Defensive Carry banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
459 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,369 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,263 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,753 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,064 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,344 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,344 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
916 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,815 Posts
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"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
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. :rolleyes:

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,063 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,198 Posts
I would put nothing past Comrade Obama and his committee of Czars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,263 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,753 Posts
I would put nothing past Comrade Obama and his committee of Czars.
OMG! You're right!

They're going to use healthcare reform to fund the black helicopters which will drag everyone who supports the second amendment in front of a death panel. After all of us are euthanized, this will support the establishment of a one-world government, which will be run by the UN under the direction of the Tri-Lateral Commission after the Constitution is abolished, all carried out according to the master plans of the Illuminati.

How could we have missed this!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
160 Posts
Rod,
You forgot the Masons.....lol.
This is the Death Panel Idiocy, Part 2 .
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
265 Posts
OMG! You're right!

They're going to use healthcare reform to fund the black helicopters which will drag everyone who supports the second amendment in front of a death panel. After all of us are euthanized, this will support the establishment of a one-world government, which will be run by the UN under the direction of the Tri-Lateral Commission after the Constitution is abolished, all carried out according to the master plans of the Illuminati.

How could we have missed this!
+100 :rofl:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
No one throws a fit when people with car accidents or speeding tickets pay more for auto insurance.
While I agree with most of your comments, not a single citizen (or illegal alien) in America is required to drive a car. Owning and operating a vehicle is a choice and a privilege, not a right as many of our friends on the left seem to think healthcare to be.

I can opt out of car insurance. It seems I will not be able to opt out of O-care.
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top