Obama’s antigun move predictions

Obama’s popularity is crashing.  He is unable to just make “suggestions” to congress with any expectations that they will get done.  If he does so, all the Blue Dog Democrats are going to stand up against him because they remembered what happened when they passed the AWB under Clinton.

This means he’s gong to have to make an Executive Order.  Something that we’ve known he’d do if he won reelection.  A Second Term Obama means an Obama without his Mask.  If he wins, not only is his mask off… but also the gloves.  He’s going to be a disaster of biblical proportions that makes the damage he’s already done look like a simple bad hair day.  But what we are starting to see here now is something actually potentially worse.  We’re starting to see a Cornered Obama.  Backed up against the wall he’s going to be desperate to advance his agenda in his last days in power.

One mistake people make is in thinking Obama is stupid.  He’s not.  Acting incompetent like a greenhorn is how he’s getting a pass from the masses of the growing uncomfortable supporters.    So he’s going to make some seriously draconian actions that can be argued as “Reasonable”.

1.  “Assault Clips” are going to be a target.  Full capacity or Extended capacity.  The Brady Campaign’s advert against “Assault Clips” is talking about the type of magazine used in the Arizona shooting, but they mentioned 16 rounds… which is a standard capacity for a great many auto-pistols.  So expect a 10 round or even less capacity.

1.A.  Expect 1911 and other single stacks to get a resurgence again.

2.  Carry Permit limitations.   The Left knows that CCW permits have been sweeping the whole country and with successes in previous Anti-Gun strongholds, such as Wisconsin and Chicago.    These limitations will be on where permits are allowed or mandates on disclosure when you go to certain places.  Who knows.

3.  More bans on types of firearms… such as the FN Five-seveN pistol.

4.  The Gun Show loophole.  Private sales, could be banned… all such transactions would have to be forced to go through FFL Dealers, and of course these sales will be tracked.  Already they track multiple handgun sales… they will do the same for long arms.

5.  This one worries me the most… because many Gun Owners will agree with it.  Mental Health.  All Obama has to do to really limit gun owners is to mandate the Medical Community to report Mental Health issues to BCI and all the sudden those guys are getting Denials on their background checks.  Think about this… Who is this Administration more afraid of?   Muslim Extremists, or Former members of the Armed Forces?  Let me answer this for you.  From their own mouths they have indicated they are most concerned about potential domestic terrorists.  Conservative, Christian, Gun Owners with Military Training.  Any former soldier who has complained about symptoms of PTSD… those names reported… those gun checks get denied.  For the Greater Good, of course.  Reasonable measures.

6.  Ammunition limitations.  Like California.  You can only buy so many rounds… or reloading components… and background checks to buy them.

22 thoughts on “Obama’s antigun move predictions”

  1. The PTSD is already in place. If recorded in a vets medical records by a VA doctor they are added to NICS and are a deniel of purchase when buying from an FFL. This is another reason that they are desparate to include computerized health care info, YOUR PRIVATE info into the national no protection data base controled by appointed clowns from the dictators white house.

    1. Newsflash. If the doctor perceives that you may be a threat to yourself or others, that is no longer private info and he may lose his license if he fails to report it to the proper authorities. If you are experiencing symptoms of depression you dont need to be around guns. Depression is not sadness. Depression is self hate, guilt, shame, inability to find joy in life, inability to sleep, suicidal or homocidal thoughts and is a longterm illness that is difficult to treat in people who are too proud, stubborn or ashamed to get professional medical health. Men dont attempt suicide as often as women but are usually more successful bc they are more likely to use guns while women prefer pills.

      1. Depression can and probably does hit just about everyone at different times. Hardly a reason to have all your guns taken. Or your Driver’s License revoked. Because guns cause far fewer deaths than automobiles… especially when combined with booze. Guns are a minor minor issue when you look at the big picture. Well, even a Non-Issue when you look at the big picture.

  2. So you are saying that men who have killed other men and now are abusing alcohol or other addictive drugs to deal with the trauma of war should be allowed to be around guns? People who cant sleep, who feel emotionally disconnected from society, who relive the trauma daily, who are always on edge….they dont need guns, they need psychiatric help. Depression + drugs + guns = suicidal veterans. If i can prevent one vet from committing suicide by reporting his mental instability to the feds i will do it even if means by doing so i risk enraging a man with nothing to lose .

    1. John, considering the piss-poor understanding of PTSD by the majority of Psychologist who can’t determine the difference between PTSD in 12 year old girl who was raped by Uncle Phil, and a 30 year old Veteran who saw combat – and then “Treat” both patients the same? Yeah, I don’t think those Psychologists are qualified to treat combat vets… Military or Police or such. But that’s a whole other thing. I wrote my Psychology Thesis on this very subject – and it was balked at because I questioned the very institution and my professor’s own views on PTSD that it’s all the same.
      One of the biggest thing about dealing with a Vet with Combat PTSD is their Self Worth… Telling them they are Dangerous and strip them of their private property and the very Constitutional Rights they fought for just because some other guy committed suicide? I’m surprised you have that opinion, John. Frankly, I’m disappointed. Blanket Policy like you are suggesting is like Zero Tolerance. You could easily have damn near every Vet lose his gun rights.

      1. “One of the biggest thing about dealing with a Vet with Combat PTSD is their Self Worth… Telling them they are Dangerous and strip them of their private property and the very Constitutional Rights they fought for just because some other guy committed suicide?”

        Sounds like just the thing that could make a guy suicidal; tell him that the sacrifices he made are nothing, and that they make him a danger to himself and society? That would make it worse, not better.
        Just my opinion.

        1. BobG – see, your getting it. That’s why they have such low self worth. Look at all the vets from WWII. Not much of a problem with PTSD. They returned as Heroes. Nam? Huge problem… those Vets returned home branded as Baby Killers. Same with Iraq War Vets… Harry Reid saying the war was already lost and others like him saying it was all useless. And idiots asking “How many people have you killed?” all the time. All that changes a person, wears them down. Depression sets in. And then John’s saying they are dangerous… Nice. Because that is just all kinds of helpful.
          I interviewed many Vets… some members of WTA and post comments here.. others still in the Service.
          What a guy like John is afraid of… what that guy needs… he needs to Go Fishing with a guy that has also been there and they can talk or just STFU and fish in silence for awhile, and just let that guy know that he isn’t alone and that he has future possibilities and that he has worth and value and that God still loves him. It’s a process… takes time to heal the many levels of trauma inside a Combat PTSD victim.

        1. I had posted it somewhere… and on the PTSD Wiki – but it was altered and then deleted because it questioned the established doctrine set forth by those who are liberal academics with no actual experience in matters off campus.
          I don’t have it anymore due to mulitiple hard drive failures since that was written.

    2. If i can prevent one vet from committing suicide by reporting his mental instability to the feds i will do it even if means by doing so i risk enraging a man with nothing to lose.

      Ok, so then he buys a gun illegally making him depressed and a felon thanks to you, you nanny state busybody. Not to mention taking away one of his most effective stress outlets.

      Your archaic interventionism are just going to piss him off more.

      I have close friends who have suffered more PTSD from Nam(Marines)would make you piss your pants. I shoot with them every chance I get because it’s what keeps them AWAY from the drugs and alcohol.

      Go away and mind your own business. You have no clue.

  3. I think you’re spot on Ogre. Look no further than california for the blueprint and the plan. It’s even hard to say “I’ll resist” because there won’t be a whole lot to resist against except for supporting good candidates. Unless he tries for retroactivity.

  4. I changed Medicare Advantage plans and they had a question asking if I owned any firearms on the paper work. I was tired and having trouble and just lied like a dog and said no. So already I was starting a relationship based on a lie. I just recently put in the paper work to drop my Medicare part B coverage. It is my paranoid belief that there is a move to break down patient doctor relations ships, classic Class warfare. I know a doc who will trade service for services and firearms. He’ll also take whiskey and vodka and will discount for cash under the table.
    If mental illness is a handicap then the handicapped should not be allowed to defend themselves, if you follow the “logic.” After all a physical handicap can lead to depression, anger, and a desire to self medicate with dangerous drugs. How I loathe the nannies.

  5. George, apologies for junking and harshing on JRiggs.

    This one hits close to home and I’ve had my gun rights removed for reasons I don’t wish to disclose, but depression was part of the equation. So I’m hypersensitive to this subject and anybody taking away anybodies RTKBA I get defensive.

    If you could email me your psychology paper you referred to, I’d love to read it.

    I got straight A’s in psychology at UWRF and was probably one of the skills that helped me restore my gun rights. I think your analysis and correlation hits the x ring dead center.

    Again, Mr. JRiggs, please accept my humble apology.

  6. Here is THE form to give nosy medical care providors that ask about your guns and some advise from Joe Horn who is I think an MD:

    Part One: Qualifications
    I affirm that I am certified to offer (Name of Patient: ), herineafter referred to as
    “the Patient”, qualified advice about firearms safety in the home, having received:
    Specify Course(s) of Study:
    Specify Institution(s)
    Specify Course Completion Date(s):
    resulting in:
    Specify Accreditation(s), Certification(s), License(s) etc.:
    Check one, as appropriate:
    ___ I represent that I have reviewed applicable scientific literature pertaining to defensive gun use and beneficial results of private
    firearms ownership. I further represent that I have reviewed all other relevant home safety issues with the Patient, including those
    relating to electricity, drains, disposals, compactors, garage doors, driveway safety, pool safety, pool fence codes and special locks
    for pool gates, auto safety, gas, broken glass, stored cleaning chemicals, buckets, toilets, sharp objects, garden tools, home tools,
    power tools, lawnmowers, lawn chemicals, scissors, needles, forks, knives, etc. I also acknowledge, by receiving this document, I
    have been made aware that, in his inaugural address before the American Medical Association on June 20, 2001, new president
    Richard Corlin, MD, admitted “What we don’t know about violence and guns is literally killing us…researchers do not have the data
    to tell how kids get guns, if trigger locks work, what the warning signs of violence in schools and at the workplace are and other
    critical questions due to lack of research funding.” (UPI). In spite of this admission, I represent that I have sufficient data and
    expertise to provide expert and clinically sound advice to patients regarding firearms in the home.
    ___ I am knowingly engaging in Home/Firearms Safety Counseling without certification, license or formal training in Risk
    Management, and; I have not reviewed applicable scientific literature pertaining to defensive gun use and beneficial results of
    private firearms ownership.
    Part Two: Liability
    I have determined, from a review of my medical malpractice insurance, that if I engage in an activity for
    which I am not certified, such as Firearms Safety Counseling, the carrier (check one, as appropriate):
    ___ will
    ___ will not
    cover lawsuits resulting from neglect, lack of qualification, etc.
    Insurance Carrier name, address and policy number insuring me for firearms safety expertise:
    I further warrant that, should the Patient follow my firearm safety counseling and remove from the home and/or disable firearms
    with trigger locks or other mechanisms, and if the patient or a family member, friend or visitor is subsequently injured or killed as a
    result of said removal or disabling, that my malpractice insurance and/or personal assets will cover all actual and punitive damages
    resulting from a lawsuit initiated by the patient, the patient’s legal reprerentative, or the patient’s survivors.
    Signature of attesting physician and date: __________________________________________________
    Name of attesting physician (please print):__________________________________________________
    Signature of patient and date: ____________________________________________________________
    Name of patient (please print):____________________________________________________________
    Patient: Indicate if physician “REFUSED TO SIGN.” Have physician place a copy in your chart/medical record.
    Risk Management Advice to Physicians and Malpractice Insurance Providers: Don’t Borrow Trouble
    © 2000 by Joe Horn crowtalk@theriver.com

    One of the best games in town is litigation, and litigating against physicians is even more popular than suing gun manufacturers. Physicians
    and their malpractice insurance carriers are well aware that litigators are constantly looking for new opportunities to sue. Let’s talk about one of
    those new areas of liability exposure.
    Nowadays, many physicians and other health care providers are engaging in the very risky, well intentioned, albeit naive and politically
    inspired business of asking their patients about ownership, maintenance and storage of firearms in the home, and even removal of those
    firearms from the home. Some could argue that this is a “boundary violation,” and it probably is, but there is another very valid reason why
    these professionals should NOT engage in this practice — MASSIVE LIABILITY.
    Physicians are licensed and certified in the practice of medicine, the treatment of illnesses and injuries, and in preventative activities. They
    may advise or answer questions about those issues. However, when physicians give advice about firearms safety in the home, without
    certification in that field, and without physically INSPECTING that particular home and those particular firearms, they are functioning outside the
    practice of medicine.
    Furthermore, if they fail to review the gamut of safety issues in the home, such as those relating to electricity, drains, disposals, compactors,
    garage doors, driveway safety, pool safety, pool fence codes and special locks for pool gates, auto safety, gas, broken glass, stored cleaning
    chemicals, buckets, toilets, sharp objects, garden tools, home tools, power tools, lawnmowers, lawn chemicals, scissors, needles, forks,
    knives, and on and on, well, you get the drift. A litigator could easily accuse that physician of being NEGLIGENT for not covering whichever one
    of those things that ultimately led to the death or injury of a child or any one in the family or even a visitor to the patient’s home.
    To engage in Home Safety Counseling without certification, license or formal training in home safety and Risk Management and to
    concentrate on one small politically correct area, i.e., firearms to the neglect of ALL of the other safety issues in the modern home, is to invite a
    lawsuit because the safety counselor, (Physician) Knew, Could have known or Should have known that there were other dangers to the
    occupants of that house more immediate than firearms. Things like swimming pools, buckets of water, and chemicals in homes are involved in
    the death or injury of many more children than accidental firearms discharge [ Source: CDC.] Firearms are a statistically small, nearly negligible
    fraction of the items involved in home injuries. Physicians SHOULD know that. So, why all of a sudden do some physicians consider
    themselves to be firearms and home safety experts? Where is their concern for all the other home safety issues that they DON’T cover with
    their patients?
    Once physicians start down this path of home safety counseling, they are completely on their own. A review of their medical malpractice
    insurance will reveal that if they engage in an activity for which they are not certified, the carrier will not cover them if (or when) they are sued.
    Consider a physician asking the following questions of his or her malpractice insurance carrier:
    • One of my patients is suing me for NOT warning them that furniture polish was poisonous and their child drank it and died. I only warned
    them about firearms, drugs and alcohol. Am I covered for counseling patients about firearms safety while not mentioning and giving
    preventative advice about ll the other dangers in the home, and doing so without formal training or certification in any aspect of home
    safety risk management? You know their answer.
    • How much training and certification do I need to become a Home Safety Expert Doctor? They will tell you that you are either a pediatrician
    or you are the National Safety Council. But, you don’t have certification to do the National Safety Council’s job for them.
    Homeowners and parents are civilly or criminally responsible for the safety or lack thereof in their homes. My advice to physicians is to not
    borrow trouble by presuming to be able to dispense safety advice outside your area of expertise: the practice of medicine. Your insurance
    carrier will love you if you simply treat injuries and illnesses, dispense advice on how to care for sick or injured persons, manage sanitation
    problems and try to prevent disease, but stay out of the Risk Management business unless you are trained and certified to do it. For example,
    E.R. doctors do not tell accident victims how to drive safely.
    Now, let’s discuss the very serious issues involving the lawful possession and use of firearms for self and home defense, and the danger and
    liabilities associated with advising patients to severely encumber the firearm(s) with locked storage, or advising the patient to remove them
    entirely. Patient X is told by Doctor Y to remove or lock up a firearm so it is not accessible. Patient X, does as counseled and has no firearm
    available at close at hand. Subsequently, patient is then the victim of a home invasion and calls 911, but the police are buried in calls and don’t
    arrive for 20 minutes during which time Patient X is raped, robbed and murdered. Anyone can see the liability issue here, particularly Risk
    Management specialists and liability insurance carriers.
    It’s just a matter of *when* and not *if* this will happen. Sooner or later, it will – if a home invasion takes place and Patient X takes Doctor Y’s
    Now, imagine what follows this horrendous event. Who is to blame? The perpetrator is long gone, and even so, the Plaintiff’s litigator will state
    that the perpetrator could have been neutralized by the appropriate lawful defensive use of a firearm, which *had* been in the home, but was no
    longer available to the deceased/injured because he/she followed a Physician’s *expert* advice to render him/herself and his/her home
    defenseless against violent crime.
    The Litigator will further argue that the Physician Knew, Could have known, Should have known that removing a firearm from use for home
    defense would result in harm to the patient if and when a crime was committed against the patient in the home, as any reasonable person
    would have surmised.
    If one acknowledges the already dangerous general liability of home safety counseling and then adds the very risky practice of advising
    patients to disarm themselves in the face of the reality of violent crime daily perpetrated against home owners, condo and apartment tenants, it
    is apparent that the Physician is placing him/herself in a very risky position for suit.
    It is my strong recommendation to Malpractice Carriers and those Physicians they insure to strictly avoid this high risk practice and reserve
    counseling for the area of expertise in which they are certified: Medicine. In my professional opinion, this is an emotionally charged political
    issue that Physicians and their Carriers should not be manipulated for whatever well-intentioned reason into taking the risk, which is
    Physicians in doubt of the veracity of what I’ve said are encouraged to call their carriers and ask them what they currently cover, and to ask if
    this new counseling policy is covered under the existing policy. We already know what they will say: Don’t borrow trouble.
    Since retiring from the LA County Sheriff’s Department, Mr. Horn has provided Risk Management and related issue Human Resource consulting. Among
    other firms, he has consulted to IBM, Gates Learjet, National Semiconductor, and Pinkerton International Protection Services.

    1. Witty I’m sure, but there is a problem.

      For every Doctor that’s asking you these questions because they want to, because they are a nosy busy-body with a strong desire to violate your Second Amendment Rights; There are 5 more that ask that because they are forced to. Be it the Hospital or their Group’s policy, they have no choice. Remember that the MAJORITY of M.D. and D.O.’s are NOT willing members of their respective Associations (AMA or AOA), and DO NOT support their policies. The AMA and AOA went down a political path long ago that most doctors don’t support, but they are forced to play the game, as it’s the only one in town, legally.

      I’m speaking as someone who was deemed mentally incompetent for service in the United States Armed Forces, so I went to Medical School instead. 😛
      Trust me, I don’t want any of this to happen either.

    2. I’m printing a copy of this and sending it to the clinic where me and my kids are treated. They have the firearm question on the form we have to fill out every two years.

  7. Sulaco: Too long.

    Simpler solution: Just ask the doctor why he is committing a medical ethics boundary violation.

    That will cause him to retreat at light speed.

  8. Ogre:

    The problem is with putting PTSD on the schedule as a “disorder”.

    PTSD is the normal reaction to being in combat. We should do what the old South African army did, and simply treat for PTSD for all troops returning from combat, and make six months of decompression and counseling mandatory.

    If you earn a combat ribbon, you spend six months in garrison being cooled off. Period. If you need more time, fine. No one gets a section 8, since PTSD is not abnormal.

  9. If the doctor or health provider is “forced” to ask such questions they are either willing to or afraid to find a new line of work. You have a choice, you may not like it, but it is yours to make.

  10. PTSD is a normal reaction to very abnormal experiences. It is not so much a DISorder, as the beginning stage of the mind CREATING order from the chaos of the disruption.

    One of the signs of PTSD is “hypervigilance”, which includes in many cases a perceived need to be armed. I believe that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to make a distinction between hypervigilance and “just another day in the life of a warrior.”

    Now, if a person IS experiencing hypervigilance as a part of PTSD, and you try to take his weapon(s) away from him, I’m thinking that would tend to make it WORSE, not better.

  11. As for “assault clips” I expect Obama to tell the ATF to ban the importation of foreign made magazines as they have no “sporting purpose”

    He will probably allow the ATF to ban the Saiga 12 and any imported detachable magazine fed shotguns/rifles.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *