PDA

View Full Version : Sen. Ted Cruz on PBS


dchem
01-08-2013, 2:58 AM
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june13/cruz_01-07.html

He intends to "lead the fight to stop Sen. Dianne Feinstein's bill to pass aggressive gun control."

:cool2:

stix213
01-08-2013, 3:05 AM
I think he is the only candidate I donated money to that actually won this election.

"gun control policies don't work.... and they are contrary to the Constitution" - Well said

GrizzlyGuy
01-08-2013, 8:40 AM
He will lead the fight against aggressive gun control, but he is also in favor of strengthening the background check system: GOP Sen. Cruz calls for strengthening background-check system for gun sales (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/275809-gop-sen-cruz-calls-for-strengthening-background-check-system-for-gun-sales)

"Are there things we can do? Sure. One of the things we could do is we could improve the quality of the federal database," Cruz said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday." "Right now a lot of states, a lot of local jurisdictions, are not reporting criminal convictions, not reporting mental health barriers to ownership. And so the federal database is not nearly as good as it should be. That would be a common-sense improvement."

stix213
01-08-2013, 11:00 AM
He will lead the fight against aggressive gun control, but he is also in favor of strengthening the background check system: GOP Sen. Cruz calls for strengthening background-check system for gun sales (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/275809-gop-sen-cruz-calls-for-strengthening-background-check-system-for-gun-sales)

If we're going to have a background check system, I can't say I'm in favor of it leaving out mental health issues that are already prohibiting.....

richard chese
01-08-2013, 11:06 AM
I think a peek at medical records would be in order when doing a background check. What do you all think?

Davidwhitewolf
01-08-2013, 11:11 AM
One of my buddies was committed to a mental institution after a suicide attempt (jump from a dam) during law school, but upon release he was easily able to buy a .44 mag revolver from a FFL because the records hadn't been updated (happily, he ended up not shooting himself and is a successful, well-adjusted person nowadays).

So yeah, there's room for improvement.

Krak
01-08-2013, 11:14 AM
I think a peek at medical records would be in order when doing a background check. What do you all think?

I don't agree with that. Once a system like that is in place, you know it is going to be exploited and used for other purposes. Before you know it, there goes doctor-patient confidentiality.

Colonel Monk
01-08-2013, 12:07 PM
Yeah, I heard this yesterday. Very good interview, and I sure wish there were more like him.

glocksmith
01-08-2013, 12:27 PM
Senator Ted Cruz is a true Patriot. I knew a few people in Texas that fought hard for him to get elected.

IPSICK
01-08-2013, 12:53 PM
So what can we do to support this guy? In the other thread, I've been accused of apathy (I just don't like pissing in the wind - i.e. writing to Feinstein, Boxer, and my rep Barbara Lee). But if we can help support a campaign to get others (politicians) who aren't so stubborn to be on Cruz's side, I'd be willing to write and contribute. I'll have to contact his office at least to what they think could be done.

Exile Machine
01-08-2013, 1:38 PM
Ted rocks. As for background checks, be very careful about what "health" related checks you allow into the equation. Because very soon the FedGov is going to be in charge of all things healthcare. It would be very simple for them to expand the term "mental illness" to suit their own aims. As an example, "prepping" could easily be labeled a form of paranoia, given a fancy psychiatric designation, and before you know it, anyone who orders 3 months of MREs to set aside for a rainy day gets committed to an institution overnight for "evaluation," followed by a visit by the local sheriff to turn over all the guns. Slippery slope there. Sure you want to keep guns out of the hands of crazies, but with the government running healthcare, they get to define the terms. Pretty soon anyone who reads the constitution or quotes the bill of rights is declared insane. It's Orwellian.

-Mark

fortdick
01-08-2013, 1:42 PM
I don't agree with that. Once a system like that is in place, you know it is going to be exploited and used for other purposes. Before you know it, there goes doctor-patient confidentiality.

Obamacare did that already. Health records are being computerized by the govt. Ask your doctor. The feds have access. Nothing is secret.

liv4spd
01-08-2013, 1:49 PM
Ted rocks. As for background checks, be very careful about what "health" related checks you allow into the equation. Because very soon the FedGov is going to be in charge of all things healthcare. It would be very simple for them to expand the term "mental illness" to suit their own aims. As an example, "prepping" could easily be labeled a form of paranoia, given a fancy psychiatric designation, and before you know it, anyone who orders 3 months of MREs to set aside for a rainy day gets committed to an institution overnight for "evaluation," followed by a visit by the local sheriff to turn over all the guns. Slippery slope there. Sure you want to keep guns out of the hands of crazies, but with the government running healthcare, they get to define the terms. Pretty soon anyone who reads the constitution or quotes the bill of rights is declared insane. It's Orwellian.

-Mark

Valid retort.

SickofSoCal
01-08-2013, 2:02 PM
Ted rocks. As for background checks, be very careful about what "health" related checks you allow into the equation. Because very soon the FedGov is going to be in charge of all things healthcare. It would be very simple for them to expand the term "mental illness" to suit their own aims. As an example, "prepping" could easily be labeled a form of paranoia, given a fancy psychiatric designation, and before you know it, anyone who orders 3 months of MREs to set aside for a rainy day gets committed to an institution overnight for "evaluation," followed by a visit by the local sheriff to turn over all the guns. Slippery slope there. Sure you want to keep guns out of the hands of crazies, but with the government running healthcare, they get to define the terms. Pretty soon anyone who reads the constitution or quotes the bill of rights is declared insane. It's Orwellian.

-Mark


That is already happening....



Doomsday Prepper Declared Mental Defective…. Government confiscates his Guns

Just days after appearing on the National Geographic TV Show Doomsday Preppers, a prepper from Tennessee has been declared Mentally Defective and his guns have been seized by the government. The Prepper, David Sarti is a character to say the least, but his story is somewhat disturbing and should be a wake up call for everyone.

Jason_2111
01-08-2013, 2:38 PM
Holy cow... someone rational and sane in the Senate!

He'll probably die in a plane crash or something. It's the bad ones like DiFi that stick around forever.

DrDavid
01-08-2013, 2:40 PM
I think a peek at medical records would be in order when doing a background check. What do you all think?

I think you should take a very long walk off a very short pier.

Seriously, the state should look at your MEDICAL RECORDS?!? Are you insane?

bigdawg86
01-08-2013, 2:54 PM
I think a peek at medical records would be in order when doing a background check. What do you all think?

1.) Your sounding just as irrational as the Anti's themselves.

2.) That's just plain stupid with hint of communism.

3.) Do actually think that medical records are in some sort of single matrix database where you just type in a name and "wha La!" You watch too much NCIS.

4.) Once you peek at records, where would you draw the line? Benzos? SSRIs? Narcotics? Will there be a limit to what is and isn't ok to use? That's just a cluster **** of a can o worms.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

stix213
01-08-2013, 3:09 PM
1.) Your sounding just as irrational as the Anti's themselves.

2.) That's just plain stupid with hint of communism.

3.) Do actually think that medical records are in some sort of single matrix database where you just type in a name and "wha La!" You watch too much NCIS.

4.) Once you peek at records, where would you draw the line? Benzos? SSRIs? Narcotics? Will there be a limit to what is and isn't ok to use? That's just a cluster **** of a can o worms.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I agree, once you start involving medical records you should expect all kinds of things to become lifetime disqualifiers. Medical diagnosis, medications, vision records, pretty much anything that can be used to ban you will be.

I'm personally fine with the 5150/5250 bans, because they go beyond a simple medical diagnosis, but I don't think we should be basing your gun rights on a doctor's hand written note in your records.

Davidwhitewolf
01-08-2013, 3:17 PM
I agree, once you start involving medical records you should expect all kinds of things to become lifetime disqualifiers. Medical diagnosis, medications, vision records, pretty much anything that can be used to ban you will be.

My brother's a doc, and when I mused about getting a genetic analysis done just for sh*ts and giggles, he told me in no uncertain terms to have it done overseas rather than by a company subject to US law. That's just to avoid disqualifiers for insurance purposes, but it's way too easy to conceptualize using that sort of thing against an individual's RKBA.

I'm personally fine with the 5150/5250 bans, because they go beyond a simple medical diagnosis, but I don't think we should be basing your gun rights on a doctor's hand written note in your records.

This.

FWIW, my doc likes to chat about his AR whenever I visit, but I know they're not all like that.

kaligaran
01-08-2013, 4:06 PM
I think a peek at medical records would be in order when doing a background check. What do you all think?

I don't think so. Your medical records are confidential.

HOWEVER, if your mental health record bans you from owning based on current gun ownership laws, then that should be reported.
Just like felonies should be reported.

So basically I'm suggesting to use the existing laws ONLY and put mechanisms in place to ensure they are being accurately enforced.

vincewarde
01-09-2013, 12:45 AM
He will lead the fight against aggressive gun control, but he is also in favor of strengthening the background check system: GOP Sen. Cruz calls for strengthening background-check system for gun sales (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/275809-gop-sen-cruz-calls-for-strengthening-background-check-system-for-gun-sales)

IMHO this is one of the smartest things we can do at this point:

1) It shows we are concerned

2) It shows that lots of politicians - including the president - who want more gun laws are not even willing to make the most of the laws on the books.

After Virginia Tech, the smartest thing the NRA did was to beat Brady to the punch by calling for reporting of mental health commitments to be mandatory.

We win if current laws work - which is why enforcement of them is so weak.

I wrote more extensively about this here (http://reasonedpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/01/common-ground-5-gun-control-measures.html).

Haverecords
01-09-2013, 2:32 AM
Very well and carefully said--as well as correct.. But the 'health' related checks are likely something needing further development and perhaps even strengthening. We do have a legal and social 'problem' when it comes to mental health and access to firearms, and have reason to address it for the sake of the proper promulgation of the second amendment.

I say development, as much thought would need to into developing a acceptably just construction, and discourse on the subject is absent, and thus no conceptual development. That *is* the social discussion our country should be having when it comes to gun control and recent tragedies instead of this banning nonsense.

I say we allow these checks into the equation to try to right the focus of the social discussion. It is something that us 2A advocates can work simply as a matter of reforming the promulgation and enforcement of the law AND something that would challenge the mass media narrative being rammed down everyone's throats--we'd be working to solve a problem, instead of being easily cast as protectors of a problem, and that might force them (or at least the general populace) to consider and engage with us on why we think these 'assault weapons' are needed to guarantee the rights afforded in the 2A, and what those rights really are, and why they exist--something that isn't really being discussed out there. We've got to change the course of the social and political debate to stand a chance here, otherwise we're just going to get trucked along with our rights (probably will anyway...).

It is conceivable that just mental health restrictions and checks could be developed--and we should at least try to do that. They're going to expand the checks and restrictions anyway, so we might as help with it with an eye to preserving the 2A. If we are able to develop it on the legal side, as a matter of promulgation (even to the extent of a national system) we might be able to specify, legally, what counts as mental health related issues that would inhibit firearm ownership, and thereby head off the nebulous power and reach of Obamacare.

It isn't just Orwellian. its Kafkaesque.



Ted rocks. As for background checks, be very careful about what "health" related checks you allow into the equation. Because very soon the FedGov is going to be in charge of all things healthcare. It would be very simple for them to expand the term "mental illness" to suit their own aims. As an example, "prepping" could easily be labeled a form of paranoia, given a fancy psychiatric designation, and before you know it, anyone who orders 3 months of MREs to set aside for a rainy day gets committed to an institution overnight for "evaluation," followed by a visit by the local sheriff to turn over all the guns. Slippery slope there. Sure you want to keep guns out of the hands of crazies, but with the government running healthcare, they get to define the terms. Pretty soon anyone who reads the constitution or quotes the bill of rights is declared insane. It's Orwellian.

-Mark

dchem
01-09-2013, 6:23 AM
So what can we do to support this guy? In the other thread, I've been accused of apathy (I just don't like pissing in the wind - i.e. writing to Feinstein, Boxer, and my rep Barbara Lee). But if we can help support a campaign to get others (politicians) who aren't so stubborn to be on Cruz's side, I'd be willing to write and contribute. I'll have to contact his office at least to what they think could be done.

Best thing you can do is to tell your own representatives that you are very politically active person who will campaign hard against gun control measures. That your action will include any legal means such as perennial campaigning against any incumbent candidates who voted in favor of new gun control measures, participating in lawsuits against unconstitutional gun control measures, and voting in local, state, and national election against politicians who voted in favor of gun control measures.

Politicians are like dogs. You have to train them to behave properly and you have to keep them on a leash.

EM2
01-09-2013, 6:52 AM
I think a peek at medical records would be in order when doing a background check. What do you all think?


NOPE
Only if adjudicated in a court of law and the person were found deficient.
Then of course it would be another matter.

Keep their hands off my, yours, our medical records.