Â
Â
They Trusted One Man With The Health Care Of The Entire Nation…And Now, They Are Willing To Let Him Spit On The Second Amendment…
The healthcare plan was passed by congress without having been read by congress. President Obama signed the healthcare plan and it was done without him having read the bill. And because of that blind loyalty to a single man, we have the most massive tax increase in the history of this nation that is presented as a healthcare plan. Next year, (2014) the plan will be in full force and those who praised the plan and the president will see it for what it is, and they will not like what is inevitable based upon the very words of that healthcare plan. And yet, those who have not read the bill are vilifying those of us who have taken it upon ourselves to read the bill in its entirety. The bill was passed by congress and signed by the president while the majority of the nation was opposed to it.
And now, we have the gun control issue before us, and just as with the healthcare plan, the American people will be deceived with the presentation of what is to come. Anytime that the government states that they are taking actions that are in the best interest of the people, or that it is for our security, you can bet that they will take something from us in order for them to do what they have in mind that relates to that issue.
The creation of new gun laws is an absolute joke, and we are about to see just how far that our government can take us in the direction of controlling yet another part of our lives. Those who will not obey the existing laws will not obey additional laws. The mentality that allows anyone to believe differently puzzles the hell out of me, as it literally defies any logic related to that part of our society that has actually created the problems related to the purchase, safety, and use of guns. You can argue this fact all you wish, but it remains a fact. The thugs of our society do not, nor will they respect any new gun laws that may become a reality.
With the action that President Obama wishes to take as he is supported 100% by his base, regardless as to what he may offer as a solution, just as with the healthcare plan, much will happen that will result in more control of the people of this nation. The fine print with the coming legislation will present a confused presentation of what will actually come with that legislation. If the President of the United States does not truly understand the very meaning of the “Second Amendment†he is simply over his head with his current position. The most concerning part of his quest is based on the fact that President Obama knows precisely what the amendment represents, but is responding to dissolve the power of that amendment. The second amendment has nothing to do with having guns for the purpose of hunting. The second amendment has nothing to do with using guns to protect us from home intruders who wish to take our personal possessions. The second amendment is a means for the people of this nation to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, such as the very ones who are trying to disarm the American people today.
If many lazy Americans would get off of their collective asses and read the Patriot Act, The Military Commission Act of 2006, The National Defense Authority Act, and various Executive Orders, they would see that legislation is in place that allows the government to totally take over all aspects of our lives at any given time. They cannot do so while the American people are able to defend themselves, so it is just a matter of time before they come for all of our guns. The evil ones are trying to take our nation from us, and the ignorant are helping them to do so. Many do not fear what these examples of legislation represent because they are ignorant as to the actual content of the legislation. And still, they support that legislation and continue this unconditional loyalty to a government that is removing their rights and freedoms because of that unconditional loyalty.
If you have full faith in the government and believe they will not betray the American citizens, you should agree with this list...Just as many refused to read the healthcare bill, they do not see the fine print, or the many deceptions and intrusions into our lives...But they will next year. The same will apply to this list of gun control components. The final elaborated version of the list will be massive and will stray far from the simple presentation of these 23 factors. I don't think people realize what they are asking for, or just what they are pre-approving...But, like the healthcare plan, they will soon enough...
What follows is the list of executive orders President Obama referenced minutes ago during a press conference addressing measures to reduce gun violence in the United States:
The bold print represents the “executive actions†proposed by the president, and the additional information in regular print is my opinion as to what each may actually mean or may be expanded to include. This is control at its best.
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
"RELEVANT DATA?" Just wait to see what that data will represent...You will have no secrets...
What is their definition of relevant data, and how far are you willing to let the government dig into your life?
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
This is clearly suggesting that the patient/doctor confidentiality agreement be lifted from existence. Another right that will be forfeited.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
Refer to #2...That same information will be shared from state to state. Your medical history will be known nationwide.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
By review categories, it will mean to evaluate and change categories. This will result in telling who the government simply determines should have a gun. This number will be controlled by the government.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
If you lose a gun due to a seizure, you will never get it back, even if improperly seized.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
This seems ok, depending upon what they may include as the actual factors with the guidance.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
This is unnecessary spending and involvement by the government...They should simply make the individual meet certain requirements before ownership of the gun is final. The government should not be directly involved in this process.
8. Review safety standards for gunlocks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
This is acceptable, although it depends upon the individual to take responsibility for gun safety and storage.
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
If this had been done all along, many of the people behind the crimes would have lost their guns already, and the repeat offenders could have been given proper attention.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
Why has this not been normal policy before now?
11. Nominate an ATF director.
Just wait to see how much power this guy will have...
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
This should have already been done.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
This is a good concept, in general, but my guess is that the words, "enforcement efforts" will be greatly broadened and will be intrusive.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
This will result with our government dictating who will be able to own a gun based on their personal standards, not by our rights.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
This is merely a suggestion and will be based upon what cannot be enforced. You cannot dictate cooperation. It should happen, but cannot be guaranteed. This is a feel-good addition to the issue.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
This is pure bull-shit...I will tell the doctor to mind his own damned business.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
Those within the healthcare industry will sudden have the power to simply suggest someone as being a threat and they will lose their right to gun ownership.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
They should save their money and just put a single actual police officer in each school and make it clear to all that an officer is present at all times during school hours. This would solve 99% of all school related incidents.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
This should have already been done.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
This is creative sneakiness...This is going to guarantee that anyone with Medicaid is going to be evaluated automatically and again, the government will have the ability to determine who can or cannot have a gun. This is a major control issue and the government will certainly gain control with this tool.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
People, you have to understand that the government just took over the healthcare industry. They are using the control they now have with the healthcare industry to connect it to the gun control issue. The fine print that will be involved with the connection between healthcare and gun ownership is going to be very intrusive and controlling.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
That finalizing will represent major control by our government and once again, the fine print with the final legislation will be very intrusive.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
This will result in mental analysis that will deem almost anyone as a threat to own a firearm, or at least direct it to those who are a concern to the government. The language with such a dialogue would be very cloudy and will certainly have room for fitting the results to control the outcome.
Those who are law-abiding citizens will see many changes, many limitations, and will face many intrusions. Those who have no respect for past laws will rarely be impacted by anything that is represented in the above 23 executive actions, and even the government knows it. The violence related to gun ownership by those who will not obey the laws will be used to control the gun owners who do obey the laws. Control is the actual goal with what is soon to come.
Vic Damico 2013
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 43
But what helps me is to remember God has a plan. Thanks dear friend, I think we see the same thing coming down the road.
Well thought comments. Always love your logic. (((hugs)))
The sad part is the speed it seems to be gaining day by day.... Vic, and the many many ostriches in this country.
If this had been done all along, many of the people behind the crimes would have lost their guns already, and the repeat offenders could have been given proper attention.
Does that apply to Holder with his Fast and Furious gun program?
"Does that apply to Holder with his Fast and Furious gun program?" I am quite sure that was a rhetorical question, and we both know the answer. There are two sets of rules; those that apply to the people, and those for Washington...Thank you, my dear friend...
His poor wrist must get really tired - although I guess in his student days he gave it plenty of exercise to build it up.
We have an anti-depressant epidemic! Taking guns will not stop this madness...
... and once they have a patient on medication they try to keep that person on it for life.
Anyone, a side effect is depression.
I HAVE to take the med to not die - and I take a small amount of a fairly mild anti-depressant to counteract the first med.
We can NOT jump to conclusions and say that all people this or all people that take that etc.
And yet jumping to conclusions is exactly what the government / medical / big pharma industry do. Every couple of years in the UK some government scientific adviser will resuscitate the idea that everybody over 50 should be compelled by law to take cholesterol lowering drugs (statins) even in their cholesterol level is perfectly healthy. The most recent health fascist idea was to make everybody over 50 take a daily dose of aspirin. We have also had big pharma lapdogs proposing ant - depressants in drinking water and several other proposals to medicate the entire population whether they need medicating or not.
I get three prescription drugs, one to control an endocrine condition that once sent my blood pressure off the scale, the other two I am told I must take for life because I have had high blood pressure. As soon as the endocrine condition was controlled my blood pressure dropped back to normal and with my weight only slightly higher than it should be and my heart, lungs and arteries in good shape I get two drugs I don't need.
The healthcare industry is taking a very worrying direction. Like you say people are different and need different health programs, the industry and big government like one-size-fits-all solutions.
The med that keeps me alive. also causes osteoporosis - I have a pill for that - the depression I mentioned - a pill for that - it also causes high blood pressure - 2 pills for that, it also causes potasium depletion - a pill/suppliment for that, and it detroys B complex, so a pill/vitamin for that ............. add in a small aspirin a day, and a cholestreral pill = 9 pills a day ......... it just seems to not end - but I am alive
Here's some interesting information:
Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an "AMENDMENT". No "Articles in Amendment" to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until "further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added" "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers". (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.
In this Light:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to "amended"?
THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE "MILITIA". The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the "militia" as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. "(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.)
What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the "Militia" that was so offensive to the States?
First understand that the word "militia" was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the "Militia" was every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word "militia" as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment to correct. The only definition of "Militia" that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend "People" today:
"Militia" in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power:
"To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress:
"To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Any "patriot" out there still want to be called a member of the "MILITIA" as defined by the original Constitution?
Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" The only way the States would accept the "MILITIA" as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED". The States realized that "THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE" required that the "MILITIA" as originally created in the Constitution be "WELL REGULATED" by a "restrictive clause." How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED"? By demanding that "restrictive clause two" better know as the "Second Amendment" be added to the original Constitution providing:
"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The States knew that "PEOPLE" with "ARMS" would "WELL REGULATE" the Federal "MILITIA"!
Now read for the first time with the full brightness of the Light of truth:
"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
For those still overcome by propaganda:
The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the "MILITIA" is not "WELL REGULATED" by "PEOPLE" keeping and bearing arms, the "MILITIA" becomes a threat to the "SECURITY OF A FREE STATE."
The "MILITIA" has no "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" in the Second Amendment, rather it is only "THE RIGHT OF THE ""PEOPLE"" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
From: http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_well_regulated_militia.html
Most folks don't think much about the fact that the 2nd amendment had to amend/change something and should look at what was changed and about what the states disagreed.
2nd Amendment Quotes
Breitbart.com says:
It seems that in their haste to cram socialized medicine down the throats of the American people, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Barack Obama overlooked Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c.
According to reports, that amendment says the government cannot use doctors to collect "any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition."
CNN is calling it "a gift to the nation's powerful gun lobby."
And according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), that's exactly right. He says he added the provision in order to keep the NRA from getting involved in the legislative fight over Obamacare, which was so ubiquitous in 2010.
I've also wondered about Reid's amendment that was sneaked in in the middle of the night.
Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill--and it's supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:
there's one provision that i found particularly troubling and it's under section c, titled "limitations on changes to this subsection."
and i quote -- "it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."
this is not legislation. it's not law. this is a rule change. it's a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.
i'm not even sure that it's constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. i don't see why the majority party wouldn't put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates.
i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/harry_reid_slips_in_a_bombshel.html
During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.
The above words suggest that the Constitution with its own words could be a threat to the civilians of this nation based upon the fact that it could allow a tyrannical government to exist. The Bill of rights came to be in order to prevent the government from becoming a tyrannical government by establishing the actual rights of the common citizens to prevent that possibility.
Look at the Amendments...
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The bill of rights, as long as they are respected and allowed to stand will not let our government control the people, or to take a stand against the people of this nation. This is why you see Washington gradually attempting to attack these rights, one at a time. They stand between "We the people" and "A government that controls the people." Sadly, about half of the nation is clueless with the magnitude of power to the people, that is represented by the "Bill of Rights."
Vic, I've been meaning to ask you about what's been said about something that's supposed to be in Obamacare.
Breitbart.com says:
It seems that in their haste to cram socialized medicine down the throats of the American people, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Barack Obama overlooked Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c.
According to reports, that amendment says the government cannot use doctors to collect "any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition."
CNN is calling it "a gift to the nation's powerful gun lobby."
And according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), that's exactly right. He says he added the provision in order to keep the NRA from getting involved in the legislative fight over Obamacare, which was so ubiquitous in 2010.
First of all, the fact that Harry Reid actually admitted that he made a move to prevent an organization (which in a manner, represents a specific group of American citizens) from having any input with one of the largest pieces of legislation ever passed by our government, tell us of the character of Harry Reid. The health care plan was a deception from the beginning. Steps were taken by all associated with the writing, presenting, and even voting, as it related to the healthcare bill, to get the bill passed, regardless of the many obstacles and objections. Keep in mind, that bill passed with a national disapproval rating of almost 65%.
I said before the bill was passed. Washington does not care what is in the healthcare bill, but only that the bill be passed. Once it becomes law, they will change it to what they have always wanted, and it will increase with its intrusiveness on the American people. There is much in the healthcare bill that is intentionally left "wide open" for interpretation. My main example of that is what it says about the medical devices (RFID chips) that are mentioned as implantable medical devices. The healthcare bill says that the information on that chip will be determined by the Secretary of Health. That is just a little short of explaining what the hell that chip is for, who will receive it, and what information will be on it.
My point is simple. The healthcare bill will be changed greatly once the plan is in place. First of all, they will immediately see the flaws that will work directly against the economy and especially the unemployment of those who will lose their jobs because of the mandatory provision of healthcare by the employee. These changes that I have predicted will come about as the government tells us they are fine-tuning the bill in order to make it more efficient. No, they will be fine-tuning it to allow for maximum control of the people. Once the healthcare plan become a reality, in full force next year, we will almost immediately see the problems that will come because of that bill. It is going to be ugly, and as usual, the government will tell us that they have it under control.
Author Jeff Snyder points out in his essay, "A Nation of Cowards," in Public Interest Quarterly/Fall 1993:
As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant of the people....
The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, such that its repeal would legitimately confer upon government the powers otherwise proscribed. The Bill of Rights is the list of the fundamental, inalienable rights, endowed in man by his Creator, that define what it means to be a free and independent people, the rights which must exist to ensure that government governs only with the consent of the people.
I wish everyone understood that simple fact. The government does not grant those rights, but recognizes those rights as existing and are permanent. They are not given by the government, and they cannot be removed by the government.