Dr. Oz is hoping to represent Pennsylvanians in the U.S. Senate, as Incumbent Sen. Pat Toomey (R) is not seeking re-election.
The talk show host, Oprah protégé, and cardiothoracic surgeon announced his campaign for the 2022 Senate race on social media.
I’m running for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania because America needs a Conservative Republican to cure what’s wrong with Washington. I’m a world-class surgeon, fighter, and health care advocate stepping forward to cure our country’s ills. Watch my announcement video now! pic.twitter.com/yLhKsZm9sl
— Dr. Mehmet Oz (@DrOz) November 30, 2021
“I’m running for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania because America needs a Conservative Republican to cure what’s wrong with Washington,” Oz said on Twitter.
“I’m a world-class surgeon, fighter, and health care advocate stepping forward to cure our country’s ills,” he continued. “Watch my announcement video now!”
But while the “Conservative Republican” shoe may fit with respect to the doctor’s position on many issues, there is one that may give PA voters cause for pause. The Second Amendment.
As Fox News recently pointed out, Dr. Oz has voiced support for red flag laws and put his influence behind various gun-control campaigns over the years.
“Part of the hope, I gather, is that we’ll make a system so that I can call in and say ‘There’s evidence besides my testimony that this person is dangerous. Look at their Facebook feed or social media postings. Or comments they’ve made to coworkers beside me. Do a little investigating. I’m alerting you, putting a little red flag up there saying this person is a concern,'” he said during an episode of “The Dr. Oz Show.”
Also, according to Fox News:
He also previously promoted a call from the American College of Physicians for a ban on semi-automatic weapons, though he didn’t explicitly endorse such a ban himself.
Oz has criticized gun laws in America and spotlighted the #ThisIsOurLane campaign – a movement of medical professionals seeking greater restrictions on firearm purchases in the United States.
Following the publication of the Fox News article, Oz responded with a statement defending his 2A credentials.
“As a proud gun owner myself, I’m a firm believer in the Second Amendment and our constitutional right to bear arms for protection. I do not believe there should be any policy or law, state or federal, that prevents a law-abiding American from purchasing a gun without due process and fair adjudication,” Oz said.
Right now, the @CDCgov is NOT funded to study gun violence in this country. It’s time we treat shootings as a public health problem. Contact your congressperson today to demand they fund the #CDC to comprehensively study gun violence. #EndTheBan https://t.co/iFDGMG7fI5 pic.twitter.com/lZdMXW5zLC
— Dr. Mehmet Oz (@DrOz) March 14, 2018
It appears the second half of that statement is in response to Oz’s comment about red flag laws that permit the government to confiscate firearms from individuals accused but not convicted of being a danger to themselves and others.
Of course, the question is whether Oz supports confiscation first and adjudication second, or adjudication first and confiscation second.
Many red flag laws empower the government to seize guns and 2A rights now while forcing the accused to defend himself later, days or even weeks down the road. That is the opposite of due process.
Voters will decide who takes over for Sen. Toomey on November 8, 2022. That gives Dr. Oz a lot of time to clarify his statements and positions, assuming he makes it through the GOP primary. Stay tuned for updates.
Because someone is ‘conservative’ doesn’t mean they can’t use their brain. I am a gun owner but not a second amendment purist. The “right to Bear Arms” isn’t really a right, but is a privilege as noted by the mandatory background check prior to any ffl purchase (that’s not in the constitution as well as age limits). It’s also a law to not sell privately to anyone whom you believe ought not to have the weapon. Machine Guns are very difficult to come by due to laws. We won’t go into bazookas, grenades etc. Red flag laws are in place for- in the case of someone up to the present who hasn’t had any disqualifying events for owning/ purchasing- has access/ owns guns and is believed to be a threat to themselves or others. In and of itself waiting for ‘due process’ could result in tragedy. Case in point of the alerts in FLA from people who notified authorities of a students threats “i thought they were funny” to go on a shooting rampage in that state this past week at an aeronautical college. If people did take action in the numerous cases that HAVE resulted in tragedy maybe we wouldn’t be defending our guns like we have to. How many times have we read “there were signs…” I don’t have a criminal record that would stop me of the privilege of buying. ‘False accusations’ made in bad faith should be prosecuted as with any other situation. None of us were around to speak with the founders regarding their intent. We can speculate. I do believe that they intended ownership and never would have predicted advancements in technology, knowledge in human nature leading to a more descriptive amendment. For instance- they owned slaves and thought it was OK! Looking for INSIGHTFUL feedback.
Brings to mind one of the more significant learning moments of my youth.
I had finished a particularly awful task for my family’s trucking company – that of cleaning grain from a ribbed-floor 40 foot trailer.
It was a summer Friday and I had seen this movie before regarding the Ol’ Man’s recognition of this sort of work.
When he asked about my work upon my declaration that I had finished, I responded with some answer or other that incorporated “good enough”.
Of course, he walked out with a screw driver, ran it down a couple of rails and silently looked at me as he held it up.
My whiny response was something along the lines of: “nothing’s EVER *good enough* for you, is it?”
Instead of the back-hand I deserved, he retorted with: “When you understand everything you think you know about that question, come talk to me about it!”
Before the trailer was cleaned to perfection, well after 7-8 that nite, I DID understand the question, and did talk to him about it.
Point being, if one asks me whether or not another individual’s “… Pro-Gun Enough?”
I have to say NO!
Todd.
Rino in the making !
Seems to me that if you must ask if he’s “pro gun enough”, then you need to begin looking at another candidate. That should not be a question.
RINO ! Proverbial fox in the henhouse.
Seeing a picture of dr ooze on the set of the harpo winbag show drinking champaign tells me all I need to know about his complete lack of qualification to be a CONSERVATIVE ANYTHHING.
People of Pennsylvania, for gods sake DO NOT ELECT THIS CHARLATAN TO ANY PUBLIC OFFICE. HE WILL NOT BE A SUPPORTER OF ANYTHING POSITIVE IN REGARDS TO THE 2ND AMENDMENT. ALL HE’S SELLING IS SNAKE OIL! AND HIMSELF. He wants in on tthe politics gravy train, likely becauce his medical/tv career isn’tt what it used to be.
JUST SAY NO!!!
His number one failing is he is a muslim. The country and the Congress have never had anything good happen with a muslim in charge of anything. Biblically, a country claiming to be Christian should never have anyone in authority over them that is not. The muslim and the atheist have no heart for compassion and fair judgement, and lately neither have many of those that proclaim Christian beliefs, like the baby killer Pelosi.
NO and NO again! This man is a RINO in spades! He is ALL in for the LGBT+, transgender and CRT. Do not vote for this imposter! EVER.
I agree, Dr. Oz is truly a Commie/Rino masquerading as a Conservative. You can’t support the 2nd Amendment and Red Flag laws that violate the Constitution’s Due Process laws. He’s an oxymoron.
Don’t fret my MAGA’s, this dum dum’s ego is leading him astray. He has zero chance of getting the nomination, never mind beating a Democrat. This story is moot
RINO alert………RINO…….aLERT
Dr. Ooze is a media medical charlatan, who is trying to morf his chicanery into politics. All his previous positions on gun control have been anti-gun. He is a typical wannabe politician, lying in an attempt to enhance his credentials.
Doctor Ooze is a media medical charlatan who is trying to morf his chicanery into politics. All his past positions on gun control have been anti-gun. He is a typical wannabe politician who is lying in an attempt to enhance his credentials.
a simple case of false advertising. Next?