Reid's HCR protects our GUN RIGHTS people!

[IndianaGreen]

<‘‘(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.—

‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.—A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to—

‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or
‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.


from daily Kos

<http://www.dailykos.com/ >

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=75511&mesg_id=75852

Thanks to DUer amborin for spotting this nugget. They flushed our reproductive rights down the toilet, but by GAWD, we get to keep our guns.

[amborin]

1. just unbelievable! guns over reproductive rights!

[girl_interrupted]

2. K&R

[tburnsten]

10. I don't think it was one vs the other

just sayin'

[slackmaster]

23. The issue is privacy, not guns

:nuke:

[-..__...]

26. Imagine the outrage...

if a tending medical specialist (in a field unrelated to womens issues or physical condition), were to ask if she had ever had an abortion?

I guess some folks had never heard of or read incidents of doctors asking patients/parents if they have any firearms in the home.

Now... what do I tell my doc when he asks me about why I have elevated levels of lead in my blood? :smoke:

[tburnsten]

31. Boating accident N/T

[appal_jack]

43. Been a big spate of those lately.

People really need to start being more careful when going boating with their entire firearms collections!

;-)

-app

[hack89]

3. Guns are less controversial nt

[GreenStormCloud]

4. 40 states have shall-issue (Or easier) CCW laws.

That is 80 senators from gun-friendly states. You expect anything different?

[benEzra]

5. It's not an either-or choice. It should protect both.

This does show that the GOA sky-is-falling rhetoric about health care reform is BS, though.

[Euromutt]

12. I agree, but there's a difference to bear in mind

There's no cost involved in telling public health officials they can't ask about lawful possession of firearms. Birth control, like it or not, costs money.

[rd_kent]

6. At least they got SOMETHING right.

[rhett o rick]

7. "Liberals arm thy selves." I think it says that in the Bible. nt

[Euromutt]

35. Luke 22:36 comes close

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Of course, at the same point in the narrative in Matthew, Jesus cautions that he who lives by the sword will die by the sword, but that's the Bible for you: you can find a passage to support literally anything.

[tburnsten]

36. Living by the sword and possessing a sword are not the same thing at all

So no, I don't think you can find a passage to support anything you want, without some linguistic gymnastics.

[Euromutt]

37. Strictly speaking true, but I refer you to the context

Matthew 26:50-52

50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus and took him.

51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.

52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

That's the KJV, but when in doubt, I turn to Young's Literal translation:

52 Then saith Jesus to him, `Turn back thy sword to its place; for all who did take the sword, by the sword shall perish;

So in context, we have Jesus disapproving of a use of lethal force that I, at least, would consider a legitimate defensive use. Also, note the original does not actually say "live by the sword" (though that's the way it's usually paraphrased), but rather "take the sword."

Okay, let me qualify my earlier statement; you can't actually find a passage in the Bible that will support any position, but I think it's safe to say that anything for which you can find a supporting passage in the Bible, you can also find a disapproving passage. Because ultimately, both Matthew and Luke are considered canon, so we have Jesus advising his disciples to get a sword, but paradoxically not to use it (even in defense). Note however, that neither book makes mention of Jesus has to say about swords according to the other book. The bottom line is that I don't let what the Bible does or does not say guide my decisions with regard to firearms ownership and use in self-defense.

[GreenStormCloud]

40. Not really conflicting.

At that point, Jesus was being arrested by legitimate authority to be taken to stand trial. The trial itself was conducted illegally but that is a different matter. So Peter was wrong to resist arrest, and his action could touch off an already tense situation.

Now let's expand the discussion. Jesus says to turn the other cheek. I have often heard this quoted as supporting total pacifism. I had to decide that I just didn't have that much faith. Recently I read an article that cleared it up. Jesus wan't talking about an actual attack, but was talking about provocations to fight. For men, a slap on the cheek by another man is a fighting insult in almost all cultures. But is isn't an assualt that would put you in any kind of immediate fear, just anger. So if someone tries to provoke us to fight, by insult or mere slap, ignore it - don't respond. It isn't worth a fight over. But if we are faced with a real attack, then we can defend ourselves. IOW - Walk away from a fight if the aggressor will allow it, defend yourself if you have to.

I wonder what would happen if this topic were to be posted in the R/T forum? Would it get sent here?

[tburnsten]

41. Spot on

human laws are supposed to be followed where they don't create a greater moral dillema, for example a law requiring people to drown all red-haired children between the ages of eight and 11, so resisting his arrest would have broken one of God's commandments, and also resulted in the immediate slaughter of the disciples by the troops arresting Jesus.

[SteveM]

42. In both translations there is agreement on "place," as in the sword has...

a purpose and a place. This does not mean that the sword is "to live by."

[spin]

44. Jesus, swords and self defense ....

As with many questions in our lives, self-defense has to do with wisdom, understanding, and tact. For instance, in the Luke 22 passage stated above, Jesus does tell his disciples to get a sword. Jesus knew that now was the time when Jesus would be threatened (and later killed) and his followers would be threatened as well. Jesus was giving approval of the fact that one has the right to self-defense. Now just a few verses later we see Jesus being arrested and Peter takes a sword and cuts off someone’s ear. Jesus rebukes him for that act. Why? Peter was trying to stop something that Jesus had been telling His disciples was in fact going to happen. In other words, Peter was acting unwisely in the situation. He was trying to stop something that was not supposed to be stopped. We must be wise as to when to fight and when not to.

As far as self-defense when one’s life or property is threatened, there is not a whole lot in the Bible concerning this. Exodus 22 does show quite a bit about God’s attitude towards self-defense. "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft” (Exodus 22:2-3). Obviously here we see that when a thief breaks into someone’s house at night and that person defends his home and slays the thief, God does not hold that death over the defender’s head. However, God does not wish for anyone to take law into his or her own hands. This is why it is said that if a thief is struck down during the daylight the defender is guilty of bloodshed. Now this is speaking of thievery, not an attack. So if the thief were to attack the defender even during the day, self-defense would be justified.

The proper use of self-defense has to do with wisdom, understanding, and tact. In many karate classes, one of the principles is: “Restrain your physical abilities by spiritual attainment.” This is a fancy way of saying that since one has the ability to bring great harm doesn’t mean he or she needs to use it. Just because we can break someone’s arm, doesn’t mean we need to use that ability. Just because we have a gun doesn’t mean we need to fire on someone who breaks into the home.
http://www.gotquestions.org/self-defense.html

[Betty Karlson]

8. So, how is this bill going to cover

all the exit wounds?

[jillan]

9. What does this have to do with healthcare - unless of course we get shot AND

who did they do this for?

[tburnsten]

11. Protection of personal privacy

It isn't anyone's business if a person owns a firearm, certainly not a health boards. If the person is prohibited from owning a firearm, that is a matter for the criminal court system and due process, not a health board with no oversight.

[IndianaGreen]

13. It merely illustrates the tip of the iceberg of all the bullshit in the bill

to get to 60 votes. I am surprised they didn't include a provision to take care of UFO abductees.

[Euromutt]

15. I think you're failing to make a distinction between things that cost money and things that don't

This particular measure is an easy sell because there aren't any expenses involved in telling health care officials not to inquire about and keep track of lawful firearm ownership. If anything, it heads off a potential expenditure.

By contrast, a provision mandating use of federal funds to treat self-professed UFO abductees would cost money, and would therefore be more difficult to pass.

[benEzra]

14. Because some groups (primarily GOA) were making a huge deal about how

health care reform might try to penalize people (via higher rates or whatever) for choosing to own guns, keep them accessible for defensive purposes, etc., and the gun-control lobby has certainly expressed interest in doing just that. I think it's good that this provision is in there, to head off any such attempts, and it also undermines GOA's attempts at FUD regarding the legislation.

[noamnety]

16. I can think of one reason

Let's say there is a person who is schizophrenic - hearing voices, threatening behavior, etc.

Now let's say he's in the process of getting hired as a security guard or cop with a gun and the people protecting his medical privacy are horrified and believe he could seriously end up being one of those mass shooter type people. But they aren't able to contact the company and give them a warning because of medical confidentiality. They are just standing back watching it happen because it's what the law requires them to do.

I assume that's what the provision is protecting.

[SteveM]

17. Well, there's that all due-process thing; you know the 5th Amendment...

This is the amendment both left and right love to end-run, as in: There must be SOME way we can get around legal procedure to restrict that S.O.B.!

It gave us the "No-Fly" list (How did you get on? How do you get off? Nobody knows); the Terrorist Watch List, and the "No-fly, No-buy" list, a failed attempt to compound the error by saying: If you are already on the "No-fly," then you are, ipso facto, on the "No-buy" list ---no buying of guns, that is. Yesirree, folks the left and the right can find agreement!

If the guy is dangerous, he should be adjudicated as such. Cho, of VT infamy, was adjudicated as such; but the bureaucracy of Virginia could not upchuck the stuff fast enough to get on the NICS list (even though VA is second only to CA in providing the data).

But you don't bust the Constitution because the bureaucracy is slow or inept.

I believe you will be hearing from folks who have been in LEO and security occupations, and I believe they will tell you that there is much more to hiring LEOs than scanning a rap sheet and reading 3 letters of recommendation.

[Euromutt]

18. That's an intriguing notion, but with no bearing on the actual provision

What the provision does is prevent public health officials from refusing to extend publicly-funded health care on the basis of the patient lawfully owning firearms, or declining to answer whether (s)he does.

And I have to admit that by "intriguing notion," I actually mean "hare-brained and incredible conspiracy theory." What earthly reason would anybody have to facilitate the scenario you describe?

[noamnety]

20. You are overestimating my imagination.

It's a real scenario involving people I know at the moment.

I can't imagine that the bill prevents doctors from providing health care to someone who owns guns. But I can potentially see that if a mental health provider sees a patient like the one I described (schizophrenic, making violent threats, hearing voices) they might want to be able to ask whether the person carries a gun as part of their job. Or if a psychologist is hearing their patient talk about stalking a woman - if they can tell there is something way wrong - maybe they'd want to be able to ask the question. Sounds like the bill would prevent the patient from having to answer.

[GreenStormCloud]

21. The purpose of the provision is to prevent backdoor gun control.

The anti-gun groups have shown remarkable innovation in coming up with ways to achieve gun-control without directly outlawing guns. That provision anticipates an attempt by the gun-control groups to use health care to ban guns and pre-emptively stops them.

[noamnety]

22. gun control without banning all guns sounds like a good idea.

There are some people who are dangerous to society who shouldn't have access to guns, and mental health care providers are sometimes in a good position to anticipate which people pose that sort of danger. It's unfortunate that gun control opponents are working to ensure that those professionals have to sit on that information and watch in horror as things that were entirely predictable unfold. Those scenarios work against gun advocates in the long run - it makes for good fodder for the people who want to ban ALL guns.

[slackmaster]

25. You are right in a sense...

... mental health care providers are sometimes in a good position to anticipate which people pose that sort of danger....

I agree. However, denying someone the right to own a gun without due process would be a violation of basic civil rights. The Gun Control Act prohibits people who have been ADJUDICATED as mentally incompetent from having guns. Because adjudication can be challenged in court, that law does not violate civil rights.

[noamnety]

28. That word "adjudication" is part of the issue.

Sometimes a person is referred for a more formal diagnosis, and refuses to go - because they want a career that involves access to a gun. So a provider might have a damned good idea of what's going on, but as long as the patient refuses any treatment or referral that might result in that sort of adjudication, they know they can keep it off their records.

Here's another related scenario. A school counselor is aware that a student is hearing (and listening to) voices in their head. They find out the student, after graduation, has been accepted to police academy. FERPA laws prevent the counselor from intervening to tell police they may not want to put this person on the street with a gun. It never gets to the adjudication process because the counselor can't force the student or their family to get diagnosed, and they can't by law reveal what they know.

My point isn't to override the adjudication process. I think that's reasonable and important as a civil right. But I do believe that some of the privacy laws go so far that known threats can't be reported for adjudication.

[X_Digger]

29. Any other rights..

..you'd like subject to the whims of a non-governmental entity without due process of law?

[noamnety]

30. I'm not advocating doing away with due process.

Nor am I advocating doing away with adjudication.

Reread my post.

[aikoaiko]

27. I'm sure this provision is merely attached to wellness programs and not therapy

And even if it were, psychologists and doctors are pretty good about eliciting answers to questions indirectly such what job do you have, what equipment do you use, do you have any tools for self-defense, etc.

Any doctor or psychologists would still be able to get the police involved if they though someone was a imminent danger to self or others. I read nothing in this amendment that suggests "professionals have to sit on that information and watch in horror as things that were entirely predictable unfold."

[tburnsten]

33. Mental health professionals

who feel that one of their patients is a possible threat to others already have a mechanism for doing exactly that, through the court system. It is something that requires due process, since that restriction has a major impact on the restricted persons life, much larger than you would think if you haven't read up on it or fully considered it.

[Euromutt]

34. I seem to be overestimating and underestimating it simultaneously

I can't imagine that the bill prevents doctors from providing health care to someone who owns guns.

I didn't say "doctors," I said "public health officials." I also didn't say they might refuse to provide health care at all, but rather publicly funded health care; i.e. you can get the care, but you have to pay for it out of your own pocket.

And the question remains: why would anyone want to implement the scenarios you describe?

[GreenStormCloud]

19. So we sacrifice everybodies' rights because somebody might do something bad? N/T

[tburnsten]

32. My doctor doesn't supervise every aspect of my life

does yours?


And there is already a process for making people with certain severe mental health conditions ineligible to own firearms, so the situation you envisioned is kind of unrealistic and unneccessary.

[-..__...]

24. "They flushed our reproductive rights down the toilet"

They (Congress), passed legislation to overturn Roe v Wade?

I didn't know that.

[Callisto32]

38. A different view on "right."

For those of you from outside this forum, or who have forgotten about me in my long absence here is the same old disclaimer: I am a libertarian, (note the lower case "l"), not a Democrat, or anything that could probably be confused therewith.

I would say that if the bill states that you cannot get an abortion on the public tab, it is fine. Of course, I don't think that the state should be paying anybody's medical bills, and certainly not calling it a right to receive health care. Here is why. For something to be a right, I believe, it must be able to be fulfilled entirely by the voluntary actions of the person asserting the right. So, for example, you would have the right to enter into contracts with medical professionals for the tender of care in exchange for any valuable consideration you may agree upon. You cannot simply have a right to health care. Because if you have a right, you cannot rightly be denied it, and so someone HAS to provide that service for you. This is tantamount to enslaving the person who is forced, by your "right," to provide a service. Firearms are the same way. If there was a bill that was going to use tax (read: "stolen") funds to provide the populace with firearms, that would be wrong too because of the force involved in moving the wealth around. But, if someone can acquire a firearm and all of the accoutrement, and use that firearm, both in ways that do not harm others or the property of others, then he has a right to possession of that firearm.

[PavePusher]

39. That.... is the niftiest definition of a 'Right' that I have ever seen. n/t

[Callisto32]

45. Thanks.

I consider what I explained there to be my basic political principle.