The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

There is no rule requiring a doctor.to ask, if you don't feel they should ask, find one who doesn't ask, simply answer "no" or mention it to them, explaining why you feel the question is out of line.

This is part of the public health strategy many who don't understand/like personal firearm ownership believe will eventually work. They want to make gun owners the pariahs smokers and drinkers wno drive are today. It misses the point of wbat personal firearms ownership represents and why it is so deeply engrained in our national identity, but these are often the same people who agree with administrative checkpoints to enforce seatbelt laws.

Just stay calm, the doc is not going to report you to the ATF. Mikes black helo is not going to land on your lawn after your next visit to the AME.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
 
MikeD said:
Then be offended. And raise holy hell. I really don't care. And see what problems it will potentially cause. OR, se the bigger picture and grant the gun grabbers something that they "think" is a victory but is really not, and get them off your back.

Which do you want? A totally ineffective law that does nothing, or the grabbers to go after serious stuff that will be much more difficult to defend against potentially?
Click to expand...
Neither, because we have not exhausted our supply of crazy people in this world and invariably someone will shoot up a theater or school again and then we'll have to give them something else.
 
JordanD said:
Sure he can fondle my balls and tell me to cough, but I'll be DAMNED if I tell him I have a gun or not.
Click to expand...

Thats probably not even going to be the question. It'll probably be something like "do you practice firearms safety?" Something general like that. Then it will probably be "yes, no, N/A" Answer whatever you like and go on with your life.

Sheesh people, relax.....
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
Neither, because we have not exhausted our supply of crazy people in this world and invariably someone will shoot up a theater or school again and then we'll have to give them something else.
Click to expand...

Thats the thing, I don't believe we would have to. Because by granting them the stupid stuff thats totally ineffective, that's actually ammunition (no pun) to show that you have been working with them in good faith, and that they'd now be overstepping their bounds asking for more and more. Their biggest beef is that the gun nuts won't work with them. You not only get to prove them wrong, you also get to not have to deal with crap that would really be draconian.
 
Shiftace said:
Good luck.

I finally managed to find 4 boxes of 9 MM ammo. .380 ACP jumped up about 4 bucks in less than 10 days at the local wally world. Some maroons spread a rumor that wally world is no longer going to be stocking ammo once the shelves are emptied. :(
Click to expand...

One of the local shops was completely out of .223 last week, and wal mart was too, same with 9mm. I'm looking for an M&P Shield and I had 2 guys chuckle on the phone today when I asked. Honestly can't believe that out of the 11 shops I called, only 2 have a supply coming in fairly soon.
 
Mark815 said:
One of the local shops was completely out of .223 last week, and wal mart was too, same with 9mm. I'm looking for an M&P Shield and I had 2 guys chuckle on the phone today when I asked. Honestly can't believe that out of the 11 shops I called, only 2 have a supply coming in fairly soon.
Click to expand...

Hear ya. I got a Beretta PX4 Storm, while Beretta had the $ 50 mail in rebate going on. Hopefully, after the press conference the supply picks up again.. and the demand goes down.. a little bit :P
 
MikeD said:
Then be offended. And raise holy hell. I really don't care. And see what problems it will potentially cause. OR, se the bigger picture and grant the gun grabbers something that they "think" is a victory but is really not, and get them off your back.

Which do you want? A totally ineffective law that does nothing, or the grabbers to go after serious stuff that will be much more difficult to defend against potentially?
Click to expand...
Wow, limited to just those two options I just don't know I just don't know? Oh man oh man oh no what am I going to do?

If only- and I might sound crazy- IF ONLY there were some system in this country that we the people and our elected representatives could help form and create the law together in a meaningful fashion. If only there were some process to create, vet, and vote on a law before it was introduced we- we could even have some period on which to comment and argue the merits of the laws before they were created in a parliamentary fashion.

Anyway, if the gun grabbers (or whatever we are calling them) and the gun owners sat down with some lawyers they could probably create a meaningful and constitutionally meritorious law which could do some good. Although the head fake move sounds very cunning if it all goes as planned, surely there are no lasting consequences

Acadia said:
Again, if anyone views this question from a doctor as an invasion of privacy, don't provide an answer. I could see the concern if a truthful response was mandated, but that does not appear to be the case. Of course if you want true privacy, never go to a doctor because just about anything your doc does could be construed a violating your privacy in some way.
Click to expand...
Sure we could simply follow your train of reasoning to a predictable end where I have to question if there should be any privacy at all and/or anyone that takes offense the question should lighten up because you're always giving bits of your privacy up day to day... Nope.

In exchange I will simply argue that we shouldn't even be asked a question, we should have no privacy because it's clear to me now privacy is eroded away in day to day life and all my health information be available to the public at large. Q.E.D. Thank God we got that all figured out.
 
jynxyjoe said:
Well, in the interest of being "german" to a very narrow law- murder- is it improper to take the argument I made in the beginning and apply it to this new age AWB?
Click to expand...

Maybe and, it depends.

On one hand, you could argue that an AWB is prospective, in that the role of a an AWB is to prevent FUTURE harm.

On the other hand, you could argue that an AWB is retrospective, in that the role of an AWB is to punish lawful gun owners because the President is a socialist and hates guns.

Only one of those arguments, in my mind, holds water.

Sorry if this seems obtuse, because that's not my intent, it's just that this is all a lot more complicated than can realistically be discussed by a bunch of pilots on the intertubes. It's not that pilots, or intertubes, are limiting, it's just that it's a complex issue that people are emotionally invested in, and that produces strange results.

But if you want what I believe the real discussion to be, then it ends up with me basically saying that sides A and B are equivocal because I don't have any skin in this game. I'm the strange leftist who thinks that the second amendment is without a doubt a requirement for the continued survival of our republic, while at the same time thinking that the majority of vocal gun owners (on this forum) are somewhere between misinformed, and completely off their rocker when it comes to what their supposed rights are. Put simply, constitutional issues are not decided by saying, "READ THE CASE, YOU'RE AN IDIOT," and instead are usually much closer issues that reasonable people can disagree about.

But I don't think we've seen that, nor do I think we'll see that in our continued national discourse on this issue.

Frankly, I think the loudest voices on both sides do a level of damage to our country that they don't understand. There are people clamoring for civil war if their side isn't heard, and when you look at the historical examples, those loud folks need to STFU and realize that this isn't academics they're dealing with.
 
jynxyjoe said:
If only- and I might sound crazy- IF ONLY there were some system in this country that we the people and our elected representatives could help form and create the law together in a meaningful fashion. If only there were some process to create, vet, and vote on a law before it was introduced we- we could even have some period on which to comment and argue the merits of the laws before they were created in a parliamentary fashion.
Click to expand...



Fully agree. But in this case the train has left the station full speed already, but the destination can still at least be controlled in some way.....likely best to stop the train short, rather than give it fuel to keep going full distance. Thats all Im saying. In the current climate of gun control advocates roaring loudly, a head-fake victory can still be a good victory until the climate calms down over time.
 
jynxyjoe said:
Sure we could simply follow your train of reasoning to a predictable end where I have to question if there should be any privacy at all and/or anyone that takes offense the question should lighten up because you're always giving bits of your privacy up day to day... Nope.
Click to expand...

No answer provided, no privacy lost. You may elect to keep that information private if it is important to you.
 
MikeD said:
Fully agree. But in this case the train has left the station full speed already, but the destination can still at least be controlled in some way.....likely best to stop the train short, rather than give it fuel to keep going full distance. Thats all Im saying. In the current climate of gun control advocates roaring loudly, a head-fake victory can still be a good victory until the climate calms down over time.
Click to expand...

Eh, practically meets idealism I suppose. I find the best way to calm people down is to talk to them and address their concerns. Hell I don't even have a AW, I don't want an AW... I do want one of those big ass .50 rifles my buddy has but thats for someday when I can afford it.

In the meantime gun control advocates are rational people too, they just may not act like it all the time. Kind of like how I have a brain that works just not when it comes to

Acadia said:
No answer provided, no privacy lost. You may elect to keep that information private if it is important to you.
Click to expand...

Ah, got you. When I don't answer the question I will not have any trouble buying or possessing a gun afterwards then right?
 
jynxyjoe said:
Ah, got you. When I don't answer the question I will not have any trouble buying or possessing a gun afterwards then right?
Click to expand...

I guess we will have to see what the intent is here, but that is how I read it. I truly see this as a doctor being able to ask a question like MikeD has suggested, and I see it as being very similar to your doctor education you about other known pathways to health problems or injuries. If the information is being sent on for other purposes, that is a whole different kettle of fish, but the EO does not appear to indicate that. It really sounds like it is intended to be one more avenue for general education, quite frankly like reminding a single mom a with nut job teenager that she needs to secure her firearms.
 
I believe the objection is to the entire idea that firearms are a "health issue". This was something that gun control folks quite intentionally introduced in the early 1990s as another inroad -- trying to frame the argument as a public health issue, but with the same overall goal.
 
Acadia said:
I guess we will have to see what the intent is here, but that is how I read it. I truly see this as a doctor being able to ask a question like MikeD has suggested, and I see it as being very similar to your doctor education you about other known pathways to health problems or injuries. If the information is being sent on for other purposes, that is a whole different kettle of fish, but the EO does not appear to indicate that. It really sounds like it is intended to be one more avenue for general education, quite frankly like reminding a single mom a with nut job teenager that she needs to secure her firearms.
Click to expand...
If that is the case I will not answer on principal, and I understand I find funny things to get amp'ed up on, but I'm also the guy that will walks completely out of the way to goto KCM even if the TSA line is empty.

Anyhoot. We can all learn more about gun safety. I'm certainly open to learning more.

Like I'm suppose to have two hands on the weapon at all time, but what happens when I shoot two weapons at once? Questions questions.
 
Hacker15e said:
I believe the objection is to the entire idea that firearms are a "health issue". This was something that gun control folks quite intentionally introduced in the early 1990s as another inroad -- trying to frame the argument as a public health issue, but with the same overall goal.
Click to expand...

The President's direction to have the CDC study gun violence from a public health perspective is a bit disturbing to me for this reason. While they don't have any sort of enforcement power, the CDC can and does report to the President the health-related trends that could endanger national security. A few years ago, the threat of the bird flu was a big deal. An outbreak in the continental US was a real contingency that the CDC coordinated with several federal agencies on, including the military. It all depends on how the issue is framed, and how much of a panic could be created by not doing "something".

As the saying goes, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Obama is not stupid. He knows a frontal assault on gun rights isn't going to get very far. But if he can begin to shape the debate now, one of his successors could find him or herself in a position with the perfect conditions somewhere down the road. We're all too used to the kneejerk legislation these days that we forget that politicians also play chess...setting up moves several steps ahead of where they're at now.
 
Acadia said:
Maybe not your health, but I hope you are not denying accidents in the home with improperly stored firearms and kids etc. My understanding is that the record there has improved, but that is due to continued education. I see this initiative is just one more small part of that. This may not be terribly effective, but it doesn't restrict your right and you are not compelled to provide any information. Small issue; move on.
Click to expand...

Kids drink the dish detergent under the sink and die because there aren't child proof locks on the cabinets. Are pediatricians asking parents if they've childproofed their kitchen?

And how do you know it won't restrict my rights? How can we guarantee that there won't be some obscure line in future legislation that will make it mandatory for a doctor to report to the FBI that a patient reports that they own guns?
 
TFaudree_ERAU said:
Kids drink the dish detergent under the sink and die because there aren't child proof locks on the cabinets. Are pediatricians asking parents if they've childproofed their kitchen?
Click to expand...

Yes. Childproofing the house has been a pretty big deal for the last 30 years or so. Proper storage methods is one of the responsibilities of owning a gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top