Oh.. and Bush was terrible and the patriot act is insane.
****. Hope that never happens to me.
Well I think it's unlikely that they'll strike another Walgreens, so you should be fine.
as someone said earlier. The devil is in the details.
That really wasn't my complaint or the point of any of my posts about this . . . my point is that I think there could be some doctors using this as leverage against patients. I want unbiased care based on my medical condition.
Like others on here I contacted Senator Coburn about this issue . . . part of his response is below.
Improving the information exchange would be a great place to start IMO.There are many factors which should be examined carefully when considering preventive measures to ensure similar situations do not occur again. While a firearm was used to execute this heinous act, focusing on the weapon alone overlooks other key facts including the mental health of the killer. As a physician, I believe our nation could do more to ensure those with mental illnesses that are a threat to themselves and others have access to treatment and are prevented from accessing firearms. To this end, officials at every level of government must examine our laws and policies aimed at ensuring those who are prohibited from attaining firearms, including the seriously mentally ill, are identified and prevented from accessing firearms. Currently, persons who have been adjudicated as a “mental defective” are supposed to be included in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Index, which is used by firearm sellers to determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to purchase firearms. In 2007, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act (P.L. 110-180) which established incentives for state, local, and tribal governments to increase the compliance of states reporting seriously mentally ill persons to the NICS system. However, a July 2012 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study found that these incentives have not been implemented, and the law has not achieved the intended purpose of improving the reporting rates of mental health records by states. As of October 2011, only 12 states had made substantial improvement in reporting, while almost half of the states, including Oklahoma, had barely made any progress in this area. While states have primacy in passing laws and establishing policies on how to submit records to the NICS index, Congress should review, and amend if necessary, the recently passed NICS Improvement Act to ensure that it achieves it intended purpose of properly identifying and preventing access to firearms for those who are prohibited from it.
When Obama signed his 23 Executive Orders this morning, #16 was to clarify that Obamacare "does not prohibit doctors [from] asking patients about guns in their homes." Yet it must be understood that even if they ask these questions, they can't compile their answers into a list which they then pass on to the government.
This prohibition comes courtesy of Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).
When Obamacare was being debated in the Senate in 2010, Reid inserted an amendment that forbids the government from using doctors to compile information for a gun registry.
In fact, the amendment makes it clear that Obamacare cannot be construed to authorize doctors to collect "information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition."
Therefore, even if doctors take today's 16th Executive Order to heart and ask their patients about guns, the answers cannot be used to form some type of gun registry database.
So...in the Affordable Healthcare Act doctors can ask about guns in home but can't document the fact...to help control gun violence the new gun EO wants doctors to ask about guns in the household but can't document the fact that the question was asked or answered...
Quality shit here...two big thumbs up!
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Have you MET any doctors? Most simply won't do this. Most won't answer the doctor's question. Most don't go to the doctor hardly ever. Even if the WORST case happens, and doctors somehow feel obligated not only to ask this medically irrelevant question, but also to document it, and then report it to the federal government, you still don't have to answer.
I mean, come on guys.
Also Mallen, why does the CDC need to study gun violence? Last time i checked a gun was not a disease. Seems like an opportunity to declare guns a public health hazard.
Could you see a point in the future that our government declares a gun a public health hazard and further restricts our ability to buy guns and/or keep guns if we have kids in our home?
Funny. If the CDC wants to study something how about the disease holding the gun?
The second point is not about right now. Piss too many people off by going from "you can't collect/disclose" straight to "you must". Baby steps, first you make it ok do do it but not manditory, then you make it mandatory a year later or whatever.
Personally I dont think the EOs amount to much if they dont get new law through the congress. And I dont think they are going to get more than universal background checks through. The 94 gun ban is probably helping right now, because the gun grabbers can't even look at that time and say "look how well it worked!"
Socialist gradualism they attack the right and depict its supporters as evil until they curtail and eliminate the right.
Yeah! DHS is getting involved in gun control.
DHS to 'Expand and Formalize Coordination' on Gun Control Efforts
Janet Napolitano, head of the Department of Homeland Security, released a statement Wednesday saying she is "proud to support" the Obama administration's efforts to "combat gun violence in our country." Here's more from Napolitano's statement:
In the aftermath of the tragic Newtown shooting, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), together with the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the FBI have worked to identify measures that could be taken to reduce the risk of mass casualty shootings. In the coming days, DHS will expand and formalize coordination of ongoing efforts intended to prevent future mass casualty shootings, improve preparedness, and to strengthen security and resilience in schools and other potential targets. DHS will work with partners at all levels of government, to address five critical areas intended to reduce the risk of mass casualty shootings in the United States: Prevention, Protection, Response, Education, and Research/Evaluation. DHS will also work with law enforcement to refresh, expand and prioritize the implementation of nationwide public awareness efforts such as the “If You See Something, Say Something™” campaign. This is a critical issue that requires immediate attention and I look forward to supporting the President and this Administration as we move ahead.
HURT: Gun edicts put personal liberty under fire
To be honest they are doing the right thing by going after the "problem" in multiple paths....
If I were to have to control a quality or waste problem in a manufacturing facility I would take a bunch of different angles...production, QA, training, enginieering, and IT would all be involved and would have specific tasks and duties...Obama is actually doing the right thing...
Will some of the others things help, maybe but how much our liberties will we have to surrender in the process?
Hold on now...I didn't say I agreed with the specifics...most are actually fine...the methodology of attacking the "problem" on multiple angles is correct...
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Over and under on the first crazy to get arrested for threatening to kill various government officials over all of this?
10 days to three weeks is my guess.
Someone wanting to buy a gun should have their HS diploma... yup, I went there.
I'd be willing to bet it would actually be more effective than just banning guns based on looks.