Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Marlin, Oct 23, 2009.

  1. Marlin

    Marlin *TFF Admin Staff Chief Counselor*

    I received this in the morning Email. That is one small step; maybe we can have others if we keep the pressure on.


    [FONT=&quot]Gun Owners Win the Opening Battle on ObamaCare!
    Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
    8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
    Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
    [FONT=&quot]Friday, October 23, 2009[/FONT][FONT=&quot]


    You have stymied the shady tactics used by Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi to try to pass the ObamaCare bill and -- in the opening salvo of the battle -- you blew them out of the water.

    Gun Owners won a huge vote Wednesday in the Senate.

    As you remember, the ObamaCare bill would dump your gun-related health data into a federal database. It would also put your (government mandated) insurance at risk if you keep a loaded gun for self-defense.

    But there was a problem: The anti-gun health bills cost too much, and Obama had promised to pass a bill which would not raise the deficit by "one penny."

    So what Obama, Reid, and Pelosi did was to try to pass a separate bill (S. 1776) which would fund the anti-gun ObamaCare bill by raising the deficit another $247 billion dollars.

    But, they would argue, because S. 1776 was a "separate bill," the ObamaCare bill itself would not raise the deficit.

    In a Senate not known for morality, this rose to a level of sleaze and corruption that embarrassed many Democrats, in addition to all Republicans.

    With gun owners responding vigorously to our alerts on this issue, the motion to invoke "cloture" (or shut off debate) on the bill failed by a 47-53 vote -- 13 votes short of the 60 votes the anti-gun socialists needed.

    The victory on S. 1776 means that it will be much harder for Obama, Reid and Pelosi to pick up the somewhat fiscally-minded Blue Dog Democrats they so desperately need to get their anti-gun ObamaCare legislation passed.

    So congratulations! It is true that this is only the first battle... but, if we continue battering Congress as we have, it will be the first of many victories.

    To see the official listing of how each Senator voted, you can go to http://tinyurl.com/ykb6kjb.

    But in the meantime, pat yourself on the back for a job well done... and have a great weekend![/FONT]
  2. Tom Militano

    Tom Militano New Member

    Feb 26, 2007
    Jacksonville, AL
    The three stooges lose again!

  3. Marlin T

    Marlin T Well-Known Member

    Jul 8, 2005
    New Mexico
    I see that my letters to the NM people didn't make a difference, but I'm not going to stop sending them.
  4. pickenup

    pickenup Active Member

    Well I'll be.........
  5. Anyone notice that the "fair and impartial" media is now reporting that AdolfCare will cost more than Blinky's estimate? Gee, I wonder if this has anything to do with that:D:D
  6. belercous

    belercous Former Guest

    Aug 7, 2009
    The G.O.A. is taking credit for something they only had a small part in. They could have sat this one out and it still wouldn't have passed. It was about raising the deficit, it had nothing to do with guns. I'm all for not raising the deficit (and in fact, wish to reduce/eliminate it) and I'm pro-gun, but these two issues are not related.
    Nolo Bene; invoking cloture does not shut-off debate. The Senate debates issues, but when the minority decides to fillibuster (meaning just keep talking and not relinquish the floor. Senators can/have read the phone book in order to keep talking. Hardly debate.) it takes 60 votes to end the fillibuster (which actually hasn't been done for years, the threat suffices).
    And "Socialists" (like that's supposed to be a bad word?) do not neccessarily care about gun control. In a Senate with 60% Democrats, there is not even a simple majority in favor of gun control. Someone's watch is running slow, it is now quarter-til 2010. Political realities change, please read the memo dated Nov. 1994.
  7. JohnBrainard

    JohnBrainard New Member

    Sep 11, 2009
    Gilbert, AZ
    Yes. It's far worse than anything heard in a bar full of sailors. Socialism should not be tolerated in America. It has never worked and never will work.

    And, there's nothing in the text of that e-mail that indicates GOA is taking credit for the win. It's congratulating its members for their efforts.

    And the two issues are very much related when our health records are stored in a database that can be queried during a background check. It's bad enough that the records would be centralized and accessible to the government.... Where in the Constitution is the federal government granted any access to our private medical records?
  8. tntrucker

    tntrucker New Member

    Oct 6, 2009
    I'm totally convinced that Obama,Biden, Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, etc. desperatly want to take away our guns. Look at their track record. They haven't changed. I believe Obama came in with a script. Do this- then this-etc. Like a coach who scripts his play calling.
    They have hit a problem with health care. They are off track, but the agenda is still the agenda.
  9. belercous

    belercous Former Guest

    Aug 7, 2009
    "Yes. It's far worse than anything heard in a bar full of sailors. Socialism should not be tolerated in America. It has never worked and never will work."

    Obviously you didn't take an intro to political science class in college, much less an upper level class. We already have socialism here. The military is socialized defense. Fire departments are socialized fire protection. Medicare is socialized health insurance. Social Security (see, right there in the name?) is a socialized retirement pension.
    So I guess your against all these forms of socialism? And they don't work?
    Do you even have a clue as to how uneducated you sound?

    "Gun owners won a huge vote..." sure makes it sound like gun owners were responsible for this. And it didn't even have anything to do with guns. "The Obamacare bill?" Wtf? Obama doesn't write the laws, congress does. Ever hear of them? They write the laws and the President can either sign them into law, veto them, pocket-veto them, or not sign them and let them become law without his signature. There is no "Obamacare bill," there are several different bills, and not one was written by Obama.

    The adoption of digitized medical records is to save $ and smooth the flow of information among medical proffessionals. I can go either way on it, but lean towards having it.
    The Peamble of the Constitution states "We the people...promote the general welfare..." Read the document sometime, you might just be surprised at what is in there, and what is not. If digitized health records are considered to "promote the general welfare" then they are constitutional. The idea is to aid healthcare providers. But I'm sure you believe that the gov. is going to review everyone's records and do bad things to us according to our individual ailments and afflictions.
    Can you show me where the Const. prohibits sharing medical records with medical care providers, or even the entire world? Do you know the word "privacy" is not in the Const.? A prominent conservative judge, Robert Bork said that privacy is not Constitutionaly gauranteed. (it is, subject to some constraints) Bork was a conservative, not a liberal, and if I recall correctly the conservatives were all up in arms about him not getting put on the S.C. Now, if you were against Bork's nomination, I'm sorry to impute his judicial view with your own. Just pointing out what (some) conservatives believe.
  10. tntrucker

    tntrucker New Member

    Oct 6, 2009
    To belercous; Dude you sure think a lot of yourself. I'm not impressed nor intimidated.
    But life is way too short; so I'm not going to get into it with you.
  11. This healthcare "reform" will be a threat to firearms ownership because it puts everyone's private info into a federal database, including medical and psychiatric records. The current versions of the bill have clauses that can deny someone coverage because of "dangerous lifestyles." And, lo and behold, now the NIH is conducting a "study" on gun violence.
    All they need is for that "study" to "prove" that gun "violence" is an "epidemic," and then they can deny coverage to firearms owners. What's more, the current versions also contain clauses that require everyone to have some form of gov't approved health insurance, however people who lead "dangerous lifestyles," i.e., gun owners, will be denied coverage, and will then be in violation of the law, requiring either large penalties to the IRS (of all people) or getting rid of the guns. Not only that, but some people, myself included, simply cannot afford to be forced to buy gov't approved insurance because of the tax load I'm already bearing. I CANNOT afford to give more money to the government. Period.

    Now, as to the legality of the federal gov't running healthcare, it is not legal. If, and this is a VERY BIG IF, gov't is going to get involved in healthcare, then it should be the STATES that do so, not the feds. Since the Constitution does not mention healthcare as a power of the federal gov't, then under the 10th Amendment, gov't healthcare should be managed by the individual states.
    Seems plain to me. But, here's what James Madison thought about it.

    Not only that, but the Founding Fathers did not believe in the gov't taking control of ANY private industry, and this would include healthcare.
    The closest thing in the Constitution is the "general welfare" clause (Article I, Section 8), which has been twisted and distorted by the liberals after the SCOTUS ruling in United States v. Butler, 1936, into "authority" to provide gov't handouts to people who just feel too damned special to work. They also use that as "authority" to take wealth, in the form of tax money, from people who work so they can REDISTRIBUTE it to the "less fortunate."
    Wow, what a difference 141 years makes in the attitude of SCOTUS.

    The Founding Fathers DID NOT believe in socialism or in a welfare state. Period. They have left writings full of warnings about letting people live off the gov't dole and against socialism. Remember, the Declaration of Independence states "life, liberety, and THE PURSUIT of happines," NOT "life, liberty, and happiness."

    Since, like Obama, you claim to be a constitutional scholar, you should already know this. Although, your posts make you look to be just another liberal who is trying to make yourself seem intellectually superior to others.

    And, if you think that a European-style system is such a good idea, let's look at Germany. They invinted the universal healthcare system and social security.
    (Emphasis added by me)
    Notice the attitude of the Germans is remarkably similar to the attitude of many Americans today?
    What you claim is a socialist system was invented to combat socialism. Although, somewhere along the line, the systems invented by Bismarck to combat socialism ended up being used by the socialists. Bismarck also put through a universal healthcare system, a system that today the Germans are debating about doing away with in favor of a system more like the one the US currently uses.
    Germany has had 125 years to make it work, and they can't seem to do it. So, logically, how can the US, which has never had a system like that on such a large scale, get a workable system with the speed with which they are trying to cram this "reform" through Congress?

    Massachusetts already has a universal healthcare system. How well is it doing?

    Looks like a real winner to me:rolleyes: Let's see, it cost MA $630 million in 2007, which will go up to an estimated $1.3 billion for this year. And the gov't always underestimates how much something is going to cost:rolleyes: The system MA instituted works on some levels, although not very well, and does not work at all on other levels. That's giving me a warm fuzzy just thinking about it:rolleyes:
  12. JohnBrainard

    JohnBrainard New Member

    Sep 11, 2009
    Gilbert, AZ
    Belercous, you need to go back and re-read the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. The 10th Amendment is of particular interest to you. The text "promote the general welfare" does not grant the government unlimited powers as you seem to believe.

    You seem incapable of carrying on a civil discussion. I hope the rest of the forum will join me in ignoring your posts.
  13. belercous

    belercous Former Guest

    Aug 7, 2009
    John Brainard: The 10th Amen. means NOTHING. Cite me 2 S.C. cases where the 10th Amen. means anything. Can you? No, you can't.
    Now, don't get me wrong, I do think the 10th should mean something, but the sad fact of the matter is that it don't. Somehow, somewhere, the 10th Amen. ought to have some meaning. Why else would the first Congress (and the states) have enshrined it into the Bill of Rights? Makes no sense to me how these words, most from the Fathers of the original Constitution, have no legal meaning.
    One of the things taught in law schools is that every word of the Constitution is there for areason. The Founding Fathers deliberated over every word, and they knew the meaning of the words they used. They did not put in "extranoius" verbiage, so every word should (ought) to mean something. This was my big issue in college and law school. What exactly does the 9th and 10th Amenments mean? Answer: Not much, if that. And no, John Brainard, I have spent years studying the Constitution, the federal government gets the vast majority of its power from the "interstate commerce" clause.
    This is another subject with which I disagree. Do you know the sole S.C. case which finally put the stop to Congress's meddling in state affairs? No, you don't. Otherwise you would have cited it, and you damn well should know it because it involved guns. And school zones. That was a hint. 1996 is another hint. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

    Tntrucker; Really, who cares what you think? Who cares what I think? I'm not gonna sway anyone who has a closed mind. It is the independent voters who count, always have, always will. By the by, I'm sure that you know Edwardsville, Ill. Where you stop has no relation to our town. We just annexed it for the taxes we may (or may not) get from the land sometime in the future.

    Bcj1755: So you really think that your life-style will preclude you from getting healthcare insurance? You are correct, in so far as private insurance goes. Gov. healthcare insurance will not exclude you. I have no idea about what you speak in re; guns and healthcare. This has nothing to do with reality. I could be wrong, but I'm just not getting that. If there is a need to charge gun owners more for insurance, the same thing needs to be applied to water-skiers, snow skiers, dirt-bikers, etc., I just don't get what you're talking about. And as far as the rest of your post goes, you seem to be babbling on senselessly.
    "All they need is for that "study" to "prove" that gun "violence" is an "epidemic," and then they can deny coverage to firearms owners." Where is this located? Is this in a bill on the President's desk? Did I miss something, or did you just cite the most extreme bill (which has no chance of passing) and trot that out as fact? WTF? Cite me a bill, one that has made it out of committee. Can you? What bill are you talking about? Has it got to a floor vote? I must have missed something here.

    Again, John Brainard: I have studied the Constitution for years. I have done so in college, and then again in law school. I'm just telling ya'll what the S.C, has said. Now, I know that you are much more of a Costitutional scholar than any S.C. Justice, but your understanding of the Const. really doesn't have much support in the legal community. Take a poll. And no, the preamble of the Constitution is not generally what S.C. opinoins are based on, it is only a "fall-back" option. The major parts supporting gov. expansion are based upon the "commerce clause," as the Const. is understood today. And that is with 7 of 9 Justices being appointed by republican presidents. Bleed to me a little more of how the conservatives are so out-numbered. Oh, and by the way, as I'm sure that you are aware of, the lower federal courts (district and appellate) are already packed with conservative judges. They are appointed for life tenure. No, W. did something for the right-wing base, he just did it quitely.

    Yes, I suppose I'm not able to carry on a civil debate/discussion with those opposed to my viewpoint, I'm not civil enough to do such a thing. I'm actually a mean and nasty person. I eat children for lunch and puppies for dinner. My breakfast consists of the toes of a vigin, and the blood of a (young) zebra.
  14. belercous

    belercous Former Guest

    Aug 7, 2009
    Ooops. not vigin. I meant "virgin." Sorry, the blood of infants has clotted my keyboard. Once again. I hate when that happens.
  15. You claim to be a constitutional scholar, yet you say the 10th amendment means nothing?! That is the same kind of "logic" that says the Constitution is a "living document":rolleyes: And as far as "So you really think that your life-style will preclude you from getting healthcare insurance? You are correct, in so far as private insurance goes," you are WRONG. I could get insurance right now (if I could afford it), even though I own guns. The gov't WILL find a way to exclude gun owners, members of your beloved gov't have said as much. The same thing has been said of the Baucus "bill," you know, the "bill" that made it out of committee even though it hasn't even been written yet:rolleyes: So you seem to be the one that babbles on senselessly. You claim to be a college grad who knows the Constitution, yet you didn't even know the ACLU's stance on the 2nd Amemdment. You seem to be the same type of "constitutional scholar" as Obama, the type that claims the knowledge, but in practice you have none. And the more you say, the more it seems you've never even read the Constitution. You're only reason for being here is to try and "teach" us the glory of liberalism through your obviously superior intellect:rolleyes: (And just to make it clear, the little rolleyes smiley means I was being sarcastic about your "superior intellect") Go back to watching the "fair and impartial" mainsteam media for your "brilliant ideas and knowldge," some of us will think for ourselves. Trying to have a conversation with you is the same as trying to have one with any other liberal. You spew talking points and act like you're so much smarter than anyone else, then when presented with an opposing view, you attack and demean people. So you know what, I bow you your vastly superior knowledge. I guess the Founding Fathers knew absolutely nothing of the Constitution they wrote:rolleyes::rolleyes:
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2009
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum newsflash on gun bills Jun 20, 2016
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum UK news: Here’s why police don’t collect legal gun misuse stats Jan 13, 2016
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum News; Home defended with a gun yesterday in Maine Sep 1, 2015
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Good news for concealed carry in Florida Jul 28, 2015
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum A 2nd Amendment case that should be front page news... Feb 5, 2015