rule in our lives.

    You need to delete your response or think with a more open mind and less liberally.

    Did I misread you? Forgive me ahead of time while you restate your less obvious political bias in a thread that obviously references the 2a several times over not written in the words of the OP.

    He makes sense linking gun violence to high health cost. Ban guns and you could save money on health cost. Something the American left would buy instantly. Go ahead and send me your guns; I can just use them to assist in securing your freedoms for you.
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  8. #8
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,340
    I left stranger out as well... sorry you seem to be the same... based on this...

    Last edited by Stranger; Yesterday at 10:49 PM.. Reason: Deleted because the post above and below are correct
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  9. #9
    Senior Member Array digitalexplr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Jefferson City, MO
    Posts
    914
    Quote Originally Posted by rodc13 View Post
    This is just contrived nonsense. Another attempt to inject a blatantly political thread under the fabricated guise of a Second Amendment issue.

    Why not take the health care debate to a political forum instead of cluttering DefensiveCarry.com?
    Agreed. There are enough problems with the proposed healthcare bill it is not necessary to try to make the issue a 2nd A problem.
    NRA Life Member

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,105
    Lots of hype but nothing of substance here.
    If you notice they say flat out that they have not seen the actual proposed legislation, and they assume that if it becomes law that Sebilius will attack gun ownership through it.
    What do they say you do when you "assume"?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  11. #11
    Member Array spooter66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    433
    Quote Originally Posted by grandma4 View Post

    ObamaCare and gun control

    It is nearly certain that coverage prescribed by the administration
    will, to control costs, exclude coverage for what it regards as
    excessively dangerous activities. And, given Sebelius'
    well-established antipathy to the Second Amendment -- she vetoed
    concealed carry legislation as governor of Kansas -- we presume she
    will define these dangerous activities to include hunting and
    self-defense using a firearm. It is even possible that the
    Obama-prescribed policy could preclude reimbursement of any kind in a
    household which keeps a loaded firearm for self-defense.

    The ObamaCare bill already contains language that will punish
    Americans who engage in unhealthy behavior by allowing insurers to
    charge them higher insurance premiums. (What constitutes an unhealthy
    lifestyle is, of course, to be defined by legislators.) Don't be surprised if an anti-gun nut like Sebelius uses this line of thinking
    to impose ObamaCare policies which result in a back-door gun ban on
    any American who owns "dangerous" firearms.

    After all, insurers already (and routinely) drop homeowners from
    their policies for owning certain types of guns or for refusing to use
    trigger locks (that is, for keeping their guns ready for
    self-defense!). While not all insurers practice this anti-gun
    behavior, Gun Owners of America has documented that some do --
    Prudential and State Farm being two of the most well-known.

    The good news is that because homeowner insurance is private (and is
    still subject to the free market) you can go to another company if one
    drops you. But what are you going to do under nationalized ObamaCare
    when the regulations written by Secretary Sebelius suspend the
    applicability of your government-mandated policy because of your gun
    ownership?

    All of this is in addition to something that GOA has been warning you
    about for several months ... the certainty that minimum acceptable
    policies will dump your gun information into a federal database ... a
    certainty that is reinforced by language in the summary providing for
    a study to "encourage increased meaningful use of electronic health
    records."

    Remember, the federal government has already denied more than 150,000
    military veterans the right to own guns, without their being convicted
    of a crime or receiving any due process of law. They were denied
    because of medical information (such as PTSD) that the FBI later
    determined disqualified these veterans to own guns.

    Is this what we need on a national level being applied to every gun
    owner in America?

    Incidentally, failure to comply would subject the average family to
    $1,500 in fines -- and possibly more for a household with older teens.
    And, although a Schumer amendment purports to exempt Americans from
    prison sentences for non-purchase of an ObamaPolicy -- something which
    was never at issue -- it doesn't prohibit them from being sent to
    prison for a year and fined an additional $25,000 under the Internal
    Revenue Code for non-payment of the initial fines.
    Bold is mine.

    The beginning of the this article first tells you that they don't know what the actual language in this bill says, but then goes on to tell you what they think it might say.

    Talk about fear mongering!! We criticize the lefties and the Brady bunch when they do it, here is a good example of why it's a bad idea. Why don't they stick to facts instead of suppositions, that's what's advanced our cause the most in the past 20 years. It's hard to argue with facts but this crap just makes the original writer look like an idiot. Just ask the Brady Bunch they're experts at looking like idiots.

    While I'm not criticizing the poster I am criticizing the writer of the article. These kind of articles only hurt their cause in the long run.
    "I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals." - Sir Winston Churchill


  12. #12
    VIP Member Array Rollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    3,007
    Quote Originally Posted by spooter66 View Post

    Talk about fear mongering!! We criticize the lefties and the Brady bunch when they do it, here is a good example of why it's a bad idea .
    It's the way politics and lobbying works. The lefties do it. The righties do it. Generally whoever is the minority at the time tends to do it more. The dems played the fear card when the reps were in power and now the reps are doing the same thing.
    -It is a seriously scary thought that there are subsets of American society that think being intellectual is a BAD thing...

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array automatic slim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The western edge of The Confederacy
    Posts
    2,198
    I would put nothing past Comrade Obama and his committee of Czars.
    "First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand."
    Edge of Darkness

  14. #14
    Ex Member Array BuckeyeEric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    265

  15. #15
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by automatic slim View Post
    I would put nothing past Comrade Obama and his committee of Czars.
    As I said in the first post responding to the thread; Would never pass a test in the SCOTUS. Remember that the SCOTUS just reaffirmed in last years DC gun ban case that the 2A protects Americans rights to have guns in their home.
    "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?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Sponsored 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. In Reality- Long guns for home defense
    By mercop in forum Home (And Away From Home) Defense Discussion
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2010, 04:32 PM
  2. TN Guns in Parks Web Poll - VOTE
    By CPTMO in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: May 29th, 2009, 09:14 PM
  3. LMS Defense Home Defense - Defensive Medical COMBO / Yuba City, CA / March 8-10, 2008
    By Tony Siciliano in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 6th, 2008, 01:55 PM
  4. Railed Guns For Home Defense
    By xeero in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: August 19th, 2006, 10:05 AM