PDA

View Full Version : ObamaCare Could be Used to Ban Guns in Home Self-Defense


Equalizer2
10-09-2009, 9:59 PM
ObamaCare Could be Used to Ban Guns in Home Self-Defense

Gun Owners of America
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.”

* A d v e r t i s e m e n t
* constitution ObamaCare Could be Used to Ban Guns in Home Self Defense

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.

ACTION: Contact your two U.S. Senators. Ask him or her, in the strongest terms, to vote against the phony Baucus bill.

You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center 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 [Kathleen Sebelius] 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,

xxxxxxxxx

Gator Monroe
10-09-2009, 10:01 PM
A Home with Firearms is an unsafe home (And Children would have to be removed for their own safety ...):eek:

berto
10-09-2009, 10:06 PM
No Compromise :TFH:

advocatusdiaboli
10-09-2009, 10:15 PM
Oh give me a break. To stretch a universal healthcare bill into a "I am a fixin' ta' seize yer weapons avast me hearties we be pirates!" bill is paranoid delusion at it's finest.

There is no way that brining US healthcare up to par with the rest of the G8 requires confiscation of firearms. It didn't in the other 7 of the G8 and it won't here.

Stop being knee jerk patsies and think for yourselves. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are your friends! You cannot afford their rates for corruption (i.e. campaign finance). You are not on their radar. Only the corporations with their well-funded lobbyists are. Period. End of story. The end.

Either wakeup or be their zombie. Arrrrggghh! Obama! Arrrggghh!

RRangel
10-09-2009, 10:52 PM
This has been a concern even without government mandated healthcare as the anti-gun statists have been trying to rig medical statistics against gun ownership for some years.

See the biased American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association on guns and you'll understand. For the most part it really hasn't been so successful, but a government takeover of healthcare in this nation brings us one stop closer to more infringement of our gun rights. This is also one more good reason for government to stay out of the healthcare industry, especially the current administration.

Hologon
10-09-2009, 11:00 PM
There is no way that brining US healthcare up to par with the rest of the G8 requires confiscation of firearms. It didn't in the other 7 of the G8 and it won't here.


You are correct.

Firearms confiscation in the other 7 nations happened/is happening independently of state healthcare statutes and mandates.

Regardless:

1. we should still have doubts regarding the proposed reforms to the health care system

2. we should expect continued and increased attacks from lawmakers on our 2A rights

Sabot
10-09-2009, 11:17 PM
Obamacare is complete control over every aspect of our lives. Don't underestimate how far this can be taken. Even the furthest , most paranoid theory "will become reality".

Scratch705
10-09-2009, 11:32 PM
obamacare won't take away guns, it will take away red meat, salts, beer, soda, butter, etc etc anything that is deemed to be unhealthy. since it will be determined that eating these items will decrease your health and that equals more medical care needed. so in order to make healthcare more "efficient" all bad foods will be banned or become highly controlled.

so don't worry, guns won't matter once all we can eat is grass and water.

M198
10-09-2009, 11:53 PM
I hear they are going to melt all our guns down to make more black helicopters. :TFH:

5hundo
10-10-2009, 12:17 AM
Pretty far-fetched, if you ask me... :rolleyes:

wildhawker
10-10-2009, 12:26 AM
GOA said it, it must be true...

bwiese
10-10-2009, 12:47 AM
There are enough issues with gov't-run health care that we can safely ignore irrelevant GOA harangues about it and concentrate on rational fears.

GOA needed something to yap about, that's all. Maybe they needed to stir up some donations to get a new rug in the den.

Chk Chk Boom
10-10-2009, 1:12 AM
so in order to make healthcare more "efficient" all bad foods will be banned or become highly controlled.

10 day waiting period on my T-Bone?!?! :eek:

THIS IS MADNESS

GrizzlyGuy
10-10-2009, 7:48 AM
I think that's a bit over the top. There are plenty of activities that people engage in that are statistically far more dangerous than owning a gun. If they excluded coverage for all those, you'd end up with many more people with no coverage than you have today. Not gonna happen...

Gator Monroe
10-10-2009, 7:52 AM
tHE bAN jETSKI'S ON LAKES & made NHL players wear helmets and posters here think Democrat Gungrabbers have not put the fix in in the 1000+ pg. health care bills ? Pollyanna or fud or both ...

Sam .223
10-10-2009, 8:00 AM
if this were to happen, and they use health care to implement gun control they would risk loseing thier crown jewel to a 2a lawsuit and i don't think they'll want to put their health care at risk for that.

loather
10-10-2009, 8:16 AM
so don't worry, guns won't matter once all we can eat is grass and water.

Puts a new meaning to the word, "sheeple"

JagerTroop
10-10-2009, 9:02 AM
10 day waiting period on my T-Bone?!?! :eek:

THIS IS MADNESS

Damn near coughed Monster Energy drink out my nose on that one :rofl2:

Still burns a little.

B Strong
10-10-2009, 9:24 AM
GOA isn't the best source for anti-gun legislation information - they were behind the so-called Veteran's Disarmament Act hoo-doo.

POLICESTATE
10-10-2009, 9:47 AM
Even if true it's an unenforcable code. Even if they were to pull information from 4473's on who owns guns they would still have to prove they are kept in the home LOADED in the first place. How are they going to do that? They can't. Of course I suppose they could loop things into the regulations about allowing inspections in your home which many of us would never agree to on matter of principle in the first place. You cannot be compelled to sign an agreement just because it's a law after all, especially when it comes to purchasing a product. Which is what health insurance is, it's a product.

It's the not the thing as auto insurance, yes you have to buy it to drive your car BUT if you don't want to drive then you don't need auto insurance.

Health insurance on the other hand, the way they look at it, should be mandatory for all Americans to buy, and for what? Simply because WE LIVE? Well if there are no products out on the market I am interested in buying then I'm not buying. I guess they will just have to shoot me then.

Most of the GOA crap is nothing but FUD, even if this crap were true let them try and enforce it. At some point even the ACLU would start suing for violation of civil liberties and yada yada. Would be funny to watch Obama and all the rest of his scum bag socialist cronies sit back with their "hard earned" victory only to watch it get tied up in court cases.

Even tyrants are subject to the courts in this country.

vengerltc
10-10-2009, 12:06 PM
Linking health care to gun control is a huge stretch. This is like the death panel bunk.

A public option or single payer in addition to private options is a good idea in my opinion. Balances the private insurance companies denying care. If you have ever experienced that scenario it is horrible and we need something to fill the gap. Now is the "demolition man" scenario possible where they financially discourage meat and soda like they do with smoke and booze sure.

I just hate how people are making everything Obama automatically bad. I dont agree with a lot of his ideas but he is not evil or anything. Seems like there is only left and right these days and that prevents anything meaningful happening for the middle these days.


Never understood why democrats are anti gun? They seem to be the party of individuality and respect for personal choices so why do they draw the line at responsible firearms ownership? But saying they want to use the healthcare bill for gun control is unfounded.

Calguns2000
10-10-2009, 1:14 PM
Ridiculous

ripcurlksm
10-10-2009, 4:02 PM
Stop being knee jerk patsies and think for yourselves.

Hmm, knee jerk? Is that why you joined the forums a month before the election? :D

mossberg500
10-10-2009, 4:11 PM
the healthcare bill is a 1000 pages of trash paper... thats for sure, obama needs to grow up.

advocatusdiaboli
10-10-2009, 6:19 PM
Look Obama doesn't like his bill anyway--and I agree--I don't like it either. Folks it's about friggin' health care and nothing else! If Obama is going go after our right to bear he'll do it plainly and clearly and we'll challenge him every step of the way. But this wild-eyed paranoia about everything Obama needs to stop. Adams didn't always agree with Jefferson or Madison--but not just because of who he was--he listened to what he said and worked on that. That difference is the essence of democracy and we are losing it and fast. For the first time, I truly am starting to fear for this nation and this bold experiment. We are not even 300 years old and already starting to fall apart. IF we don't start working together we are going to watch the Chinese take over our top status and we'll be too divided to pose significant opposition. And that, far more than the imagined Obama threat, is truly scary to me.

Seesm
10-10-2009, 6:28 PM
obama (in lower case) is a worthless person, I even hate to see or hear his name.

He is finally the person to say "YES" to all the stupid idea ever thought up.

He is a cancer... We need hope and change finally... (hope to lose bho and change with a new leader)

Dwight K. Schrute
10-10-2009, 7:17 PM
obama (in lower case) is a worthless person, I even hate to see or hear his name.

He is finally the person to say "YES" to all the stupid idea ever thought up.

He is a cancer... We need hope and change finally... (hope to lose bho and change with a new leader)

O rly? Did you know he won the nobel prize?
/sarc

As far as healthcare as a backdoor to guns... maybe. They wouldn't come and take them, but I could imagine them making you pay a surcharge or safety fee of some sort for continuing to possess the firearms.

These are people who's instincts tell them to ban items that they do not like.

They've banned trans fat in NY, they're trying to ban them across the country, they banned new fast food restaurants in LA, they're trying to tax soft drinks, they want to tax fast food, they BANNED LIGHT BULBS for obama's sake. You don't think they would go after guns? Come on.

kperry
10-10-2009, 7:18 PM
FUD - exactly like the 'Death Panels'. There is enough to worry about in this massive government giveaway to the insurance companies and intrusion into personal privacy without bringing in the black helicopter paranoia.
Frankly, I think that anyone dumb enough to believe the 'Death Panel' ridiculousness (the AARP is a far bigger, and better-funded lobby than the NRA - Congress knows where their bread is buttered) needs to go in front of a 'Death Panel' and turned into Soylent BioDiesel - that much weapons-grade stupid would taste terrible.

Cos
10-11-2009, 11:47 AM
There is no way that brining US healthcare up to par with the rest of the G8 requires confiscation of firearms. It didn't in the other 7 of the G8 and it won't here.

Very interesting point of view, indeed! So, all of a sudden the healthcare 'reform' is about bringing it up to par with the rest of G8. Great!

Let's assume - just for a short moment - that this is an thue end of the 'reform'. Let's then take a look in firearms laws in the rest of G8. Say, UK? Or may be Russia? Or may be Germany's Waffengesetz of 1972? Shall I keep going?

Sorry, the facts are against your statement. The health reforms of these countries were not affecting firearms for a reason: they already had VERY strict firearms legislation in place.

Cos
10-11-2009, 11:49 AM
Obamacare is complete control over every aspect of our lives. Don't underestimate how far this can be taken. Even the furthest , most paranoid theory "will become reality".

Like infamous 'inter-state commerce' clause :-( Who could ever imagine how far it will go...

Cos
10-11-2009, 11:51 AM
10 day waiting period on my T-Bone?!?! :eek:

THIS IS MADNESS

And mandatory colon exam to make sure didn't sneak one illegally in a last a coupla days :-D

bwiese
10-11-2009, 12:25 PM
Can we move this thread to Off Topic since it's GOA and has nothing to do with reality?

Glock22Fan
10-11-2009, 12:37 PM
Linking health care to gun control is a huge stretch. This is like the death panel bunk.

A public option or single payer in addition to private options is a good idea in my opinion. Balances the private insurance companies denying care. If you have ever experienced that scenario it is horrible and we need something to fill the gap. Now is the "demolition man" scenario possible where they financially discourage meat and soda like they do with smoke and booze sure.

I just hate how people are making everything Obama automatically bad. I dont agree with a lot of his ideas but he is not evil or anything. Seems like there is only left and right these days and that prevents anything meaningful happening for the middle these days.


Never understood why democrats are anti gun? They seem to be the party of individuality and respect for personal choices so why do they draw the line at responsible firearms ownership? But saying they want to use the healthcare bill for gun control is unfounded.


You have GOT to be joking!

7x57
10-11-2009, 1:04 PM
Presumably GoA relies on most readers not knowing much about Montana politics. I doubt it has changed that much in the last twenty years. This is what politics is like in a really free state:

NRA A+ rated Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus is pro-gun beyond your wildest dreams and wishes about the California Republican party. Fer pete's sake--he's a co-signer of the "no renewed AW ban" letter--consider the fact that being pro-scary-assault-weapons is a political *plus* in Montana that you want trumpeted everywhere. You can be certain that he would not intentionally have such a provision in the bill (though I imagine he doesn't know what all is in that mammoth thing either, and he probably knows more than most--and nobody can guess the ramifications of some simple-looking laws).

Besides the fact that so far as I know Max is a hunter himself, if he ever did anything intentionally anti-gun and word of it got back home he'd be as welcome as Josef Mengele in a Jewish retirement home.

NB: I don't actually like Baucus much, and long ago had the pleasure of being able to vote against him. That tells you just how long he's been a fixture in Montana politics without getting an "anti-gun" albatross hung around his neck. Montana senators who like their jobs are very aware that their entire state is armed and means to stay that way. And the more generally liberal policies you support, the more you'd better make sure the gun-lovin' rank-and-file union members who re-elect you know that you're pro-gun. The NRA doesn't give an A+ for nothing, and Max Baucus doesn't carefully maintain his A+ for nothing. Maybe he also believes it--it's entirely possible. But it doesn't matter, because he believes in survival.

All that having been said--there is and has been efforts to define guns as a public health problem. That is no doubt at the root of this. And it *is* a worry worth keeping half an eye on, though I frankly think that it was a trial balloon that never went anywhere and whose time is now past. But whether the due-date has expired on that gambit or not, Max Baucus is an extremely unlikely supporter.

7x57

tallic68
10-11-2009, 1:21 PM
They can put open carry laws in a credit cad bill, why wouldn't they hide anti-gun stuff in a health care bill.

I do think it's a bit far fetched i agree. But I wouldn't be suprised.

7x57
10-11-2009, 1:40 PM
A bit more on Baucus and Montana gun politics:


In 1999, he was the only Democrat to vote against an amendment by Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) that sought to "regulate the sale of firearms at gunshows." Baucus can be frequently found hunting and fishing on public lands around Montana.


And I just noticed this (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5170) from the NRA:


This week comes the news that U.S. Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.), are joining forces with U.S. Representatives Mark Souder (R-Ind.) and Mike Ross (D-Ark.), in filing a joint, pro-Second Amendment amicus curiae (Friend of the Court) brief before the Supreme Court in the McDonald v. Chicago case.

...

Sen. Tester, who serves as Vice Chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, said, "The Second Amendment guarantees gun rights for all law-abiding Americans, no matter where they live. I'm glad Republicans and Democrats are working together to tell the Supreme Court we expect it to stand up for our gun rights in this important case."


I didn't see Tester's NRA rating though, and don't have time to track it down just now.

The point is, in Montana even the people who think your money belongs to the state don't go after your guns.

7x57