Has anyone else heard about this? Concerning Guns

[Beekissed]

Received this from my cousin in an email and thought it was of interest. I rarely ever give credence to alarmist type emails and quickly delete them but was wondering if this one had any truth to it...anyone been to the hospital or doc lately and been asked this question?

Checked this with Truth or Fiction. Its True.



Subject: Guns in your house? PLEASE READ & HEED !!!!

Read all the way to the end....interesting...

FYI . . .

I have been asked "Do you keep guns in the house?" The nurse just

kinda slipped it in along with all the other regular questions. I told her

I refused to answer because it was against the law to ask.

Everyone, whether you have guns or not, should give a neutral answer so they

have no idea who does and who doesn't.


My doctor asked me if I had guns in my house and also if any were

loaded. I , of course, answered yes to both questions.

Then he asked why I kept a loaded gun close to my bed. I answered

that my son, who is a certified gun instructor and also works for Homeland Security,

advised me that an unloaded, locked up gun is no protection against criminal attack.



The Government now requires these questions be asked of people on

Medicare, and probably everyone else.


Just passing this along for your information:


I had to visit a doctor other than my regular doctor when my doctor

was on vacation. One of the questions on the form I had to fill out was:


Do you have any guns in your house?? My answer was None of your damn

business!!

So it is out there!



It is either an insurance issue or government intervention. Either

way, it is out there and the second the government gets into your medical

records (As they want to under Obamacare) it will become a major issue and

will ultimately result in lock and load!!



Please pass this on to all the other retired guys and gun

owners...Thanks

From a Vietnam Vet and retired Police Officer:



I had a doctors appointment at the local VA clinic yesterday and

found out something very interesting that I would like to pass along.


While going through triage before seeing the doctor, I was asked at

the end of the exam, three questions:

1. Did I feel stressed?

2. Did I feel threatened?

3. Did I feel like doing harm to someone?

The nurse then informed me, that if I had answered yes to any of the

questions, I would have lost my concealed carry permit as it would

have gone into my medical records and the VA would have reported it to

Homeland Security.

Looks like they are going after the vets first. Other gun people like

retired law enforcement will probably be next. Then when they go

after the civilians, what argument will they have?


Be forewarned and be aware. The Obama administration has gone on

record as considering veterans and gun owners potential terrorists.


Whether you are a gun owner, veteran or not, YOU'VE BEEN WARNED !


If you know veterans and gun owners, please pass this on to them. Be

very cautious about what you say and to whom.

 

[2dream]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/medicare.asp

 

[Beekissed]

Thanks! I thought it sounded a little over the top and I hadn't been out of the loop of the medical field THAT long and I don't remember any of this happening.... Though I could definitely see it being tried on for size by the government....

 

[Icu4dzs]

Fortunately, this is NOT TRUE. Why it gets circulated is anyone's guess.
In the immortal words of the late Charlton Heston,
"You can have my gun when you can peel my cold, dead hand from around it!"
Even if such a law were supported by the liberal bench, there is NO provision in that law that requires a citizen to answer such a question. (Read the Miranda Act) which clearly states, "You have the RIGHT to remain silent....anything you do say can and will be used against you in a court of law". Who in their right mind, under that protection would be so misguided as to give the enemy such intelligence?

The people who have risked their lives in the defense of the freedom of this nation will never stand/sit passively still and allow any manner of individual, (regardless of how compelling an argument they think they can make) to delete, change or cancel the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America which provides for the common man to possess and use a firearm in the defense of his freedom, his family or his personal safety.
If they are required to carry a weapon to defend this country in uniform, they will continue to carry a weapon to defend their freedom always without regard to the necessity for a uniform.

This kind of propaganda occurs every time the MSM makes a case of an incident such as the most recent one in Florida. Anyone who feels they can, without the benefit of being there, prove that a man who felt threatened did NOT act in his own personal defense is deeply deluded by those who would like to conquer this nation and overwhelm the citizens of it by removing their ability to defend themselves.

The real question in that case is "Why did the citizens of that area feel they had to have the option of deadly force in order to live SAFELY, in peace and tranquility in their neighborhood? That is and should remain the ONLY issue here. If the feeling that the citizens of this neighborhood had not been so intense about being afraid for their safety and their lives, they never would have taken up arms to protect themselves. The criminal wants the right to intimidate the people and not be afraid that such intimidation would be met with resistance. In the words of Col. Sherman T. Potter, I say "Horse-hockey!" This type of situation is the precursor for letting the criminals dominate other, law abiding citizens. The law allowing them to "stand their ground" simply puts the criminals at risk for such behavior and I for one support such a law.

I for one used to be the ONLY person who looked like I do, in 28 square blocks of the inner city of Baltimore. I faced the local teenagers on a daily/nightly basis. My truck and home were both broken into by teenagers and they constantly played the "intimidation" game with me. Fortunately for me, I was NOT intimidated by them and made it so abundantly clear on several occasions that they finally got the message and backed away. The final step that convinced them to stop was putting a shotgun blast through an open window frame that I had taken out that day while a "person was standing in my kitchen on the newly placed floor joists urinating. He quickly realized that I WAS home and that I DID NOT appreciate him using my kitchen for a bathroom...(particularly since there was a bathroom only 4 feet from where he was standing).

The incident in Florida is likely a very similar situation. I could easily imagine because I have seen it many times in the past. I had it happen when I was a school teacher as well. Teenagers are no different in that respect. They spend a great deal of their time attempting to "test the limits" of many things, and testing the limits of the local adults who are NOT members of their specific grouping, (regardless of what specific grouping that might be) is extremely common. The usual outcome is that the adult has the knowledge of this and will frequently stand up to the teenager who ordinarily will back down, UNLESS that teenager happens to be in the company of their friends, at which time they use the situation to establish their "bona fides" with their buddies and see if they can scare that "old coot"

Many have tried to make this about RACE and use some type of hate propaganda to attempt to discredit others rather than look at the situation preceding it and consider the rationale for why it even happened in the first place. What is interesting is that despite the fact that many are making defamatory remarks about one race or another, the fact of the matter is that the two individuals in the current situation were both "persons of color". One was black the other was brown/red. (There really is no brown race. The people of Mexico are descended from the red race but they consider themselves brown).

This ROOT CAUSE of this particular situation is NOT about RACE, but it is ALL ABOUT the consistent acts of intimidation and the concept of creating enough FEAR in an entire community which eventually resulted in causing one man to resort to (in his mind) an act of "self-preservation/defense). Since there was NO other person (at least none have come forward and have been able to prove that they witnessed the event) then the entire issue becomes one of "he said/she said" and no true "PROOF" will ever come to light since the only other participant is now dead. For the media to take sides on this so strongly and so blatantly and for the government to change their decision because of one-sided public pressure (See my essay on "The Squeaky Wheel Gets the Grease")

Neither the few nor the many have a right to act merely by their will, in any matter connected with duty, trust, engagement, or obligation.

What we are really seeing is a modern version of the Salem Witch hunt trials. Yes, they have demanded the man be charged with homicide and now the government officials who wish to be re-elected by this lynch mob mentality has conceded to doing it in order to diminish their chances of being defeated in their next election REGARDLESS of the situation. What will they do if the trial results in a "not guilty" verdict? Are any of us deluded into believing the "lynch mob mentality" will simply accept the verdict of the jury and back off, thus letting this man live in peace, tranquility and safety in his neighborhood once again? Methinks not. I have the distinct impression that it will simply cause more outcry from those who wish to make this about RACE and perpetuate the hatred they feel toward others, without the chance for consideration of possible wrong doing by the person who is now dead.

Currently, the MSM is owned and controlled by those who would attempt to delude the American people into thinking that anyone who owns a firearm is some form of terrorist. This is in complete disagreement with the "majority" in this country, which absolutely includes those who perpetrate crime with firearms, and all other manner of weapons on a daily basis.

If you take away a person's right to "bear arms" you make them a "subject". When they have the right to defend themselves against illegal aggression, they are citizens. Attempting to demonize and criminalize the act of self-defense will only cause more discord and tension, NOT less.

The very thought of the post quoted as being true is absurd as well. IMHO this post was written by someone who while attempting to discredit our government, is also attempting to stir up the same kind of anti-liberal propaganda. While I do NOT approve of either, it is clear that there are those whose attempt to destroy this country can come from a multitude of perspectives, and one of them is attempting to "look like the good guy".

I have seen this post on multiple other occasions and have been to the VA system. I was NOT asked about firearms in my house and if I were, I would have asked the individual an equally probing personal question expecting an equally condemning answer which would similarly make them as vulnerable as their question would have made me. Fortunately, there is a legal and legitimate way of avoiding the question which was used just the other day by the now "fired" head of the GAO who said "I refuse to answer this question and invoke my privilege under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States to do so".

In summary, this entire issue is an attempt to discredit the individual right to bear arms and defend their lives and property. The criminal should NOT be allowed to win but then "Brutus IS an honorable man" Only one who would never have the courage nor the will to defend freedom would do such a thing. It will be a slow process but eventually this type of individual will win because this type of individual is overpopulating our nation and slowly diluting the will of the people to be a free and independent nation. "NEW WORLD ORDER" be DA**ed!

Sorry this one is so long, but "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing Edmund Burke (according to some sources)

Trim sends
//BT//

 

[lazyday]

First, I want to say I am PRO Gun.......... I can understand if the visiting health company would ask this question if they are visiting a home where you have someone ill and no one else that lives in the house...... Example: My dear wonderful father had a brain tumor that no one knew about. I was called by my Aunt, telling me I needed to check on my father because he didn't sound right. My Father answered the door with a loaded gun and he thought their was people trying to get in to the house. I still shudder to think that if he had not recognized me he would have shot me. So long story short Yes if a medical personal want to know if your love one has a gun in the house you should answer or remove the gun. I feel this is our right to bear arms but I do believe in safety to.

 

[moolie]

(Just as an aside, Charlton Heston never actually said that quote as written, but alluded to it in a speech. And, there is doubt regarding the quote attributed to Edmund Burke. I'm all about attributing quotes to their proper sources.)

Carry on...