New (FL) law forbidding doctors to talk to patients about guns angers physicians

[Bang]

Have you considered the possibility that I demonstrate tendency towards paranoid behavior BECAUSE of all of those people trying to take away my guns? When a right you have is under seige (which this one is, regardless of what anyone says) you lose it the minute you stop defending it. The 2nd Amendment is well defended and funded but there are just as many well funded people trying to take that right away.

It's under seige, but those outside your gates have no weapons.

No pun intended.. it's not a fight they will ever win.

Be confident in your gun lobby, it's the strongest one in America, and it has been for decades. That will not change.

The opposition simply hasn't got the same backing.

I think if it came right down to a vote of all Americans on gun controls, the second would remain intact. It's very strong.

~Bang

[Burgold]

It's under seige, but those outside your gates have no weapons.

No pun intended.. it's not a fight they will ever win.

Be confident in your gun lobby, it's the strongest one in America, and it has been for decades. That will not change.

The opposition simply hasn't got the same backing.

I think if it came right down to a vote of all Americans on gun controls, the second would remain intact. It's very strong.

~Bang

Heck, I'm for gun control. I believe in mandatory safety courses, in FBI background checks, I like waiting periods before you can get your gun, and a host of other things, but even I don't believe we should make guns illegal for Americans to own... and on the spectrum of my beliefs, gun control is probably one where I am most liberal.

Mind you, this post probably confirms in Repo's mind that I'm his enemy :paranoid:

[Jumbo]

Besides, I don't think angry physicians should have guns. With their knowledge of anatomy they'd be even more dangerous than the average maladjusted armed-to-the-teeth Amurikan.

[Cept One]

Heck, I'm for gun control. I believe in mandatory safety courses, in FBI background checks, I like waiting periods before you can get your gun, and a host of other things, but even I don't believe we should make guns illegal for Americans to own... and on the spectrum of my beliefs, gun control is probably one where I am most liberal.

So let me get this straight you are for the Gov't restricting 2nd amendment rights but a law that prohibits doctors from spouting propaganda in the guise of medical advise is unacceptable?

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 11:29 AM ----------

It's under seige, but those outside your gates have no weapons.

No pun intended.. it's not a fight they will ever win.

Be confident in your gun lobby, it's the strongest one in America, and it has been for decades. That will not change.

The opposition simply hasn't got the same backing.

I think if it came right down to a vote of all Americans on gun controls, the second would remain intact. It's very strong.

~Bang

The gun control lobby does not have the member support like organizations like NRA & SAF but it is very well funded (Soros, Bloomberg, etc) and is willing to do anything including lying to restrict the 2nd amendment.

[Larry]

Have you considered the possibility that I demonstrate tendency towards paranoid behavior BECAUSE of all of those people trying to take away my guns?

Nope. Not even for an instant.

Because I live in reality.

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 11:43 AM ----------

Heck, I'm for gun control. I believe in mandatory safety courses, in FBI background checks, I like waiting periods before you can get your gun, and a host of other things, but even I don't believe we should make guns illegal for Americans to own... and on the spectrum of my beliefs, gun control is probably one where I am most liberal.

Mind you, this post probably confirms in Repo's mind that I'm his enemy :paranoid:

Heck, I'll go you one better. I support gun registration. To me, there's something wrong (probably more than one thing) when guns are easier to get than a car.

But I'm with you. Banning them (or even those things that used to be used as de facto bans, like "must be approved by the chief of police") are both morally wrong and un-American.

[Henry]

So let me get this straight you are for the Gov't restricting 2nd amendment rights but a law that prohibits doctors from spouting propaganda in the guise of medical advise is unacceptable?

You realize this question could be reversed and asked of you?

[Larry]

I was simply admiring the mindset where "I support safety classes" becomes "so you support restricting 2nd amendment rights".

[Jumbo]

There are developmental stages where expecting abstract thinking is unrealistic.

[Larry]

Speaking as one of those evil liberals who wants to take away everybody's guns, I would like to express my thanks to those people who have volunteered to stand up and to become the icons used to represent the people who the legislature was thinking of when they passed it.

[headexplode]

I can't believe what some people here think of pediatricians.

I'm a pediatrician. It is my mission to try and keep children healthy and safe.

You sick ****.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

So let me get this straight you are for the Gov't restricting 2nd amendment rights but a law that prohibits doctors from spouting propaganda in the guise of medical advise is unacceptable?

Certain restrictions to the second amendment are reasonable. For example, I believe firmly in mental/criminal background checks.

Blatant violations of the first amendment are not.

[Bang]

The gun control lobby does not have the member support like organizations like NRA & SAF but it is very well funded (Soros, Bloomberg, etc) and is willing to do anything including lying to restrict the 2nd amendment.

So, when it works in any capacity on the Federal level then I'll give your fear some grounds. They are fighting the uphill battle. If things like Columbine, or the congresswoman shot in Arizona this past spring etc aren't enugh to shock people into gun bans, I don't think anyhting ever will.

Til then, you're like a bull worrying about the gnat flying around his ear.

Be vigilant, but the paranoia that worries so much that it will trash one constitutional right to protect another one from a problem that doesn't exist is too far over the top.

~Bang

[Burgold]

Hell, we couldn't even get them to agree to consider psychiatric records after the attack at Virginia Tech. It was considered too much of a threat on the 2nd Ammendment to consider whether someone was currently being treated and was considered a danger to himself or others.

If we can't get that kind of gun control I don't think we can get much of any.

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 02:05 PM ----------

So let me get this straight you are for the Gov't restricting 2nd amendment rights but a law that prohibits doctors from spouting propaganda in the guise of medical advise is unacceptable?

.

Toldja so. Sigh.

[Cept One]

Certain restrictions to the second amendment are reasonable. For example, I believe firmly in mental/criminal background checks.

Blatant violations of the first amendment are not.

I think most gun owners would agree that the instant background check system signed into law by R. Reagan is necessary. Registration, waiting periods, magazine capacity and caliber restrictions on the other hand are not.

The Florida law is not a violation of the 1st amendment... it does not prevent doctors inquiring about guns if there is a specific reason to do so. What it does is prevent is doctors from pushing a politically motivated and and factually dishonest information in the guise of medical advise. The AAP's idea of gun safety is telling their patients don't own a gun.

[Henry]

I think most gun owners would agree that the instant background check system signed into law by R. Reagan is necessary. Registration, waiting periods, magazine capacity and caliber restrictions on the other hand are not.

The Florida law is not a violation of the 1st amendment... it does not prevent doctors inquiring about guns if there is a specific reason to do so. What it does is prevent is doctors from pushing a politically motivated and and factually dishonest information in the guise of medical advise. The AAP's idea of gun safety is telling their patients don't own a gun.

What factually dishonest information?

Frankly, your opinion on the political motivation of a doctor's advice is irrelevant. It's his right to give it under the first amendment. It's your right to take it, or not, or find another doctor.

[Bang]

I think most gun owners would agree that the instant background check system signed into law by R. Reagan is necessary. Registration, waiting periods, magazine capacity and caliber restrictions on the other hand are not.

The Florida law is not a violation of the 1st amendment... it does not prevent doctors inquiring about guns if there is a specific reason to do so. What it does is prevent is doctors from pushing a politically motivated and and factually dishonest information in the guise of medical advise. The AAP's idea of gun safety is telling their patients don't own a gun.

You have no idea what a doctor would say, you just assume it would be dishonest because you're a paranoid.

As has been shown in the thread before you showed up, the number of people who felt there was a problem doesn't even have a number.. the word "some" was used.

"Some people" said their doctor asked them this question, which of course prompts the big government proponents to set up a nanny law to protect them. Because they can't do it for themselves. Why we have to suffer because of you is beyond me.

Forbidding anyone from any non-threatening speech under political pretense is exactly what the first amendment is designed to protect you and me against.

What if a liberal governor passes a law that forbids you to talk about your guns in public? then what? After all, there's no real reason for it, other than for you to spread your dishonest gun agenda. Why should you be allowed to do that?

Oh, wait.. I know why. because the ****ing Constitution of the United States guarantees you your right to talk to anyone about anything. Just as they have the right to tell you to leave you alone about it.

As I've said a dozen times in this thread. exercise your first amendment right to tell him it's not his business and behave like an adult.

Crying for the nanny-state to protect you from a question is cowardly.

I've asked this before, no one has yet said yes.

Has your doctor EVER asked you if you own a gun?

Has anyone here EVER been asked by any doctor if they own a gun?

Bet you have't. And I bet hardly anyone ever has. This is pandering to the cowards who make up the republican base these days.. the screaming ninnies afraid of everything from mosques to homos to Mexicans to Obama to anti-gun people.

Sack up. Tired of needing big government to take care of you people who can't take care of yourselves.

~Bang

[Cept One]

Hell, we couldn't even get them to agree to consider psychiatric records after the attack at Virginia Tech. It was considered too much of a threat on the 2nd Ammendment to consider whether someone was currently being treated and was considered a danger to himself or others.

If we can't get that kind of gun control I don't think we can get much of any.

:no:

In 2008 Bush signed into law the NICS IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2007 that would require the States to submit mental health information to the NICS system.

[Burgold]

The Florida law is not a violation of the 1st amendment...

Do you really believe this?

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 02:54 PM ----------

:no:

In 2008 Bush signed into law the NICS IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2007 that would require the States to submit mental health information to the NICS system.

Ah, glad to be corrected. I remembered there was a huge controversy about that and a lot of people saying it was a "no go" glad saner minds prevailed. Do you recall if they were allowed to act and deny guns based on this info?

[bcl05]

What it does is prevent is doctors from pushing a politically motivated and and factually dishonest information in the guise of medical advise. The AAP's idea of gun safety is telling their patients don't own a gun.

Are you really suggesting that the AAP is lying? It is absolutely true that the single most effective way to prevent gun injuries is to not be exposed to guns.

If there are no guns in the house, its much less likely that a child will find a gun in the house. I think that's not "factually dishonest." The next best method of preventing gun injuries in children is to make guns inaccessible and/or unusable for children. That, in a nutshell, is the policy statement of the AAP.

If your highest gun-related priority is avoiding children's gun injuries, the absolutely best thing you can do is not own a gun. If owning a gun is very important to you, for whatever reason, at least put it in a safe and keep the ammo away from the kids. This is common sense stuff, not some conspiracy to take down the bill of rights.

[Bang]

Are you really suggesting that the AAP is lying? It is absolutely true that the single most effective way to prevent gun injuries is to not be exposed to guns.

If there are no guns in the house, its much less likely that a child will find a gun in the house. I think that's not "factually dishonest." The next best method of preventing gun injuries in children is to make guns inaccessible and/or unusable for children. That, in a nutshell, is the policy statement of the AAP.

If your highest gun-related priority is avoiding children's gun injuries, the absolutely best thing you can do is not own a gun. If owning a gun is very important to you, for whatever reason, at least put it in a safe and keep the ammo away from the kids. This is common sense stuff, not some conspiracy to take down the bill of rights.

Wait a minute wait a minute WAIT A GODDAM MINUTE.

Are you telling me that the best way to prevent injuries from falling from a rooftop is to not go on top of a roof in the first place?

Just what kind of commie pinko are you?

where's my congressman. I need a law! This man is trying to talk to me!

Help! Help!

Nanny Government SAVE ME from his propaganda!

~Bankchovski

[Cept One]

Do you really believe this?

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 02:54 PM ----------

Ah, glad to be corrected. I remembered there was a huge controversy about that and a lot of people saying it was a "no go" glad saner minds prevailed. Do you recall if they were allowed to act and deny guns based on this info?

Well people with certain mental health issues were already banned from owning guns this law was meant to strengthen the system by requiring the state to submit this info to the NICS system.

[PokerPacker]

Wait a minute wait a minute WAIT A GODDAM MINUTE.

Are you telling me that the best way to prevent injuries from falling from a rooftop is to not go on top of a roof in the first place?

Just what kind of commie pinko are you?

where's my congressman. I need a law! This man is trying to talk to me!

Help! Help!

Nanny Government SAVE ME from his propaganda!

~Bankchovski

actually, the safest way to prevent injuries from falling off your roof is to not have one. Not getting on your roof is just safe roof-practice.

[Bang]

actually, the safest way to prevent injuries from falling off your roof is to not have one.

WhoawhoawhoaWHOA!

Now you want me to be homeless!

Help! Help! Governor Rightwing! Save Me!

These liberal doctors are trying to talk me into being homeless!!!

~Bum

[Cept One]

Are you really suggesting that the AAP is lying? It is absolutely true that the single most effective way to prevent gun injuries is to not be exposed to guns.

I wouldn't go as far as saying they a purposefully lying. They are using statistics that were released by groups like the Brady Campaign and have been proven to be complete bull****.

Would you agree that drowning is a child safety issue? It claims the lives of far more children annually than gun accidents. Why is the advice given by the AAP on this issue so different?

[Bang]

I wouldn't go as far as saying they a purposefully lying. They are using statistics that were released by groups like the Brady Campaign and have been proven to be complete bull****.

Would you agree that drowning is a child safety issue? It claims the lives of far more children annually than gun accidents. Why is the advice given by the AAP on this issue so different?

Legitimately curious, has your doctor ever inquired as to your gun ownership?

~Bang