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.
Perhaps someone might want to explain why that's in Obamacare to begin with ?
It's a carry-over due to the ban on gun research as it relates to public health.
"Public health research dried up more than a decade ago after Congress restricted the use of some federal money to pay for those studies.
...
Lawmakers — both Democrats and Republicans — held back some money from the CDC and made clear that no federal funds should be used to promote gun control.
Many researchers interpreted that message to mean no public health studies about injuries from weapons."
The Second Amendment was never intended to provide unlimited arms to anyone who could ante up the cash or credit card. The current interpretation of the Second Amendment is just insanity feeding the insane.
Besides, here's an article on what the Second Amendment was really all about.
The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.
In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states. In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.
As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."
It's the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, "Why don't they just rise up and kill the whites?" If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.
Read more at the link.
Last edited by bobd04; 01-17-2013 at 12:54 PM..
Reason: Edit to add quote
The Second Amendment was never intended to provide unlimited arms to anyone who could ante up the cash or credit card. The current interpretation of the Second Amendment is just insanity feeding the insane.
Besides, here's an article on what the Second Amendment was really all about.
Q: Was Barack Obama really a constitutional law professor? A:His formal title was "senior lecturer," but the University of Chicago Law School says he "served as a professor" and was "regarded as" a professor.
Quote:
UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
funny thing is obamacare UNDERFUNDS/(barely addressses it) mental health
and unless it is a mental issue, a doctor HAS NO BUSINESS asking about ANY type of weapons
It does address it and in some innovative ways, however, big mistake leaving it to the states to determine the level of care.
"Certainly the health reform law attempts to address the perpetual problems with the accessibility and availability of mental health services in the United States. But it is the states' decisions about whether and how to implement the law that will ultimately determine how much services improve. Nearly every aspect of the law that could improve mental health services is optional; states will decide themselves whether to improve their mental health offerings."
None of these 23 would have prevented the shooting at Newtown. I thought there were already backround checks and waiting times for getting a gun.
Apparently not:
"A gunman enraged by a domestic dispute bought a gun and fatally shot his former girlfriend, her uncle and her cousin in the parking lot of a small southeastern Kentucky college, police said Wednesday."
Remember what these orders are supposed to be addressing and also that psychiatrists are 'doctors' who cannot violate confidentiality, even if there is a high probability that a patient could turn into a shooter.
I am guessing the idea is to loosen HIPPA regulations to allow reporting of such people.
This is not to say I agree or disagree.
I sincerely doubt that dentists or osteopaths will be asking whether or not you have guns.
Not true.
Psychiatrists can and have reported patients for exactly that.
Because this is the exact same logic that was used to implement the Patriot Act which violates the 4th amendment. There is a right to privacy regardless of how much you refuse to acknowledge it.
Maybe this guy who probably has more wisdom than the people on this thread combined might have foreshadowed people like you pulling this nonsense.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin, "Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor", November 11, 1755; as cited in The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, vol. 6, p. 242
It's raining dumb on this thread.
Fascinating.
So how do you feel about buying a vehicle? Is transferring the title to the new owner's name after a "private sale" also a violation of one's privacy?
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.
