U.S. Politics Thread

[Dr. Casey]

I remember when this dear thread of mine was only about the 2016 election. Those were simpler and more innocent times.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by Sackett

No. I'm upset that instead of denying gun ownership to people that a psychiatrist has found to be a current danger to themselves or others, the police have decided that anyone who has ever taken anti-anxiety or anti-depression medication in their life also cannot own a gun. Some how I don't think that's what Americans meant when we wanted medical health issues addressed.

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

Wait, you make it sound like this happened somewhere. Did some state put on some very strict, illogical restrictions on gun ownership?

A Form of Gun Confiscation Has Reportedly Begun in New York State — Here’s the Justification Being Used:


.....

On April 1st, a legal gun owner in upstate New York reportedly received an official notice from the state ordering him to surrender any and all weapons to his local police department. The note said that the person’s permit to own a gun in New York was being suspended as well. The gun owner contacted attorney Jim Tresmond (a specialist in gun laws in New York) and the two visited the local police precinct.

Mr. Tresmond reportedly went into the precinct and informed the officers that his client, waiting in the parking lot, was coming in to voluntarily surrender his weapons as requested. The local police were aware of the letter because they had already been contacted by the State Police. Apparently, if people do not respond to the initial mailing, local law enforcement is authorized to visit the gun owner at their home and demand the surrender of the firearms. In this case, the gun owner followed the request as written. The guns and permits were handed over and a receipt given to the client.

After the guns were turned over, a request for a local hearing was filed and the gun owner is expecting to have his Second Amendment rights restored. But there is more to this story.

In our conversation with lawyer Jim Tresmond, we learned that this client, who has never had a problem with the law — no criminal record and or violent incidents on record — did have a temporary, short term health issue that required medication. But how were his client’s private medical information accessed by the government? This appears to be a violation of HIPAA and Health Information Privacy policies at HHS.gov. If it is declared a violation, this becomes a civil rights issue.

Some claim that a broad interpretation of this statement from HIPAA might allow the government to have instant access to the medical records and gun ownership records of anyone who is prescribed psychotropic drugs.

A major goal of the Privacy Rule is to assure that individuals’ health information is properly protected while allowing the flow of health information needed to provide and promote high quality health care and to protect the public’s health and well being.

That short phrase, “protect the public’s health and well being” is probably going to be cited as the reason governments can require notification of any gun owner who is prescribed a class of drugs used to treat Depression and Anxiety known as SSRI ( Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors).

.....


(continue)

[Urzu 7]

They should probably be able to work that out in that state. People will fight it. That is going to far. I'm confident people will be able to defeat such strict measures from holding.

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by Dr. Casey

I remember when this dear thread of mine was only about the 2016 election. Those were simpler and more innocent times.

Waxing over politics never goes well. There is no simple or innocence. There is only backstabbing.

[synaesthetic]

Yep, this is exactly what people are afraid will start happening.

Oh wait, it's already happening.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

The first is for reminders about safety. Does it seem like common sense to you that your firearm should be locked away safely, with the ammunition removed? Good. Sadly, as you've probably seen in the news at least twice over the past month, those bits of advice don't occur to everyone, and they can and do result in deaths. Those deaths are easily preventable, wouldn't you say? Your physician is also supposed to remind you to wear your seatbelt when you drive for a very similar reason.

If it's simple reminder about safety, sure. But whether I own any firearm is none of my physician's business. Should your doctor also be required to ask you about your sexual habits? STDs are also dangerous and can certainly causes deaths.

And no, that's not "common sense", how and where to store a weapon depends greatly on the individual's circumstances.

What if your doctor has an anti-gun agenda? What are you worried about? It's a lot of money and effort to become a doctor, and it's all too easy to lose your medical license (read: your job forever) if you act improperly and patients win cases against you. If your doctor is given the responsibility of removing your firearms and they do so without any good reason you can be sure that they'll catch hell for it.

Doctors are still humans, and humans do stupid things all the time, especially when ideology gets involved. Doctors are no exception - frankly, worse things has been done by so-called "doctors" over simpler motivations, just go look up that one dentist who had no qualms about exposing hundreds of people to HIV and Hepatitis virus or that abortion clinic in philly(?) that was little more than a dirty shack with workers that are quite literally plucked from the street.

TBH most doctors probably won't care either way, but someone who feels strongly about the issue? are you saying there aren't any out there? And how exactly are they going to "catch hell"? I don't recall hearing anything about any oversight over these type of cases. Besides, regular people will always be fighting an uphill battle - after all, a doctor had just determined the person is too mentally unstable to be trusted

As for "meddling in someone else's private life," I'd like to remind you that this is about making sure that you don't meddle in someone else's private life.

It's all a matter of degrees, and from his POV, these measures go too far. I'm sure most wouldn't appreciate cameras being setup in people's houses in the name of making sure no one is doing anything that can meddle in someone else's private life.

Originally Posted by Dr. Casey

I remember when this dear thread of mine was only about the 2016 election. Those were simpler and more innocent times.

I remember when people remembered that we're not supposed to talk about gun control anymore

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

They should probably be able to work that out in that state. People will fight it. That is going to far. I'm confident people will be able to defeat such strict measures from holding.

Who knows, it is NY after all. If they can continue to insist that the central park 5 are guilty and the govt. didn't do anything wrong for 10 years even after the convictions were vacated and the real criminal have admitted to the crime, with corroborating DNA evidence, I won't put anything past them.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Yep, this is exactly what people are afraid will start happening.

Oh wait, it's already happening.

but, but, they said it will never happen!!!1!11!!!

[Badkarma 1]

And never mind how these said invasions of our private lives may very well interfere with our 4th and 5th amendment rights.
I do remember readin somewhere that gun control was a taboo subject here. Then why is it that the antis are the ones who keep bringin it up?
@Ledgem; Jest so yas know, my doctor is pro-gun, life member of the NRA, and we talk about them during my bi-yearly visits. And he's probably got more firearms than I do!

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Dr. Casey

I remember when this dear thread of mine was only about the 2016 election. Those were simpler and more innocent times.

Indeed. I'm guilty for helping change the subject.

Simple and to the point: when it comes down to working together to help address violence in the country, our politicians are idiots. Syn's post:

Actually it's not about control nor is it about keeping people free and protecting others' freedoms.

It's about getting elected and re-elected.

nails it.

[Kyuu]

Actually it's not about control nor is it about keeping people free and protecting others' freedoms.

It's about getting elected and re-elected.

Simple solution to this problem:

Public Campaign Financing. If the amount spent on elections is fixed, then politicians won't have to worry about fundraising. It is sad that the Founding Fathers failed to factor in the influence of money into this system. It's hard to take these kinds of things into account, when it wasn't even much of a problem with the Constitution was drafted. Of course, it didn't take long to become an apparent problem too.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by kyp275

If it's simple reminder about safety, sure. But whether I own any firearm is none of my physician's business. Should your doctor also be required to ask you about your sexual habits? STDs are also dangerous and can certainly causes deaths.

If you have them, yes. In fact, I believe it's standard practice to ask if one is sexually active, and if so, suggest an STD test.

I remember when people remembered that we're not supposed to talk about gun control anymore

So, like... 9 days ago?

Originally Posted by Badkarma 1

I do remember readin somewhere that gun control was a taboo subject here. Then why is it that the antis are the ones who keep bringin it up?

Because nothing is being done and people are angry? Can you really not see this? I mean, after something like Sandy Hook, do you expect the pro-gun people to "strike first", in a sense, and proclaim how important guns are? Don't be ridiculous.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Simple solution to this problem:

Public Campaign Financing.

Sigh, unfortunately with Citizen United now in place, I can only see it get even worse

Originally Posted by GDB

If you have them, yes. In fact, I believe it's standard practice to ask if one is sexually active, and if so, suggest an STD test.

Eh, it's part of a standard set of questions to ask if one is sexually active during some type of visits, but they are not legally required to do so, nor are STD tests suggested without a reason.

I mean, if I or my child go visit a doctor because we got the flu, it would be just as inappropriate for the doctor to ask either about my sexual habits or firearm ownership.

Because nothing is being done and people are angry? Can you really not see this? I mean, after something like Sandy Hook, do you expect the pro-gun people to "strike first", in a sense, and proclaim how important guns are? Don't be ridiculous.

Yea, but I also expect the mods to enforce their own ruling. If they want the gun control debate to start again, they should unlock the, well, gun control debate thread.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Yea, but I also expect the mods to enforce their own ruling. If they want the gun control debate to start again, they should unlock the, well, gun control debate thread.

This is the US Politics thread though. It should be possible to discuss the government side of issues like this without too much of the personal arguments that plagued the other thread. Basically, this topic should be about the mechanics of the debate, not arguing why one side is right or wrong.

For example, people should be able to discuss the failure of the government to properly regulate a butcher shop masquerading as an abortion clinic, without the discussion turning into a full blown debate about if someone thinks abortion is right or wrong.

It's not always the easiest distinction to make, but that's also why I'm not always so quick to smack down gun talk. It happens in the News Thread too, occasionally. The point of closing the Gun Control thread was not to censor discussion, but to stop the cyclical arguing that comes from some of our more stubborn members. It's easier to do that when that discussion is spread over several threads at different points in time and over specific events.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Sigh, unfortunately with Citizen United now in place, I can only see it get even worse

Yes, it's quite unfortunate. So, that means extra work in order to get a Constitutional Amendment to override it. Of course, we know how long that will take. We'll be dead before anything like that happens for this issue. Having said that, it's still worth fighting Citizen's United.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Simple solution to this problem:

Public Campaign Financing. If the amount spent on elections is fixed, then politicians won't have to worry about fundraising. It is sad that the Founding Fathers failed to factor in the influence of money into this system. It's hard to take these kinds of things into account, when it wasn't even much of a problem with the Constitution was drafted. Of course, it didn't take long to become an apparent problem too.

I've been saying this for years. All campaigns should be publicly funded and ONLY publicly funded. You shouldn't be allowed to use your own money, or the money of any business, or the money of any organization.

This way, not only can Joe Q. Public run for office, but everyone running works from an even playing field and all the campaign funds are rigorously checked and re-checked to ensure there's no fishy business afoot.

Basically the exact opposite of what we have now!

[Solace]

We should go further. All debates should be held by an independent group, with all rules and agreements between candidates/parties revealed to the public before the debate. Any candidate who is on the ballot in enough states to potentially win the electoral vote should be allowed to debate.

Oh and no donation should be anonymous, including to PACs or Super PACs.

And if you want to go further, no Senator or Representative can serve more than two terms in a row, and the revolving door between business and government should be closed. No government official should be allowed to join a lobby or company, or vice versa, for a minimum of six months after leaving a position that could constitute a conflict of public interest.

In short, an FCC member can't leave and immediately join a media lobby or company, or quit a media lobby or company to immediately join the FCC. Ditto for any other position in government, like say....the Reserve (not technically part of the government but still a conflict of interest for the public) or Treasury.

[Badkarma 1]

@GDB; Ridiculous? How is pointin the finger at those who bring up the matter in the first place ridiculous? If you challenge, I will respond!

On the election thing, I do seem to remember Zippy was goin to do away with the special interest groups and big money contributors So what happened? And I wouldn't mind seein more or different parties gettin a chance to stand up and be heard!

[Sackett]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

I'd have to say. Culturally, America is numb when it comes to guns and gun incidents. It doesn't matter how many die. That's just the culture of it. That is attributed to the NRA lobby, the Wild West stories, movies, etc. Just yesterday, I was re-watching Terminator 2 on TV; and I was thinking: "Wow, look at all those guns; but in order to fight the threat in the movie, those kinds of guns are actually needed." That includes a gatling gun.

Even someone like me, who is clamoring for greater gun safety measures, cannot help but be induced into this gun culture. For many, guns are all simply fun and games, right? I haven't played an FPS seriously (against human opponents) in over 10 years; but I had plenty of fun doing it.

You know, it's not just movies, the NRA, and stories about the Wild West.

They used to say about America that "she grew up with a rifle in her hands." This is a cultural thing that goes way back to the earliest days of our country. Lexington and Concord was literally fought over a gun confiscation attempt by the British.

America had one of the smaller armies in the Western Hemisphere. At the start of the Mexican American war most European generals had the belief that the Mexican army (considered the best in the Americas) would crush the United States army. The only one I could find who disagreed was some Spanish general who pointed out that the US didn't need a highly trained standing army, because American men grew up using a rifle.

During World War II one person pointed out that an invasion of the US was impossible because "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Even as recently as the 1960s it was traditional for most American boys to get their first .22 rifle at age twelve.

What has happened since then has been a rapid urbanization that has decreased the percentage of American's who own guns.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The thing is, car registration and licensing is by state, not at the federal level. That might be the difference in how to do anything on guns. The US Constitution applies to what the Federal government can or cannot do. Everything else goes to the states.

That's a key point right there. Highly urbanized communities have quicker police response time, and a greater fear of guns being misused. They want gun control, and seem intent on imposing gun control on other people's communities that do not have the same attitude or experience with guns that they do.

That's why gun rights groups are so upset. They've been living in this gun culture for two centuries now, and all the sudden some outsider city slicker comes along and tells them that they need to surrender their traditional gun rights? Of course they get upset.

Historically, most gun control has been done at the municipality level. That would go over a lot easier then telling suburbanites and rural families that they need to surrender their guns.

Changing subjects. I happen to have the complete opposite reaction to campaign finance. I oppose controls, and support allowing unlimited donations by anyone to anyone. Just report on it so that I know who is giving money to who.

Think about it. Where are water rights more important? In a desert? Or a place it rains every day? Restricting the access of politicians to money just makes money more important. They spend all their time figuring out how to get more money. How much better would it be if the politicians just got a billionaire who matches up with their philosophy to fund them?

Liberal Democrats can get George Soros to fund them, Moderate Democrats can go to Bill Gates. Libertarians can get support from the Koch brothers, and I'm sure there are some billionaires to support Republicans.

Have them talk to 30 or 40 people and get all the money they need instead of this constant grind of begging everyone for money, which is then used to fund more fundraisers. Instead spend your time figuring out better policy, and better ways of presenting your views to persuade people.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Sackett

You know, it's not just movies, the NRA, and stories about the Wild West.

Ultimately, the argument will boil down to the Unstoppable Force vs Immovable Object. So far, that "force" is indeed stoppable -- for now; but it's gaining momentum, now that it has some strong, credible leaders like Gabby Giffords.

===

Now, with the whole Boston terrorism thing. Let's bring up some Immigration, shall we? Here's a quick background:

http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost...ostcount=27864

Despite the recent terrorism -- and being a former immigrant myself -- the pathway to citizenship must be streamlined.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Badkarma 1

@GDB; Ridiculous? How is pointin the finger at those who bring up the matter in the first place ridiculous? If you challenge, I will respond!

Because clearly you don't even comprehend the question that you yourself asked. You asked why anti-gun posts happen before pro-gun posts. I stated why. Your question, in and of itself, was ridiculous.

[Badkarma 1]

Originally Posted by GDB

Because clearly you don't even comprehend the question that you yourself asked. You asked why anti-gun posts happen before pro-gun posts. I stated why. Your question, in and of itself, was ridiculous.

The hell you say? I was pointin out that the usual ones drag this tired subject through the mud everytime it gets brought up, and that the M O D E R A T O R S (the people who are 'sposed to make sure we abide by the rules REMEMBER?) have said not to do that.
I understand how some maybe upset that nothins gettin done, hey welcome to reality! And you don't always get what ya want!
Now can we get back to something else?!
@Dr. Casey mentioned 2016, ok who's jumpin in the ring already? I heard Hilary was, who else?