This is a discussion on Judge Bars Enforcement Of Gun Gag Bill on health care providers within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Very polorizing segments of opinions, facts, and views here. This has been a good discussion thread, which is one reason I posted it. My take ...
Very polorizing segments of opinions, facts, and views here. This has been a good discussion thread, which is one reason I posted it.
My take (and I see, for the most part I think, everyone's viewpoint on this,) is that doctors have to ask personal questions WRT your health and the reason for you or yours visit (truama care, childs stuffy nose, physical, whatever). As posted earlier, if your visit concerns your hearing and the Doc asks about your trips to the range and hearing protection......it's perfectly within reason.
Now, if said Doc, the hospital staff, the 'questionair' you fill out each visit, has the 'standard' question "Are there firearms in your home?" (AND this is/are information that'll end up elsewhere......i.e. read:goverment database) then it's WAY outta line.
This is an attempt to process you into a 'place' regarding you and guns within the 'goverment', to 'mark' you as a gun owner....... and that'll lead to who-knows-where.
Also, Doc's HAVE to be able to ask children certin questions without the parents there............ MANY children have been removed from abusive homes (even lives SAVED) by Doc's/hospital staff asking these questions and then alerting the cops.
I understand this (I didn't say I like or dislike it, just that I understand it)....... I also understand the 'other side' of this. Many families have had their lives turned into living hells because of this very line of questioning, then to have the police, child protective services, lawers, etc.'injected' into the mix because "lil' Jane/Johnny" sprained a wrist falling off the swing-set/jungle-gym/bicycle.
Bottom line here, WRT my feelings/opinion, is that it is WRONG for Doctors to be 'required' to ask ANYONE in your family wether or not there are guns in your house because the 'goverment' tells them they HAVE to ask.....and then REPORT BACK to THEM all answers.
Mine, yours, ANYONES firearms are your business and NOBODY elses! A fine line between you and your docters trust and your constitional RIGHTS have been crossed.
I'm in favor of gun control -- I think every citizen should have control of a gun.
1 Thess. 5:16-18
Please take a moment to help a Veteran and one of our own: gofundme.com/5d9dfa2s
"No doctor, I don't have any firearms." O.K., I lied; let him sue me.
Assault is a behavior, not a device.
"Don't never take no shortcuts." Patty Reed, Donner Party
Lifetime NRA member
I don't remember the State, but ONE Doctor posted at his front door than if any of his patients owned guns, then they needed to seek further healthcare from someone else. He lost more patients than the thought he would.... way more.
Doctors taking a political stance on a Constitutional Right, will cost them dearly most of the time. Maybe they should have gone into another profession. Their egos, are out of control.
Mine one day told me what " I was going to do" , and I had to inform him, there is not a person on the face of this world that can tell me what I am GOING TO DO..... only the consequences of doing it. Doctors, may discover the consequences isn't what they thought, and their support not as strong as they think.
I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."
The American Medical Association thinks that they are only organization that can stop the gun violence, and they have been putting their noses where they don't belong under the guise of "practicing medicine". Just Google American Medical Assocition and guns, and read the crap they are trying. I believe that their agenda is to have all guns regulated as dangerous hazards much like prescribed medicines are....by the Food and Drug Administration or a similar governmental agency.
This is not just about nosy doctors, but a full court press attempt by the anti-gun left.
Give to them according to their deeds and according to the wickedness of their endeavors; give to them according to the work of their hands; render to them their deserts. Psalm 28:4
You got it Zonk.
They aren't any different than the person sitting in DC. They know what's best for everyone. No one else is smart enough to know.
May you be in Heaven before the Devil knows you're dead
Good point. It's probably better to teach your kid to respond with "You'll have to ask my parents."Originally Posted by BurgDogI understand the potential benefit of questioning a child without the parents being present, but this same "potential benefit" argument supports allowing CPS to conduct unannounced surprise inspections of family homes. Lives could be saved here, too, as the authorities are able to identify unsafe conditions like a child's possible access to cleaning chemicals and other poisonous substances, open electrical outlets, sharp instruments, uncovered pools, small objects that present a choking hazard, etc., etc., etc... In fact, I'm willing to bet that more children are killed by such accidents than by abusive parents. Nevertheless, the benefits--potential OR realized--do not outweigh my rights.Originally Posted by goldshellback
My neighbor's concern for my child's welfare is heartwarming, but he does NOT (by way of government or any other means) get to bypass my parental rights; I don't care how many documented cases there are of other parents behaving like scumbags. There are documented cases of gun-toters behaving like scumbags but, again, this has nothing to do with MY carrying.
Empowering the intrusion of some authoritative body (doctors) often sounds like a good idea because we think it's good that other people's children are protected from other parents. However, before approving this kind of intrusion, you need to say out loud to yourself:
"This is a good idea because it will protect my own children from me." Now, if that sounds absurd and insulting (and hopefully it does) then you know that this kind of empowerment is probably a BAD IDEA.
"The flock sleep peaceably in their pasture at night because Sheepdogs stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
This is where there needs to be a distinction between responding to a situation based upon evidence, such as of abuse, and a generalized fishing expedition. The questioning that brought about this legislation was of the latter variety. The medical and insurance industries have already demonstrated the desire and willingness to impose sanctions on those who engage in behaviors or criteria that they think are detrimental. This is another step on that very slippery slope.Originally Posted by goldshellback