Is this just bs propaganda, with Obamacare?

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by DerickVonD, Jul 13, 2012.

  1. DerickVonD

    DerickVonD New Member

    70
    0
    0
    I know Obamacare is bad, but I heard and sorry I lost the link, that there is a part of Obamacare that can be used to deny someones guns based on their medical records and can warrant the ATF the power to grab your guns because of it. Has anyone heard of this, or is this just propaganda? I have bipolar, so I know they would go after me, even though I've never been sent to any institution.
     
  2. mountainman13

    mountainman13 New Member

    11,488
    0
    0
    Yep it's true. They will have much easier access to all your records.
     

  3. DerickVonD

    DerickVonD New Member

    70
    0
    0
    great...guess I'll be going to jail or killed than..
     
  4. Jim1611

    Jim1611 New Member

    700
    0
    0
    Oh don't worry the dems really don't want to take your guns away. What's wrong with you guys, we just need to trust them through all of this. :rolleyes:
     
  5. DerickVonD

    DerickVonD New Member

    70
    0
    0
    Really thinking about joining a gang, atleast that way I could keep guns.
     
  6. DerickVonD

    DerickVonD New Member

    70
    0
    0
    might as well buy full auto aks black market, whats the point anyway?
     
  7. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    That might be a bit extreme. I do LEGALLY own some firearms that i have purchased from individuals rather than FFL's. There is no record that i own these firearms other than pictures of them and their serial numbers in case they are stolen.

    If you are REALLY WORRIED, pick up some pre-owned firearms without or with less paper trail.
     
  8. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Read the explanation here: http://gunowners.org/fs2011a.htm

    Essentially, there looks like there is wide latitude for government bureaucrats to be able to declare someone a "mental defective" and add their names to the NICS list.
     
  9. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    That indicated that being listed on NCIS prevented a person from legally possessing or purchasing a firearm. :confused: I thought NCIS only came into play when making a purchase from a shop/FFL.

    Is this saying that people labeled mentally unfit by the obamacarers and added to the NCIS list would be unable to legally possess a firearm that they purchased from an individual? Do officers usually run people through NCIS to determine if they are allowed by our masters to possess a firearm or do they use another database that lists in-state convictions (rap sheet)?
     
  10. mountainman13

    mountainman13 New Member

    11,488
    0
    0
    Most places require you to have a license. You would be denied.
     
  11. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    In MS, no license to purchase or FOID-type card is required. I would expect a seller to want to see that i had a license issued from the state we were standing in to be sure i was a resident.

    When i bought my cz52 pistol at the gunshow, i'm not certain the old guy even looked at mine. The guy i bought my SKS from did make sure i had a MS driver's license for residency.

    Let's say i went on a pharmi hunt and spooked a shrink into labelling me "mentally deficient" and putting me on 60mg of Paxil and 4mg of Xanax per day; would my legally- and previously-acquired firearms suddenly be illegal for me to have?

    I'm thinking this would only come up if i were to have a police run-in involving one of these firearms (shot an angry anal rapist attacking my home).
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2012
  12. mountainman13

    mountainman13 New Member

    11,488
    0
    0
    Are you required to have a license to carry?
     
  13. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    I only carry in the car, which MS allows without a permit (car, house, your shop).

    http://www.dps.state.ms.us/firearms...le-concealed-use-or-attempt-to-use-penalties/

    The Bible belt isn't all bad.
     
  14. mountainman13

    mountainman13 New Member

    11,488
    0
    0
    Oh I know the south beats the north all day long. I guess you would be fine as long as the bg tried to carjack you. Lol
     
  15. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    You can always move your car closer to the corpse. ;) Gotta move it quick though; a corpse won't last long in this heat and humidity...or so i hear.


    But seriously, does anybody know the circumstances under which a LEO would run a person through NCIS to check their status?
     
  16. mountainman13

    mountainman13 New Member

    11,488
    0
    0
    I would imagine any time they ask for identification.
     
  17. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    Of the last six or seven times a cop has asked for my ID, only once did they call it in to dispatch. I don't know that they ran me for anything other than open warrants that time (traffic ticket that got tossed out at court :p ).

    Maybe Robo will give us an inside scoop.
     
  18. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0
    Just another part of the Nazi GCA68; denying the tools of self defense because your a "mental defective".

    Heres a fun fact:

    The Nazi's didn't just start out their massive democide by rounding up all the Jews and gassing them,they started with typical run of the mill Eugenics,you know,the kind dear old Woodrow Wilson was fond of.

    It was called Action T4.

    Also,being labeled "mentally defective" was one of the ways the Soviet regime discredited critics,and being labeled such also usually resulted in your being sent to the gulags.

    Now,here in America,we have a government that wants to deny a historically outcast and victimized portion of society the means to defend themselves.

    And now,thanks to Obamacare,government will know who said "defectives" are,thus making their job of depriving these people of their rightful property that much easier.

    My suggestion is that you make sure to sell all the weapons you've bought from FFL's back to FFL's,so that its all on record.

    Then,if you choose to be disobedient to a "law" that desperately needs defying,you should do so.

    Bad laws do not deserve obedience.

    However,you disobey at your own risk.

    A concept very familiar with the men who founded this nation.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2012
  19. DerickVonD

    DerickVonD New Member

    70
    0
    0
    Who was it that said, it's our duty to disobey bad laws?
     
  20. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0
    The issue is more complex then just picking and choosing laws you don't like and disobeying them on principle.

    You have to understand first,that the government has certain provisions for laws it can legitimately make,second,that it has definite limitations,and third,that there are those who intentionally obfuscate those limitations to give government more power then it is lawfully granted.

    You also have to understand that even if you know a law to be illegitimate,government will still enforce it by means of use of force when it can't convince you to obey by trying to cajole you into believing its the right thing to do.

    You have to be prepared for that.Not only by standard preparations,but you have to prepare your mind and soul for a contest of will.Our Founders did no less.

    You have to have a grasp of original intent and history.

    I always suggest starting out with the Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions.

    Jefferson and Madison wrote the Kentucky And Virginia Resolutions,which asserted that when the federal government makes laws that are outside its duly appointed duties,those laws are "illegitimate,void,and of no force".

    "Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers,its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."
    -Thomas Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.

    One of the concepts of this nation was that it was to be a place where the government was limited by law to respect of the inalienable,natural rights of mankind.
    Inalienable natural -or God given,if you like- rights are those rights which are what Judge Andrew Napolitano calls "immutable truths".
    It is an "immutable truth" that all living things have an instinct for self preservation,and thus the right of self defense,deriving from said instinct,is something that is yours by virtue of your humanity,something that exists despite government,and is,in fact,the "inalienable right" sought to be protected from legislation and the purview of government itself by the Second amendment,which stipulated that the ownership and carriage of the tools mankind uses -arms- to defend himself,are off limits from government.

    Natural inalienable human rights are off limits to government.
    The only limits to our free excersize of those rights are not to be whatever law can be concocted,but the rights of others.
    This means that you may own a gun,and so long as you aren't using it to violate the rights of others you should be left alone by government.If you do violate the rights of others with that gun,then your actions -not the mere ownership of property- need to be addressed by a rightful government.
    But merely owning and even carrying a gun should not be subject to government regulation of any sort.

    IMHO, no quote from our founders more eloquently describes this then this one:

    Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
    Thomas Jefferson


    Of course,there will be those that decry my logic as the willful intent of "arming dangerous people".To which I reply that the arming of dangerous people would not occur if dangerous people were kept locked up.
    Murderers,rapists,armed robbers,etc- should not be given chance after chance to act with proper respect to other free people.
    They need to be kept in custody.
    And by accomplishing this,we would have no need of laws that they don't obey anyway,would we?

    Also,I like to point out that the vast majority of people under the care of psychiatry are not dangerous,and have not proven themselves to be so.

    Laws that are used to give government the power to deny wide swaths of people their inalienable rights might seem like a good thing,if the people targeted by those laws seem to be dangerous people.
    However,these laws,once accepted,tend to multiply,until anyone who government wishes to see disarmed is covered by them.
    They become political laws that are used to tyrannize opponents to a regime.

    This is exactly what happened in Germany when Hitler and the Nazi party took over.

    The majority of gun laws were already on the books....all Hitler had to do was tweak them and suddenly he had the ability to disarm those he wanted to murder en mass.

    So Jefferson gives us another poignant warning about laws like this:


    It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
    Thomas Jefferson

    Thomas Paine,who wrote the book "Common Sense",which helped provoke the political climate that resulted in the Great Revolution,said something similar:

    He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
    Thomas Paine
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2012