Guns, A health Care Issue?

Our President has nominated Dr. Vivek Murthy to be US Surgeon General.

his nomination is in trouble due to His position that: Guns are a health care issue.

 

what is the issue?

 

background check so "crazy" people (mental health IS a health issue - p.s. so is the wholesale slaughter of children) don't get them to slaughter others.

death is a healthcare issue

note - he just has these opinions, as Surgeon General he can advocate all he wants but has no power to do a thing with anyone's firearm

 

I wonder if he wants to ban knives too.

 

I'm reading something weird.. gonna have to look into it some more but apparently, the state is actively taking guns away from people in CT. Then I find the strangest thing in the comments section:

"Silverwyrn Given the fact that Connecticut agreed to Agenda 21 the Fine Print states that all firearms are to be removed etc. , each family is allowed one child etc. haven’t much more from my source on that… anyhow U.S. is entering 1920′s of Germany. remember your history and do the math I too live in New England with young children of my own, so yes it does concern me."


Wait, WHAT? Each family in CT is only allowed one child?? WHAT?

If guns were a health care issue, that would have to be a universal truth. But it isn't because there are other places on Earth where people have guns but they don't have the problems that Americans have.

Edit .. I don't know what fine print that commenter was talking about but this is directly from Agenda 21 itself (page 16)

j.
Implement, as a matter of urgency, in accordance with country-specific conditions and legal
systems, measures to ensure that women and men have the same right to decide freely and
responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and have access to the information,
education and means, as appropriate, to enable them to exercise this right in keeping with
their freedom, dignity and personally held values, taking into account ethical and cultural
considerations.

Haven't read anything about guns yet.

 

Weapons are a healthcare in terms of causing an increase in demand on medical services from wounds, either on purpose from a crime, or by accident.

So in terms of cost control it is an aspect that needs to be looked at from a budgetary standpoint.

But I really don't know what you can do about it, except maybe show super graphic medical injury images at school assemblies across the country to help deter our culture of pro-violence = respect.

 

Hmm.

I went to the doctor a few years ago to have wax removed from my ear. The procedure consisted of a water dispenser, warm tap water and a catch container. It took less than 2 minutes.

I got the financial statement: it cost over $400 dollars.

I was lit. There's something wrong with that.

I don't know the statistics for gun related medical needs in this country but I have a feeling that unless it's terribly epidemic, those costs don't come close to the disgusting costs of regular and routine medical.

 

It usually is, depending on which end of the gun you're on.

Son hit his hand with his hatchet. The blunt end. Off to the hospital to see if the wound needed stitches or not. Didn't need. Soaked his hand in epsom salts for an hour=1200 bucks. Need to change trades and enter the epsom salt business.

 

Fifteen years ago I had a splinter taken out of my foot and they charged $1200.

 

Health Care ... is it a gun issue?

heh.

Robbery. Theft. Crook. Snake oil, snake oil!!

Could you imagine being a gun owner and the instance when you would strap on your holster is when you go to a doctor. Leave the gun at home when you go to the movie theater and mall, but take it with ya when you go to the government's medical industry.

 

Gina, you really need to be more discerning.
The link you provided is the rant of ONE GUY who knows ONE GUY who had his legal and ILLEGAL firearms confiscated and was arrested for federal firearms violations related to automatic weapons.
Hardly the story that guy is trying to paint of jack-booted men-in-black breaking down doors of average citizens to grab their old revolvers. LOL


DISCERNMENT
DISCERNMENT
DISCERNMENT
DISCERNMENT
DISCERNMENT
DISCERNMENT
DISCERNMENT
D
I
S
C
E
R
N
M
E
N
T
:2thumbsup:

 

Obamacare puts an end to all that.

 

That's good news. Now if we can only find a way to put an end to armed guards keeping Justina Pelletier's family from having a private moment from the state's stolen property (that'd be Justina Pelletier herself). She's a ward of the state (also called state property and yes, they stole her).

 

Aren't we ALL property of the State?

 

the issue is the cost. this guy pissed me off the other day, and it was like 300 bucks to cap that motha fucka

fuk that

 

I don't think all, no. Many .. yes.

 

Firearms are a health issue!
Many gun shot wounds to be dealt with on a daily basis.
Lots of tax money going into that treatment as most have no medial insurance.
Thus: the country needs a strong gun control program to curtail most gun crimes and lower the cost to the tax payer.

 

Correct me if im wrong but dont more people die from fatty foods and smoking. Do you really want to ban everything that kills people? I actually read a story about a girl who died from drinking to much water. I know of a guy who was killed after he was strangled...maybe we should ban hands.

 

unfortunately using that argument it becomes logical to allow every citizen to own a thermonuclear device, or maybe a minigun, or maybe to freely trade in VX nerve gas. Pfft, the gas causes seizures, so does television for some people, are you trying to take away my telly?!?!?!

It's a very stupid argument. The point is that we all use tools and materials which have some risk to their existence, and we all as a country, society and planet come together to figure out the best way to mitigate that risk while still allowing freedom to use tools and materials. The only issue between the pro-gun and anti-gun crowds is whether or not guns are closer to "grenades, nukes, arsenic, etc" or are they closer to "knives, baseball bats, lighters".

That is the ONLY thing that is disagreed upon. You see, fast food has a purpose, it can feed you (albeit poorly). Knives have too many purposes to list. Guns have a very limited range of uses past hunting; you can threaten someone, you can disable someone, (or, as often happens when someone with a gun attempts the former two options) you can kill someone.

I believe that this therefore puts guns closer to the category of "grenades, weapons of war, killers of populace, enders of innocent lives", and fairly far removed from "legitimate tools necessary to have in the household". If you live somewhere where a gun is necessary for your safety, then so be it. This is another thing the two camps disagree on; just how safe are we? A lot of pro-gun people are VERY paranoid and think the NSA is run by reptiles and shadowpeople who want to institute a zionist world government. With such a mindset, a gun is logical.

For those of us with less oppressive worldviews, a gun is rather an antiquated and barbaric device which in unwelcome in the vast majority of situations we encounter in life.

Certainly the solution is a balance, and right now the balance is HEAVILY towards the pro-gun side. As I understand it the more loosey-goosey states allow one to acquire a powerful life-ending weapon with minimal symbolic paperwork on the premise of "personal liberty"; why I can't also import a small 500g package of anthrax for my "personal liberty" is not answered very well by that crowd. The ones who scare me most are the ones who believe I should be able to get that package; unfortunately with technology having such a logarithmic effect, it means that every one person would yield control over the lives and freedoms of thousands or millions of people; factor in the statistic inevitability of someone having serious delusions/anger issues/poor impulse control/drug problems and you see that this one person suddenly becomes death for a countless mass of innocents, all because we had to make sure that every citizen had equal access to liberty.

Guns for blind people? We take away criminals liberties and that seems perfectly fine to us, and we tell old people who can't drive too well that they can no longer drive, but how DARE we take a handheld device that propels solid metal fragments to huge speeds for the purpose of destroying tissue from them?

cue the "hitler took their guns away" argument. yeah, he also rode in planes, trains and cars to effect his reign, guess we shouldn't be using such oppressive third reich technology?

 

I base my opinion on gun ownership in light of the size of military government and the advanced level of its weapons (which are FAR out of range for the average person to protect themselves - no competition - we're extremely vulnerable).

I believe men should be men, and not stripped of their autonomy or weakened in order to be subjugated to the will of other, ultra-privileged men. I believe citizens should retain their right to defend and protect themselves. The only way I would stand for and agree with stripping men (and women) of their right to own guns is if the government is ENTIRELY de-weaponized. I seriously doubt that'll ever happen, though.

I think the trouble in America is that we've allowed domestic abuse to become the norm. It advances .. becomes domestic violence .. until it finally becomes domestic war.

Being gunless or weaponless is not the equivalent of peace. Being honorable and respectful are the equivalent of peace.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Evc3Xtc84N0"]Pantera - Walk - YouTube