So What is in Mr. Obama’s Gun Plan?
Well, among other things, we’ve learned that your doctor and other healthcare personnel have been literally appointed by Mr. Obama to ask you questions about your guns; questions that are really none of their business, frankly. These questions may be something like…
- Do you have guns in your home?
- Do you have them safely locked up?
- Have you ever wanted to harm anyone?
The above questions (as well as others) may soon be part of the normal procedure that occurs in your doctor’s office. Instead of simply asking you the normal questions about your current medications and whether or not anything has changed since your last visit, you will now be met with other questions that delve into your personal life that really have nothing to do with anything other than the fact that Mr. Obama believes the federal government has a right to know about any guns you keep and whether or not they are safely stored and if you have any latent desires to harm someone.
This is all covered under number 16 of Mr. Obama’s 23-step list revealed today. Mr. Obama endeavors to “Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.”
Of course, it goes without saying that anyone with a criminal background who has weapons, doesn’t keep them locked up, and generally desires to harm anyone who gets in his way will certainly – and without doubt – answer these questions honestly. Right. Of course they will.
Look, I don’t mean to be sarcastic, but the reality is that the federal government has no need to involve any health professional in my personal background. When I buy a weapon, a background check is made. That is automatic. The government – should they care to check – can learn whether or not I have any weapons by simply going over the paperwork themselves. They can even ask me if I have them locked up safely if they feel the need. Do I want to harm anyone? No. That’s simple enough, but why the need to put my doctor in the position of having to ask me in the first place? It’s ridiculous and breeds distrust, voiding out the potential trust between doctor and patient.
To expect my doctor to become an arm of the federal government – “if you see something, say something” – is absurd. My doctor has better things to do and since these particular questions are not related to my physical health, he has no right asking them. Besides, anyone can lie about anything and there is no guarantee that people will be truthful. But what happens with the person who simply refuses to answer? Will they then be reported to some federal agency based on that alone? It certainly seems possible, doesn’t it? In fact, it seems probable to me. Man, talk about Big Brother is watching you.
As I’m looking through the 23-point list of things Mr. Obama wants to accomplish (as noted on The Brenner Brief), some of these points are so nebulous as to make them very suspicious. For instance, what does this one mean?
“Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.”
I really do not know what that means and it appears that it could be anyone’s guess. Improve “incentives” so that states will be more willing to share personal information that gather on me? Look, when I purchase a weapon, as I’ve already mentioned, my background check is mandated through federal authorities, not state authorities, so it can’t be referring to a background check itself. It must mean that anything the state that I live in determines about me that the federal authorities would like to know about can be transmitted to them.
So, maybe it is another way of saying that if my doctor decides he believes I might be a mental health risk, that suspicion should be reported to the feds. If I get a speeding ticket, maybe that should be reported to the feds. It’s overreach, as far as I’m concerned. It sets of a precedent where the state becomes obligated to rat on its residents so that the federal government can keep tabs on us.
I personally enjoy the irony of number 4 of Mr. Obama’s 23-point list. It says, “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.”
Does anyone else see the irony here? The failed “Fast and Furious” gun running operation occurred when federal agents purposefully allowed guns to “fall through the cracks” and walk out of gun stores and into the hands of Mexican drug cartel bosses. This was a program that came under the umbrella of Eric Holder’s DOJ. But here, Mr. Obama is directing this same Eric Holder to shore up things so that “dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks” with gun purchases. Excuse me? Man, talk about having the fox guard the chicken coop!
Here’s another one that’s interesting; number 12. “Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.” Some are saying that’s what Sandy Hook was all about. Seems as though – according to the DHS websites – there are plenty of these types of “training for active shooter situations” happening throughout the year. As noted previously in a separate article, there was a training not 20 miles from Sandy Hook on the very same day that the tragedy at Sandy Hook occurred.
Number 19 on Mr. Obama’s list is similar to number 12 above. It says, “Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.” In California (believe it or not) those who have concealed weapons permits are allowed to carry their concealed weapons in their house of worship.
Sadly, the types of things that Mr. Obama wants to see in place are literally (and noted as being) responses to tragedies; after the fact. Note the language with the use of the words response plans, first responders and other verbiage like that. Responders are those who respond to a tragedy after it has occurred. They are really doing their best to salvage what is left of survivors before they die and remove bodies of those who have already died. Responders do not arrive to the scene before a tragedy occurs, but afterwards. This is the nature of it, so in essence, a number of the items on Mr. Obama’s list do nothing to keep something terrible from happening. They respond to an event once it has already taken place.
With the Sandy Hook tragedy – as noted on the video that was part of my blog a few articles ago – the roads into and out of the school were literally blocked with cars and trucks. There was no way for fire trucks or ambulances to get in or out of the school to take any wounded to the hospitals locally. This is clearly and easily seen from overhead shots and footage taken from helicopters. The way cars and trucks were parked, it looked like a still shot from a gridlocked highway or freeway, or parking lot with cars everywhere. Nothing was moving and nothing could get in or out. Obviously, that does not work during a tragedy.
Number 14 on Mr. Obama’s list is particularly interesting. “Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.”
For those who do not know, a “Presidential Memorandum” is another term for Executive Order. So here, Mr. Obama is telling the CDC to study the causes of gun violence to learn what can be done about it before it becomes a problem.
As I’ve stated before, studies have proved that smoking and tobacco products in movies increases the chances of young people starting to experiment with these products. Because of this, doctors and healthcare organizations have been hammering away at Hollywood to tone it way down, especially in movies geared toward young people. Hollywood has obliged because they obviously believe as well that there is something to the studies regarding the presence of tobacco and tobacco products and the increased risk for young people to start smoking.
Yet, when it comes to violence, everyone goes “Get real! There is no connection! It’s not violence in movies that create violence in society. Remove guns from society and there would be far less violence! It’s that simple!” These people are dreaming and they are also being dishonest. If movie can help young people make the decision to start smoking, they can also help young people to – at the very least – become desensitized to violence they see on the screen and in video games. This has an effect on the minds of young people and certainly on the minds of the mentally unstable. How can any intelligent person disagree with that? They do so because they do not like the ramifications of it and they want to continue blaming guns themselves as the cause of violence.
It’s the same with advertising. Companies pay millions for a 15 or 30-second spot during the Superbowl. Why? Because they know their products highlighted then will make a tremendous impact. People will buy them. It’s not rocket science. It’s common sense marketing 101. If ads made no difference, do you think companies would continue to advertise? This includes product placement in movies, which also costs big bucks to these companies who pay heavily to have their products highlighted in movies. The research is already there to show that advertising like this works.
Also as I’ve stated before, the truth is that man is corrupt; evil to his core. Only the regenerative process that is found in salvation provided by Jesus corrects that problem. Nothing else will do it. But people don’t want to hear that, do they? It’s okay to use the Name of Jesus Christ as a swear word, but for goodness sakes, don’t you dare pray in His Name publicly! How dare you! Do you not know how offensive and intolerant that is? Stop it right now!
We don’t need the CDC or anyone else to do any type of study, Mr. Obama. The facts are all there. It’s likely that Mr. Obama included this verbiage so that he could point to it later when critics bring up the question about why he did not come down on Hollywood’s over-the-top violence. He can then say that he directed the CDC to study the reasons why gun violence is part of society. He wants them to find out if there is any connection between gun violence and Hollywood’s level of violence. Common sense already tells us that this is the case (especially since we know this is true with respect to smoking), so the idea of spending tons more money for the CDC to find out what we already know is absurd.
Mr. Obama’s 18th step is to “Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.” Having worked in public education in the state of California for over ten years, I can tell you what a “resource” person is, but I really do not know what Mr. Obama means by the term “resource officers.” However, since he used the word “officers” along with the word “resource,” I’m guessing that this may have reference to some type of armed guard he would like to see placed in schools, but he simply chose not to say “armed guard” because then he would be sounding like Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, whom we all know – according to the Left – is whackadoodle. Uh..sure.
The facts tell us that those schools which have armed security – in general – do not have kids bringing guns or weapons to school. They know they may get shot for their trouble. Schools that are “gun free zones” are more likely to have to deal with these kind of things. Sen. Barbara Boxer has suggested this very thing to Joe Biden, about placing armed security guards (or police officers) in schools.
Many schools throughout California already have them and apparently, they help avoid problems. That should stand to reason, shouldn’t it? Where there are armed guards or police officers, criminals generally stay away. Yet, when Wayne LaPierre came out with his suggestion to place armed guards in schools, the Left had a field day with that, calling him crazy and saying he should resign his position with the NRA. They said we don’t need more guns in school. We need less. Criminals do not generally go where they know they may be shot. Even some mentally unstable people can grasp that. Apparently, that’s too difficult to understand for most on the Left though.
Even though some on the Left want to split hairs here, Bill Clinton did suggest having COPS in schools (1998) and he wanted these cops to be mentors to the kids as well as provide for their safety. I guess that would be okay with those on the Left as long as they are mentors too, huh? Look, if you have cops in schools, they are mentors automatically for goodness sakes. They don’t simply stand around like some English guard at the palace.
The cops I’ve known who worked at schools walked around, talked with the kids, played ball with them and essentially hung out with the kids. The kids learned to look up to the cops and went to them when they had problems. The Left apparently thinks that LaPierre’s idea of putting cops in schools amounts to them standing at attention at the doorway of the school, frisking kids, and essentially glowering at them as they enter the school every day. The Left has no imagination. By the way, in California, these types of cops were paid by the school districts, or rather, the city was reimbursed by the school districts for the officer’s salary and those funds were provided by the feds, I believe. This could be another reason Mr. Obama referred to these individuals as “resource officers” because it’s rather nebulous and not thoroughly definitive.
I think my favorite part of the entire press conference held by Mr. Obama is that he not only used children as props on the stage but used the age-old reasoning that if we can save one life, well then he believes he is obligated to try to do just that. Sniff…
I’m sorry. Again, I don’t mean to wax sarcastic, but the truth is that Mr. Obama has been guilty of voting for abortions every chance he got. When it came time to step up and pass a law that would force doctors to try to save the life of a baby in a botched abortion, Mr. Obama voted it down…three times. This is not the actions of a man who actually cares about children.
Beyond this, neither Mr. Obama or the mainstream media rarely – if ever – discuss real life situations in which law-abiding citizens used guns in self-defense to save their own lives or someone else’s. Yet, this kind of thing happens on a near-daily basis. The fact that this is never discussed is also extremely disingenuous. It tells us the real motivation here. Guns actually can and do save lives and for Mr. Obama to never mention that shows that he is completely opposed to guns. He would probably say that if we made guns more difficult to obtain, there would be less situations in which law-abiding citizens would need to use guns in self-defense. It sounds good, but it’s not true since we know that criminals will obtain guns any way they can and they will and do have them even when law-abiding citizens do not.
But for Mr. Obama to stand there and lecture America on the fact that we need to do whatever we can to save the life of even one child while he votes to widen the realities and availability of abortion on demand, is also very disingenuous and hypocritical on his part.
That would be like some who drinks like a fish and smokes like a chimney telling someone else to start living a healthy life. It just doesn’t work and it is seen for what it is – insincere on its face.
I think it is clear that it’s not over, by a long shot. Mr. Obama wants certain things and there are people in Congress who want the same things and lining up behind Mr. Obama. They want workable bans on most, if not all, weapons. They would like to make it very difficult for people to buy ammo and at the very least, have a tight limit on what people can buy. They want us to have to be able to put our fingerprint on the paperwork when we buy ammo. They do not want us to buy ammo online.
I think Gov. Cuomo of New York has stated what the gun-grabbers really want to happen. He has said that gun confiscation may be part of the plan going forward. He probably said too much, but he said it. This is what many in Congress want to see and I believe they will continue until they have it.
So, things will continue to move forward, one notch at a time, with Mr. Obama pushing for more restrictive measures as well as those standing with him and it will be done “all for the children.” Right. No, it’s all for the government so that they can control a citizenry that would like to throw the bums out.
Entry filed under: 9/11, alienology, Atheism and religion, Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Sotero, Communism, Demonic, dispensationalism, Eastern Mysticism, emergent church, Gun Control, Islam, Islamofascism, israel, Judaism, Life in America, Maitreya, new age movement, Posttribulational Rapture, Pretribulational Rapture, Radical Islam, rapture, Religious - Christian - End Times, Religious - Christian - Prophecy, Religious - Christian - Theology, Romney, salvation, Satanism, second coming, Shadow Government, Sharia Law, Socialism, temple mount, Transhumanism, ufology.