Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As far as I can tell Obama intends to gut the HIPPA act and have your medical info sent to a government agency as well now.
What this could very well do is stop anyone who's even considering going to see a mental health person to really think twice about it or even about saying anything to their family doctor just in case the conversations end up on a government database somewhere. There was a reason for HIPPA and it wasn't to feed the government info about your private life.
What the government gives, the government can take away.
We'll see how it pans out. Even if Obama said it looking directly into the camera, I'd be skeptical and withhold my judgment till I read the actual law/executive order.
An "unnamed senior administration official?" While I may be prone to believe them over a member of Congress or our President - I don't find this account or quote all that convincing.
Why couldn't Obama just state this openly himself? That's a HUGE question to gun owners - because when someone says they are going to ban something - excuse me, what exactly does that mean? Left without further explanation, what it means is simply that.
I want to see it in writing.
The full 15 - page document with the White House Recommendations is here:
With reference to assault weapons it states as a goal:
"Reinstate and strengthen the ban on assault weapons: The shooters in Aurora and
Newtown used the type of semiautomatic rifles that were the target of the assault weapons ban
that was in place from 1994 to 2004. That ban was an important step, but manufacturers were
able to circumvent the prohibition with cosmetic modifications to their weapons. Congress must
reinstate and strengthen the prohibition on assault weapons."
So it's not too specific.
The report has all kinds of great recommendations around mental health, like training an additional 5,000 mental health workers to work with school-age children. But it would all depend on Congress passing these things.
Another article gives some details of the assault weapon ban, although I don't know where they're getting their information:
"Would the government confiscate existing assault weapons?
No. The ban would primarily affect the manufacture, sale, and transfer of new assault weapons. Both the White House and Feinstein say assault weapons already in private hands would remain legal. A similar provision in the 1994 legislation left untouched an estimated 1.5 million assault weapons in private ownership.
However, Feinstein’s summary of her proposed 2013 law says that it will call for these grandfathered weapons to be registered under the National Firearms Act, including a background check on current owners and any transferees. Feinstein has also said she may call for existing assault weapons to be secured via trigger locks."
With reference to assault weapons it states as a goal:
"Reinstate and strengthen the ban on assault weapons: The shooters in Aurora and
Newtown used the type of semiautomatic rifles that were the target of the assault weapons ban
that was in place from 1994 to 2004. That ban was an important step, but manufacturers were
able to circumvent the prohibition with cosmetic modifications to their weapons. Congress must
reinstate and strengthen the prohibition on assault weapons."
So it's not too specific.
The report has all kinds of great recommendations around mental health, like training an additional 5,000 mental health workers to work with school-age children. But it would all depend on Congress passing these things.
Apparently you have forgotten that the Columbine school shooting occurred while the Assault Weapon Ban Act of 1994 was still in effect. The Assault Weapon Ban Act of 1994 would have had absolutely no effect on either the Aurora or Newtown shootings.
I know Congress will never reinstate Assault Weapon Ban Act of 1994, it was a profound embarrassment which is why they let it lapse into oblivion in 2004. I take solace in knowing that nothing Obama has proposed will be enacted into law by Congress.
Another article gives some details of the assault weapon ban, although I don't know where they're getting their information:
"Would the government confiscate existing assault weapons?
No. The ban would primarily affect the manufacture, sale, and transfer of new assault weapons. Both the White House and Feinstein say assault weapons already in private hands would remain legal. A similar provision in the 1994 legislation left untouched an estimated 1.5 million assault weapons in private ownership.
However, Feinstein’s summary of her proposed 2013 law says that it will call for these grandfathered weapons to be registered under the National Firearms Act, including a background check on current owners and any transferees. Feinstein has also said she may call for existing assault weapons to be secured via trigger locks."
After reading an re-reading the things Obama outlined a few things stood out. First off, start enforcing laws already on the books like the one where it's a crime for a person who's precluded from owning a gun to even apply or attempt to get one. I don't know of one case that's been prosecuted out of all the apps that were denied, anyone know if there has been?
Second, many of the directives just look like more unfunded mandates that while sounding good on the surface mean more cost at the county/city level. I'd bet the local governments will end up just giving much of it lip service kind of like many do with SPED services.
Hiring more cops sounds really good but as they found out the last time the government handed out $$ to do that when the government $$ dried up the cops or other support staff had to go. So are we now going to fund the local PD's forever? How about all these school psychiatry services he's asking for? Once the federal $ dry up what then?
I also notice no mention was made about Obama's Hollywood friends or the gaming industry, why is that? Weren't they just days ago spouting off about those evil violent images?
After reading an re-reading the things Obama outlined a few things stood out. First off, start enforcing laws already on the books like the one where it's a crime for a person who's precluded from owning a gun to even apply or attempt to get one. I don't know of one case that's been prosecuted out of all the apps that were denied, anyone know if there has been?
Second, many of the directives just look like more unfunded mandates that while sounding good on the surface mean more cost at the county/city level. I'd bet the local governments will end up just giving much of it lip service kind of like many do with SPED services.
Hiring more cops sounds really good but as they found out the last time the government handed out $$ to do that when the government $$ dried up the cops or other support staff had to go. So are we now going to fund the local PD's forever? How about all these school psychiatry services he's asking for? Once the federal $ dry up what then?
I also notice no mention was made about Obama's Hollywood friends or the gaming industry, why is that? Weren't they just days ago spouting off about those evil violent images?
Concerning the federal unfunded State mandates, the Supreme Court has already held them to be unconstitutional in Mack and Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). So none of those State, city, school requirements Obama wants to implement will ever pass Congress.
That depends on what kind of "armor" they are talking about. Class III Body Armor can stop up to 1,400 foot pounds of energy, which is sufficient to stop most handguns, but insufficient to stop most rifles. And then you have the .50 BMG, which can pierce 3/16" steel-plate at a distance of one mile with a 500 grain FMJ non-armor piercing round. Any FMJ round can pierce armor, if it has enough energy behind it, depending on the thickness of the armor of course.
yep, it is just their way to actually ban all rifle ammo. that way they can implement their gun control schemes. it is also one of the reasons why i can been stocking heavy on reloading items for the last 7 years.
I also notice no mention was made about Obama's Hollywood friends or the gaming industry, why is that? Weren't they just days ago spouting off about those evil violent images?
Yeah, why is that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Weren't they just days ago spouting off about those evil violent images?
