"Obama’s 23 Executive Actions on Gun Violence"

[philnotfil]

As announced by the white house.

wsj.com (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/01/16/list-obamas-23-executive-actions-on-gun-violence/)

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health-care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law-enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency-response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental-health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental-health-parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

[wgbgator]

Hmm, I don't see taking away all guns on there.

[philnotfil]

I have issues with #5, they shouldn't be able to run a full background check on an individual unless they have probable cause. Pulling someone over for speeding and having them admit that they have a gun is not probable cause.

Some of these I am a little surprised to see, like #9, we don't already do this? #11 made me roll my eyes a little, isn't that already something he is supposed to be doing?

[wgbgator]

I have issues with #5, they shouldn't be able to run a full background check on an individual unless they have probable cause. Pulling someone over for speeding and having them admit that they have a gun is not probable cause.

Some of these I am a little surprised to see, like #9, we don't already do this? #11 made me roll my eyes a little, isn't that already something he is supposed to be doing?

Does an ATF director have to be confirmed? Because that may be the problem, there's been a tendancy to block, filibuster or delay confirmation votes on many gov't positions.

[philnotfil]

Does an ATF director have to be confirmed? Because that may be the problem, there's been a tendancy to block, filibuster or delay confirmation votes on many gov't positions.

Sure, but that doesn't keep him from nominating the person he think will do the best job.

[wgbgator]

Sure, but that doesn't keep him from nominating the person he think will do the best job.

Hmm, it appears he has nominated someone previously.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02-16/news/ct-met-atf-gun-lobby-0217-20110216_1_street-gangs-insane-deuces-andrew-traver

Obama nominated Traver in November, triggering strong opposition from the NRA, which called him hostile to the Second Amendment and urged Obama to withdraw the nomination.

Traver "has been deeply aligned with gun control advocates and anti-gun activities," Chris Cox, who leads the NRA's lobbying arm, said at that time.

Obama renominated Traver when the new Congress met in January and the NRA's rejection of Traver still stands.

The job of ATF director has required Senate confirmation only since 2006, but that's never happened, leaving the agency in the hands of acting directors. Even President George W. Bush couldn't get his nominee, a Republican U.S. attorney from Boston, through the Senate.

Apparently no one can get confirmed to this job!

[gator996]

There hasn't been an ATF head for 6 years now...

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/06/nation/la-na-atf-director-20110907

Republicans refuse to confirm leader for ATF despite its troubles

Reporting from Washington — Congressional Republicans have been upset at the management at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which authorized a botched sting operation near the Mexican border that put guns in the hands of drug criminals.

But Republican leaders, responding to complaints from gun-rights lobbyists, have refused to confirm a director for the bureau since it was split from the Treasury Department eight years ago.

"They have had nothing but acting directors. Do you wonder why some things would go wrong there?" said John Killorin, a retired special agent from Atlanta and president of the ATF Assn. "This is a major law enforcement agency, and they need a confirmed director with the full responsibility and authority to run it."

President Obama's nominee, an ATF special agent from Chicago, has yet to have a Senate hearing.

[GatorEst1992]

I have a huge problem with 16, why does a doctor need to know if I have guns in my home that's none of there business nor is its the governments business either, they are treating gun owners like pedophiles I just can't believe what's going on thank god I dont live in new york or illinois, all these gun control laws are doing is making us less safe the only people that would follow these laws are the law abiding citizens not criminals they will still have these guns, chicago until now since NY passed there new laws, had the most strict laws in the country on guns yet has the highest murder rate in the country what more proof do you need

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I have a huge problem with 16, why does a doctor need to know if I have guns in my home that's none of there business

You have every right to tell your doctor it's none of his or her business.

[wgbgator]

You're not required to tell your doctor anything. He just can't be legally prevented from asking, something which the NRA has tried to pass laws to accomplish.

[OaktownGator]

I have issues with #5, they shouldn't be able to run a full background check on an individual unless they have probable cause. Pulling someone over for speeding and having them admit that they have a gun is not probable cause.

Some of these I am a little surprised to see, like #9, we don't already do this? #11 made me roll my eyes a little, isn't that already something he is supposed to be doing?
I agree with your take on this.

Looks like there are political reasons for him highlighting the ATF Director nomination.

Overall, it doesn't seem like he is doing anything that infringes 2nd amendment rights... although perhaps the 4th amendment with #5 (and others?).

[GatorEst1992]

I would've said no anyway

[philnotfil]

I have a huge problem with 16, why does a doctor need to know if I have guns in my home that's none of there business nor is its the governments business either, they are treating gun owners like pedophiles I just can't believe what's going on thank god I dont live in new york or illinois, all these gun control laws are doing is making us less safe the only people that would follow these laws are the law abiding citizens not criminals they will still have these guns, chicago until now since NY passed there new laws, had the most strict laws in the country on guns yet has the highest murder rate in the country what more proof do you need

They don't need to know if you have guns in your home. It is a useful piece of information, but not vital. The wording is that a doctor can't be prohibited from asking the question, not that the doctor is required to ask the question.

[Lawdog88]

You're not required to tell your doctor anything. He just can't be legally prevented from asking, something which the NRA has tried to pass laws to accomplish.


As long as he has to tell his patients how much $$ he has set aside for excess malpractice judgments - and be prosecuted for lying - I could get along with that.

[108]

what was all the fuss about?

[bluelang]

It's too bad all those kids had to die for this.

[Lawdog88]

Oh, and he left off requiring parents to turn over their deranged kids for scientific testing and experiments.

Or be prosecuted.

[rivergator]

I have a huge problem with 16, why does a doctor need to know if I have guns in my home that's none of there business nor is its the governments business either, they are treating gun owners like pedophiles I just can't believe what's going on thank god I dont live in new york or illinois, all these gun control laws are doing is making us less safe the only people that would follow these laws are the law abiding citizens not criminals they will still have these guns, chicago until now since NY passed there new laws, had the most strict laws in the country on guns yet has the highest murder rate in the country what more proof do you need

Note that it doesn't require the doctor to do that. It just makes it clear he's not prohibited from asking.
Do you really disagree with this? You think the doctor should not be allowed to ask?

By the way, I think we can be sure that by the end of the day, that's how it will be portrayed throughout the rightwing world: Fox, talk radio, blogs and message boards will all claim Obama is ordering doctors to ask.

[mdgator05]

I just can't believe what's going on thank god I dont live in new york or illinois, all these gun control laws are doing is making us less safe the only people that would follow these laws are the law abiding citizens not criminals they will still have these guns, chicago until now since NY passed there new laws, had the most strict laws in the country on guns yet has the highest murder rate in the country what more proof do you need

Flat not true. Murder rate by metro area in 2011:

1. New Orleans 2. Detroit 3. St. Louis 4. Newark, NJ 5. Baltimore 6. Kansas City, MO 7. Philadelphia 8. Atlanta 9. Cincinnati 10. Stockton, CA 11. Cleveland 12. Memphis 13. Washington DC 14. Miami 15. Chicago.

So in front of Chicago, there are 6 metro areas with higher murder rates and loose statewide gun regulation.

[g8trjax]

How much time and money was wasted on this?

[Minister_of_Information]

This is about what I expected, and I don't find very much to either disagree with or be concerned about. These provisions viewed as a whole may help prevent some of these incidents. And O has punted the heavy lifting to Congress, as he should.

[Lawdog88]

Another example of leading by pontificating vague ideas, with children around.

Nice staging.

[mdgator05]

This is about what I expected, and I don't find very much to either disagree with or be concerned about. These provisions viewed as a whole may help prevent some of these incidents. And O has punted the heavy lifting to Congress, as he should.

Agreed.

[wgbgator]

So, no civil war then? Guess I'm gonna have to cancel my order for that Zouave uniform.

[GatorJeff]

So, no civil war then? Guess I'm gonna have to cancel my order for that Zouave uniform.

LOL!

[wgbgator]

That fez would have looked sweet too.

[PIMking]

more red tape for us who didn't commit the crime, just one more step towards confiscation and dictatorship

[GatorJeff]

That fez would have looked sweet too.

Guess you'll have to stick with the ole' Gator ball cap for now. Might change if Obama decides to limit magazine clips to 25 rounds.

[GatorJeff]

more red tape for us who didn't commit the crime, just one more step towards confiscation and dictatorship

Does paranoia run in your family?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Does paranoia run in your family?

LOL, says the guy who's paranoid over law-abiding citizens possessing "assault" rifles.

[malligator]

Does paranoia run in your family?

I'm not taking sides, but he said exactly what is said by pro-choice proponents at anything that could limit abortion of any type. To one that is passionate about any issue any mandate is seen leading to more mandates.

Again, not taking sides in gun-control or abortion. Just making an observation.

[PIMking]

Does paranoia run in your family?

you mean like the fact that us who didn't commit the crime will now have to step through more hoops to get a gun and the bad guys in chicago just call up a buddy and get one.

[Lawdog88]

Guess you'll have to stick with the ole' Gator ball cap for now. Might change if Obama decides to limit magazine clips to 25 rounds.


All the Pres has to do is just get everybody to promise to only load 25 into their 30 and greater magazines.

OK, if you press, we could make it against the law.

[wargunfan]

Here is the camels nose under the tent:
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
This can easily morph into your private medical information being used in a background check. Any soldier who has suffered from PTSD, anyone who has been treated for depression, anyone who has been counseled for any mental issue no matter how small could be banned from owning a firearm. This could gut HIPPA.


Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showthread.php?t=254499#ixzz2IAfTwFG0

[wgbgator]

you mean like the fact that us who didn't commit the crime will now have to step through more hoops to get a gun and the bad guys in chicago just call up a buddy and get one.

I didnt see any additional hoops involved in obtaining a gun on the list. My guess is you won't even notice any of these measures. Only congress can create "more hoops."

[exiledgator]

Just another attempt to ruin the economy so he can take control through handouts.

Once the gun-bubble bursts, watch out for hyperinflation!

[GatorJeff]

Just another attempt to ruin the economy so he can take control through handouts.

Once the gun-bubble bursts, watch out for hyperinflation!

Glad to known gun control is intimately related to "handouts". Would never have thought to make that correlation. Learn something new every day.

[exiledgator]

Glad to known gun control is intimately related to "handouts". Would never have thought to make that correlation. Learn something new every day.

Hey, I'm here for you, Jeff!

[ArtDeco]

There are, of course, many ways to look at this.
In the end, this is much ado about nothing. If this was truly his idea of an "executive order", he just basically drove in circles to say he went so far on the odometer. He accomplished absolutely nothing substantial. To have an executive order that "my guys must get with your guys and discuss the influence of..." is pretty lame.
So in my world, this is much less than a full-on assault on the Constitution. It's actually taking credit for doing something that will accomplish absolutely nada. For the first time in his tyrannical regime, His Majesty flinched. And I'm grateful.

[wgbgator]

People don't seem to understand what executive orders are. They are almost by definition, limited. The president can't make new laws guys, only enforce or direct enforcement of existing ones.

[rivergator]

People don't seem to understand what executive orders are. They are by definition, limited. The president can't make new laws guys, only enforce or direct enforcement of existing ones.

That's because some people appear to believe they came into existence in 2009.

[gatorman_07732]

People don't seem to understand what executive orders are. They are almost by definition, limited. The president can't make new laws guys, only enforce or direct enforcement of existing ones.

It's for adminstrative purposes

[baygator1]

Here is the camels nose under the tent:
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
This can easily morph into your private medical information being used in a background check. Any soldier who has suffered from PTSD, anyone who has been treated for depression, anyone who has been counseled for any mental issue no matter how small could be banned from owning a firearm. This could gut HIPPA.


Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showthread.php?t=254499#ixzz2IAfTwFG0

This, in conjunction with 4 and 14 from the list could be a problem.

[wargunfan]

Going forward I will be very careful what I say to my doctors. Even casual conversation can go into your medical file and come back to haunt you. Welcome to Amerika.

[ChartsandGrafs]

People don't seem to understand what executive orders are. They are almost by definition, limited.

Yeah, kind of like Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066, which was used to put over 100,000 innocent U.S. citizens of Japanese descent into concentration camps.

Really "limited" stuff we're talking about here.

[wgbgator]

Yeah, kind of like Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066, which was used to put over 100,000 innocent U.S. citizens of Japanese descent into concentration camps.

Really "limited" stuff we're talking about here.

Which has been widely repudiated by almost everyone since before I was born.

[gatorman_07732]

Going forward I will be very careful what I say to my doctors. Even casual conversation can go into your medical file and come back to haunt you. Welcome to Amerika.

I've been asked by our pediatrician if there were guns in our house

[ChartsandGrafs]

Which has been widely repudiated by almost everyone since before I was born.

That's great, but "repudiated after the fact" isn't quite the same as "limited", now is it?

[baygator1]

I've been asked by our pediatrician if there were guns in our house

Same here.

[wgbgator]

That's great, but "repudiated after the fact" isn't quite the same as "limited", now is it?

So past abuses, overreaches, or changing attitudes have no effect in limiting how power is used going forward?

[exiledgator]

Same here.

ditto.

[rivergator]

I've been asked by our pediatrician if there were guns in our house

do you think he asked out of genuine concern for children, or did he have some insidious reason?

by the way, how did you answer and what was his response?

[wargunfan]

I've been asked by our pediatrician if there were guns in our house

Be careful what you say my friend.

[ChartsandGrafs]

So past abuses, overreaches, or changing attitudes have no effect in limiting how power is used going forward?

Who or what is going to limit the exercise of that power, exactly? Wishful thinking?

[JerseyGator01]

It seems as if the right to privacy is only relevant in America if it permits a doctor to puncture the skull of a newborn.

CORRUPTION RULES!!!!!

[gatorman_07732]

do you think he asked out of genuine concern for children, or did he have some insidious reason?

by the way, how did you answer and what was his response?

It was a she and the question was asked regardless of the reason

[gatorman_07732]

Be careful what you say my friend.

Well I don't have any guns

[rivergator]

It was a she and the question was asked regardless of the reason

you don't think the reason is important?

[wgbgator]

Who or what is going to limit the exercise of that power, exactly? Wishful thinking?

People have no capacity to resist or check perceived abuses of power, either in or outside the context of the state? If the state's authority to govern rests on the people it governs, doesnt the now widely held notion that interning citizens based on their racial characteristics is repugnant prevent someone from doing this again? Or the popular belief that people should be able to own guns prevent the rounding up of guns? So, long story short, its us who limits the excercise of power.

[Lawdog88]

you don't think the reason is important?


Do tell, that important reason that Doctors should be able to ask that question ?

[gatorman_07732]

Do tell, that important reason that Doctors should be able to ask that question ?

^^^^^This please

[ChartsandGrafs]

People have no capacity to resist or check perceived abuses of power, either in or outside the context of the state?

How do you propose that be done? Insurrection? Military coup? What?

How about officially? What institutional measures are in place to limit the use or scope of Executive Orders? What convinces you that they will work?

If the state's authority to govern rests on the people it governs, doesnt the now widely held notion that interning citizens based on their racial characteristics is repugnant prevent someone from doing this again?

You're missing a crucial step in the process. Public consent to measures that would otherwise be considered repugnant under normal circumstances can too easily be manufactured through the controlled media.

In other words, the people don't act in a vacuum, they act within a paradigm where almost all of their information is controlled and strategically fed to them by many of the same corporations that influence their government.

Or the popular belief that people should be able to own guns prevent the rounding up of guns? So, long story short, its us who limits the excercise of power.

How though? How do we limit the exercise of power?

[exiledgator]

Do tell, that important reason that Doctors should be able to ask that question ?

Not answering for river, but there could certainly be a benign reason for a pediatrician to ask this question: for the wellbeing of the child(ren). If the answer is yes, the pediatrician could hand the parents a pamphlet on gun safety related to kids, as they would for cigarrettes, or pets, or anything else that could represent potential harm to children.

Of course, he could also log the parents into the Illuminati's database.

One of the two.

[DeanMeadGator]

Sure, but that doesn't keep him from nominating the person he think will do the best job.

Who in their right mind would accept a nomination as head of the ATF? If they accept, is it per se evidence that they are not fit to serve?

Whatever happened to the Fast and Furious investigation? Let me guess - it's a cover up.

[Lawdog88]

Not answering for river, but there could certainly be a benign reason for a pediatrician to ask this question: for the wellbeing of the child(ren). If the answer is yes, the pediatrician could hand the parents a pamphlet on gun safety related to kids, as they would for cigarrettes, or pets, or anything else that could represent potential harm to children.

Of course, he could also log the parents into the Illuminati's database.

One of the two.


Or both.

I mean, let's give Doctors subpoena power and the right to cross-examine while we are at it, as well as the right and power to interject their opinions about how we should manage our children's and our own lives - into ours - based on whether they think we are responsible enough to do so.

Hey, here's some good health-related questions pediatricians could start asking (and reporting, if they think they should), even without any indices of relevancy to anyone's medical condition:

How much do you or your wife drink (alcohol), and how often ? Do you drive after drinking ? What is your tag number? Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offense ? Do you smoke marijuana or take other drugs, and if so, how often ? Have you ever been abusive to your wife ? How long do your children go without snacks ? Do you use corporal punishment ? If so, how often ?

What kind of firearms do you have in your house, and what types, and how many ? What do use them for ? Do your children have access to them ? How do you secure them ? Do you ever "expose" your children to them ? If so, how often ?

You know, just the kinds of innocuous little things that somebody, somewhere might like to know about you, just to make a notation in the files to keep up. That's all, nothing more.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Hmm, I don't see taking away all guns on there.

Hmm...I don't see anything there that will prevent another Sandy Hook.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Some of these I am a little surprised to see, like #9, we don't already do this? #11 made me roll my eyes a little, isn't that already something he is supposed to be doing?

Yep. A lot of these fall in the category of; DO YOUR JOB. (http://phelps.donotremove.net/2013/01/obamas-new-executive-orders/)

[DaveFla]

I've been asked by our pediatrician if there were guns in our house

Me too.

[The_Graygator]

Hmm, I don't see taking away all guns on there.


Didn't expect it to be in these exec. orders either, because Obama couldn;t just come out and say that to the entire country because he'd have come close to starting a civil war doing that.

Only a complete and clueless fool would would believe this is the end of this too. Obama is famous for his executive orders in the hush of the night and this won't stop with just SAR's and high-yield magazines either.

[DSRrg]

Isn't number 12 exactly what the NRA was talking about? Didn't they get crucified for saying it too?

[PIMking]

I didnt see any additional hoops involved in obtaining a gun on the list. My guess is you won't even notice any of these measures. Only congress can create "more hoops."

Too bad the Füher will lead us in which way he feels he wants to go with his EO he don't need no stinking congress

[PIMking]

do you think he asked out of genuine concern for children, or did he have some insidious reason?

by the way, how did you answer and what was his response?

it shouldn't matter because the Dr. shouldn't be asking those questions because they're none of his F'n business.

[PIMking]

you don't think the reason is important?

nope, because I lock my weapons up and what I do in my life isn't any reason for the dr. to know a god damn thing. She should shut her damn mouth and heal not ask retarded questions

[Lawdog88]

it shouldn't matter because the Dr. shouldn't be asking those questions because they're none of his F'n business.


This is what I don't get, that people don't get.

Are we really just a bunch of wussies who continually throw our dignity under the bus, every chance we get ? Just learn how to say no, and mean it.

Sheeesh.

[DaveFla]

The doctor should have every right to ask the question.... Just as I should have every right to tell him/her "that's none of your damn business.

BTW, the same pediatrician asked if we had a dog.

[PIMking]

The doctor should have every right to ask the question.... Just as I should have every right to tell him/her "that's none of your damn business.

BTW, the same pediatrician asked if we had a dog.

I would tell them that I have SS 18 mod 4 Nuclear ICBM and see what they ahd to say about that.

[philnotfil]

I haven't been asked about guns, but I have been asked about various cleaning supplies and reminded to use a child safety lock on the cabinet they were in. Should I be worried that our pediatrician is going to try to take away our cleaning supplies?

[exiledgator]

The doctor should have every right to ask the question.... Just as I should have every right to tell him/her "that's none of your damn business.

BTW, the same pediatrician asked if we had a dog.

Exactly.

[exiledgator]

I haven't been asked about guns, but I have been asked about various cleaning supplies and reminded to use a child safety lock on the cabinet they were in. Should I be worried that our pediatrician is going to try to take away our cleaning supplies?

No, but you will be reported to big-Chem and put on their watch list.

[wgbgator]

Hmm...I don't see anything there that will prevent another Sandy Hook.

Cool, so we've established that we can't and won't ban all guns or completely eliminate tragic shootings. But I already thought that had been established.

[rivergator]

The doctor should have every right to ask the question.... Just as I should have every right to tell him/her "that's none of your damn business.

BTW, the same pediatrician asked if we had a dog.

I agree. I'd love to hear the reasons from some who claim that doctor shouldn't be allowed to ask the question.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Isn't pediatrics a branch of medicine? What does the topic of gun ownership have to do with medicine? If I want advice about guns, I'll go to a gun shop or gun instructor. If I want advice about medical care, I'll go see a doctor. Doctors don't need to play both roles. Anyway, you're far more likely to die at the hands of your doctor than you are from a gun, and statistically speaking, it's not even close.

Maybe doctors should actually focus on medicine instead?

[rivergator]

Isn't pediatrics a branch of medicine? What does the topic of gun ownership have to do with medicine? If I want advice about guns, I'll go to a gun shop or gun instructor. If I want advice on medical care, I'll go see a doctor. Anyway, you're far more likely to die at the hands of your doctor than you are from a gun, and statistically speaking, it's not even close.

Maybe doctors should actually focus on medicine instead?

So: Do you think doctors should be prohibited by federal law from asking if there's a gun in the house?

[PIMking]

Isn't pediatrics a branch of medicine? What does the topic of gun ownership have to do with medicine? If I want advice about guns, I'll go to a gun shop or gun instructor. If I want advice about medical care, I'll go see a doctor. Doctors don't need to play both roles. Anyway, you're far more likely to die at the hands of your doctor than you are from a gun, and statistically speaking, it's not even close.

Maybe doctors should actually focus on medicine instead?

but when the government is paying for it they have all the right to know what you own, drink and poop.

[ChartsandGrafs]

So: Do you think doctors should be prohibited by federal law from asking if there's a gun in the house?

Of course not, but it's still a stupid question.

It's not a doctor's business to know about the implements you have laying around your home.

[rivergator]

Of course not, but it's still a stupid question.

It's not a doctor's business to know about the implements you have laying around your home.

Good. So you agree with Obama.
I do, too.

[gregthegator]

So past abuses, overreaches, or changing attitudes have no effect in limiting how power is used going forward?

Nope...ask the American Indians about blankets.......

[ChartsandGrafs]

Good. So you agree with Obama.
I do, too.

Your mind really does work in a sort of binary, robotic way doesn't it?

"Agree with Obama, don't agree with Obama, agree with Obama, don't agree with Obama".

There doesn't seem to be anything else going on, does there?

[philnotfil]

One nice thing about 14 is that we can finally get a good number on how often guns prevent attacks versus how often they result in accidental injuries and deaths. All kinds of numbers out there, but some shoddy science behind all of the ones that I've seen.

[rivergator]

Your mind really does work in a sort of binary, robotic way doesn't it?

"Agree with Obama, don't agree with Obama, agree with Obama, don't agree with Obama".

There doesn't seem to be anything else going on, does there?

Well, this thread is about Obama's executive orders. That is what we're discussing.

[SurfinG8or]

Good I hope the ammo prices come down!!

[wargunfan]

Well I don't have any guns

Of course not. I don't either.:joecool:

[wargunfan]

I would tell them that I have SS 18 mod 4 Nuclear ICBM and see what they ahd to say about that.

That would go in your file under mental instability.

[wargunfan]

If my doctor ever asks me if I own a gun I will say no and ask him if he still beats his wife.

[PIMking]

That would go in your file under mental instability.

One should look up the Dr's addy and all the dirt possible on him/her before you go in and lay down the law with his ass

[rivergator]

If my doctor ever asks me if I own a gun I will say no and ask him if he still beats his wife.

Boy, that'll teach him!

[Gatorrick22]

Hmm, I don't see taking away all guns on there.


That's just the abridged version for the public to see and approve of.

Wait until they come out with the full version of these 23 (illegal/un-Constitutional) executive orders. Each one of these so called laws with ten thousand pages or more of "protections," later to be published.

[wgbgator]

That's just the abridged version for the public to see and approve of.

Wait until they come out with the full version of these 23 (illegal/un-Constitutional) executive orders. Each one of these so called laws with ten thousand pages or more of "protections," later to be published.

I await with bated breath.

[g8trjax]

How much is the doctor gun snitch incentive? Do they get paid per gun, or for every 5 guns outed?

[Lawdog88]

I await with bated breath.


And is that with shrimp, sand flea, or cut bate ?

Your doctor will be asking about the source of that. And about your guns.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Cool, so we've established that we can't and won't ban all guns or completely eliminate tragic shootings. But I already thought that had been established.

Then what is the point of all these "executive orders?"

[gatorman_07732]

To attack the second amendment and that is the only reason

[philnotfil]

Then what is the point of all these "executive orders?"

I think that most of them fall into three categories:
- making sure that background checks are done for all gun purchases, and that they are more complete
- making schools, and to some extent other public places, are safer
- addressing mental health issues

I'm not sure how anything he did breaks new ground with the second amendment.

[rivergator]

Note that it doesn't require the doctor to do that. It just makes it clear he's not prohibited from asking.
Do you really disagree with this? You think the doctor should not be allowed to ask?

By the way, I think we can be sure that by the end of the day, that's how it will be portrayed throughout the rightwing world: Fox, talk radio, blogs and message boards will all claim Obama is ordering doctors to ask.

As I said, the rightwing media jumped on this with lies:

Limbaugh:
So now doctors are being ordered, instructed to talk to patients and get information from them about gun ownership, where they are in their house, who has access to them, where the ammunition is kept.

Fox:
Obama Deputizes Doctors to Gun-Check Their Patients

Are Limbaugh's listeners really that stupid?

[gatorman_07732]

This is the doctor's business exactly how?

[wgbgator]

Then what is the point of all these "executive orders?"

Is the point of making laws, or enforcing existing laws better to inhibit all freedom or stop all crime from occuring?

[rivergator]

This is the doctor's business exactly how?

Well, there can be health and safety issues involved if you have guns and small kids. But the point is really simple: Obama did not order the doctors to do that. Limbaugh lied about it.

[MastaG8r]

I agree. I'd love to hear the reasons from some who claim that doctor shouldn't be allowed to ask the question.It's a free country. Anyone can and should be allowed to ask anyone else absolutely anything they want to ask them. The real issue here is not whether it's okay to ask the question. It's whether patients should have any obligation whatsoever to answer if their doctor asks them about guns in their home.

What do you think? Is it perfectly 100% okay for the patient to say, "None of your business, doc"?

[gatorman_07732]

Well, there can be health and safety issues involved if you have guns and small kids. But the point is really simple: Obama did not order the doctors to do that. Limbaugh lied about it.

There are a ton of health and safety issues why guns?

[philnotfil]

It's a free country. Anyone can and should be allowed to ask anyone else absolutely anything they want to ask them. The real issue here is not whether it's okay to ask the question. It's whether patients should have any obligation whatsoever to answer if their doctor asks them about guns in their home.

What do you think? Is it perfectly 100% okay for the patient to say, "None of your business, doc"?

Absolutely. Although I disagree that this is the real question. The real question for me is how so many otherwise intelligent people could read what was in the executive order and come away thinking that Obama is requiring doctors to ask the question?

[rivergator]

It's a free country. Anyone can and should be allowed to ask anyone else absolutely anything they want to ask them. The real issue here is not whether it's okay to ask the question. It's whether patients should have any obligation whatsoever to answer if their doctor asks them about guns in their home.

What do you think? Is it perfectly 100% okay for the patient to say, "None of your business, doc"?

Yes. It's perfectly OK to answer it that way. At least I think it is.
But, actually, the issue (at least the reason for EO) is whether it's OK to ask the question because apparently some people were claiming that the ACA prohibited doctors from asking the question. So Obama is clarifying it by saying that the law doesn't prohibit it.

[Lawdog88]

Absolutely. Although I disagree that this is the real question. The real question for me is how so many otherwise intelligent people could read what was in the executive order and come away thinking that Obama is requiring doctors to ask the question?


The real question to me is, why should this be a question in the first place ?

But it is.

[MastaG8r]

Yes. It's perfectly OK to answer it that way. At least I think it is.Okay well as long as the Obama administration agrees with you then personally I don't see an issue here. They should clarify that. Because as it is now I can see how people could suspect that implicit in the Executive Order saying it's okay for doctors to ask about guns is at least the insinuation, if not the outright requirement, that patients ought to answer the question if asked.

[rivergator]

Okay well as long as the Obama administration agrees with you then personally I don't see an issue here. They should clarify that. Because as it is now I can see how people could suspect that implicit in the Executive Order saying it's okay for doctors to ask about guns is at least the insinuation, if not the outright requirement, that patients ought to answer the question if asked.

If you think that clarifying "Although some people claim it's illegal for doctors to ask ... it's not" is saying that people are required to answer, there's not much else to say.

[MastaG8r]

If you think that clarifying "Although some people claim it's illegal for doctors to ask ... it's not" is saying that people are required to answer, there's not much else to say.What's the point of 0bama expressly recognizing a doctor's right to ask a particular question if he doesn't recognize any obligation whatsoever on the part of the patient to answer?

Thinking this through though, I'm now starting to have more questions about this question. If my doctor asks me if I own any guns, I won't take offense but will say something to the effect of, "That's personal information I'd rather not share." So no problem. But then again...is the doctor now going to make a notation in my medical records that I "refused" to provide information he requested? Seems like that could potentially have some sort of negative ramifications or implications.

I'm sticking to my story that anybody should be allowed to ask anyone anything they want, but by the same token I'm wondering why a doctor would need to ask this question. It's a little troubling. Slippery slope and all that.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I think that most of them fall into three categories:
- making sure that background checks are done for all gun purchases, and that they are more complete

i.e. DO YOUR JOB

- making schools, and to some extent other public places, are safer

Not sure the orders do that at all.


- addressing mental health issues

Not sure about that either

I'm not sure how anything he did breaks new ground with the second amendment.

Tend to agree. In fact, I do not think he accomplished anything, other than a"feel good" kind of exercise. Which I guess is fine. With Obama, that is probably as good as it gets.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Is the point of making laws, or enforcing existing laws better to inhibit all freedom or stop all crime from occuring?

Large question. Laws, at their essence, are the rules by which we humans agree to interact with one another.

[wgbgator]

Large question. Laws, at their essence, are the rules by which we humans agree to interact with one another.

So, can we agree that laws, or the enforcement of laws arent intended to prevent crimes from occuring entirely, nor has a law *failed* when a crime occurs. Murder is illegal, but we still know murder is going to happen. Just like allowing people to have guns is necessarily going to entail some gun crime. So, it seems pointless to say that better enforcing our current gun laws won't entirely prevent another tragic shooting from occuring. Of course not, it can only make it less of a possibility, not a 0% possibility.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

So, can we agree that laws, or the enforcement of laws arent intended to prevent crimes from occuring entirely, nor has a law *failed* when a crime occurs.

Yep

[helix139]

The only legitimate reason that question should be asked is by a psychiatrist or when a doctor has reason to believe the patient is psychiatrically unstable and may be a danger to himself or others.

[rivergator]

What's the point of 0bama expressly recognizing a doctor's right to ask a particular question if he doesn't recognize any obligation whatsoever on the part of the patient to answer?


Come on. There were apparently claims that doctors were prohibited by law from asking. He clarified it. I doubt anyone's stupid enough to believe that Americans are required to give any specific info to doctors.


Thinking this through though, I'm now starting to have more questions about this question. If my doctor asks me if I own any guns, I won't take offense but will say something to the effect of, "That's personal information I'd rather not share." So no problem. But then again...is the doctor now going to make a notation in my medical records that I "refused" to provide information he requested? Seems like that could potentially have some sort of negative ramifications or implications.

I'm sticking to my story that anybody should be allowed to ask anyone anything they want, but by the same token I'm wondering why a doctor would need to ask this question. It's a little troubling. Slippery slope and all that.

Could it? I don't know. If the doctor asks you if you smoke, or if you get any exercise, or if you're able to get an erection, I suppose he might also write down your refusal to answer.
So what do you think, should federal law prevent the doctor from asking? That's a yes or no question.

[gatorman_07732]

Come on. There were apparently claims that doctors were prohibited by law from asking. He clarified it. I doubt anyone's stupid enough to believe that Americans are required to give any specific info to doctors.



Could it? I don't know. If the doctor asks you if you smoke, or if you get any exercise, or if you're able to get an erection, I suppose he might also write down your refusal to answer.
So what do you think, should federal law prevent the doctor from asking? That's a yes or no question.

You are unbelievable, it is not a doctors business. A doctor asks you if you smoke so he can look for common side effects from smoking. This is more about guns and brainwashing people and this administration not believing in the second amendment.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

NPR



"We're not likely to catch very many potentially violent people" with laws like the one in New York, says Barry Rosenfeld, a professor of psychology at Fordham University in The Bronx....

A study of experienced psychiatrists at a major urban psychiatric facility found that they were wrong about which patients would become violent about 30 percent of the time.

That's a much higher error rate than with most medical tests, says Alan Teo, a psychiatrist at the University of Michigan and an author of the study.

One reason even experienced psychiatrists are often wrong is that there are only a few clear signs that a person with a mental illness is likely to act violently, says Steven Hoge, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University. These include a history of violence and a current threat to commit violence....
On the flip side, you've got to wonder what the effect on run-of-the-mill interactions between mental health practitioners and patients might be. Those relationships are supposed to be based on trust and confidentiality, which will likely be harder to maintain if you think the person you're talking to just might be hitting the panic button under the table to alert the guys with butterfly nets.

[rivergator]

You are unbelievable, it is not a doctors business. A doctor asks you if you smoke so he can look for common side effects from smoking. This is more about guns and brainwashing people and this administration not believing in the second amendment.

Let me ask you the same question: Should federal law prohibit a doctor from asking if there's a gun in the house? Yes or no?

[gatorman_07732]

Let me ask you the same question: Should federal law prohibit a doctor from asking if there's a gun in the house? Yes or no?

I have a problem with this being in a executive order. Outside of my pediatrician asking I never had this asked to me before. I believe something else is going on here, this guy is slick. He thinks a lot like Rahm Emanuel and he has outed himself on this issue.

[rivergator]

I have a problem with this being in a executive order. Outside of my pediatrician asking I never had this asked to me before. I believe something else is going on here, this guy is slick. He thinks a lot like Rahm Emanuel and he has outed himself on this issue.

that was a yes or no question and it isn't Emanuel's fault that you couldn't answer.

[OaktownGator]

A physician may want to ask a patient who they have reason to believe is a danger to themselves or others, or pediatricians may want to raise the issue of gun safety around kids. Those are the only valid reasons I can see gun ownership entering into a conversation with a physician.

The ability to ask the question will seldom if ever be used by most physicians. And patients can decline to answer. I could be missing something, but I don't see a big deal with it.

Other EOs involving the sharing of patient information is more concerning. IMO.

[philnotfil]

I have a problem with this being in a executive order. Outside of my pediatrician asking I never had this asked to me before. I believe something else is going on here, this guy is slick. He thinks a lot like Rahm Emanuel and he has outed himself on this issue.

Do you think that doctors should be prohibited, by law, from asking this question?

[MastaG8r]

Come on. There were apparently claims that doctors were prohibited by law from asking. He clarified it. I doubt anyone's stupid enough to believe that Americans are required to give any specific info to doctors.



Could it? I don't know. If the doctor asks you if you smoke, or if you get any exercise, or if you're able to get an erection, I suppose he might also write down your refusal to answer.
So what do you think, should federal law prevent the doctor from asking? That's a yes or no question.No, I do not think federal laws should prohibit doctors from asking patients questions about gun ownership.

I also don't think federal laws should prohibit doctors from asking patients if they are all paid up on their income taxes, or if they are registered for the draft, or if they ever smuggled some dope on an interstate flight. Doctors can ask anything they want as far as I'm concerned. Generally speaking there's no harm in asking a question. But just because doctors aren't prohibited from asking a question doesn't mean it's an appropriate or relevant question to ask. Or to use one of my favorite cliches, just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it's right to do it.

Can doctors ask patients about guns? Sure. And should the patient's answer - or refusal to answer - ever leave the examination room in any way, shape or form under any circumstances whatsoever? Nope.

[MastaG8r]

I have a problem with this being in a executive order. Outside of my pediatrician asking I never had this asked to me before. I believe something else is going on here, this guy is slick. He thinks a lot like Rahm Emanuel and he has outed himself on this issue.You don't have to be too radical of a conspiracy theorist to imagine how this could play out in a perfect 0bama world. There would be a single-payer national health care system, doctors would essentially become government employees and in that capacity could provide the government with whatever it regards as useful information. If God forbid that day ever came, then I'd most likely change my answer about what doctors should be allowed to ask their patients.

[rivergator]

You don't have to be too radical of a conspiracy theorist to imagine how this could play out in a perfect 0bama world. There would be a single-payer national health care system, doctors would essentially become government employees and in that capacity could provide the government with whatever it regards as useful information. If God forbid that day ever came, then I'd most likely change my answer about what doctors should be allowed to ask their patients.

So basically, you agree with what Obama said (doctors are allowed to ask about guns) because no one can even pretend to claim they shouldn't be. But as long as you can imagine a bunch of stuff that isn't in the executive order, then you see big trouble.

[DaveFla]

Then what is the point of all these "executive orders?"

Obviously, it's a show for his lemming masses in an attempt to show that he cares about this issue, just not enough to do anything about it.

IOW, his politics far outweigh his desire to do anything that he thinks will make Americans safer...

So, what else is new?

[MastaG8r]

So basically, you agree with what Obama said (doctors are allowed to ask about guns) because no one can even pretend to claim they shouldn't be. But as long as you can imagine a bunch of stuff that isn't in the executive order, then you see big trouble.Correct. And you agree with me and other pro-gun rights advocates who say that even if doctors can ask about gun ownership, patients cannot be required to answer, and that in any event the doctors cannot share the information with the government or anyone else. Right?

[DaveFla]

Correct. And you agree with me and other pro-gun rights advocates who say that even if doctors can ask about gun ownership, patients cannot be required to answer, and that in any event the doctors cannot share the information with the government or anyone else. Right?

That IS the point, after all... It's not that the doctors are allowed to ask the question, but what is mandated of them to do with the answer. HIPAA now limits who the doctor can tell regarding a patients health. Of course, that all changed with Obamacare. What's next? The requirement that a doctor must disclose their opinion regarding a patient's fitness to own a weapon with the government?

Like losing our right to maintain our own health insurance, most of us can see where this one is headed.

[MastaG8r]

Like losing our right to maintain our own health insurance, most of us can see where this one is headed.Yes we can. And I bet if we waterboarded river we could get him to admit that what he dismisses as our paranoid fear is actually his fervent hope.

[wargunfan]

Let me ask you the same question: Should federal law prohibit a doctor from asking if there's a gun in the house? Yes or no?

Do you believe the government should ever have access to this information?

[rivergator]

Do you believe the government should ever have access to this information?

every gun? no, I don't think so.

[wargunfan]

Do you believe the government should ever have access to this information?

I'll try again.

[rivergator]

I'll try again.

"No" wasn't clear enough for you? Is there some other word that's the opposite of 'yes?'

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Let me ask you the same question: Should federal law prohibit a doctor from asking if there's a gun in the house? Yes or no?

No. But why would it even come up? Owning a gun is not a medical concern.

Would your hair dresser ask you if you had a pool? Would your lawn man ask you if you owned a hot tub?

[Gatorrick22]

Well, there can be health and safety issues involved if you have guns and small kids. But the point is really simple: Obama did not order the doctors to do that. Limbaugh lied about it.

I don't trust one word Obama utters.

This is straight-up cold war Stasi police crap. What's next illegal drug testing on unsuspecting patients? Is this where Obama considers the ultimate "progressive" move for America? Is this part of the leftists' "Progressive movement?"

Is this Obama's next step?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2242825/East-Germanys-Stasi-secret-police-sold-citizens-western-pharmaceutical-companies-use-human-guinea-pigs-drug-trials.html

[gatorman_07732]

Do you think that doctors should be prohibited, by law, from asking this question?

Why do you feel the need to repeat someone elses question?

[gatorman_07732]

that was a yes or no question and it isn't Emanuel's fault that you couldn't answer.

No, he shouldn't be prohibited by law but serves no purpose other than the doctor to report it to someone or some thing.

[MastaG8r]

Do you believe the government should ever have access to this information?
every gun? no, I don't think so.
I'll try again."No" wasn't clear enough for you? Is there some other word that's the opposite of 'yes?'
Oh please. Don't play obtuse. He asked for a yes or no answer just like you've been demanding, but you qualified your "no" with "every gun?" Obviously that implies that maybe you think the government should have access to doctors' information about some guns, if not every gun. So which guns should they be told about? The ones belonging to members of so-called "right wing extremist" organizations, perhaps? :ninja:

[philnotfil]

Why do you feel the need to repeat someone elses question?

Because everyone seems intent on avoiding answering it, yet complaining that Obama did answer it.

Do you think that doctors should be prohibited, by law, from asking this question?

If you think that doctors should be prohibited from asking this question, what is your justification for passing laws to prohibit this? If you don't think that we should be passing more laws to prohibit this, then why are people complaining so much that Obama agrees with them?

[gatorman_07732]

Because everyone seems intent on avoiding answering it, yet complaining that Obama did answer it.

Do you think that doctors should be prohibited, by law, from asking this question?

If you think that doctors should be prohibited from asking this question, what is your justification for passing laws to prohibit this? If you don't think that we should be passing more laws to prohibit this, then why are people complaining so much that Obama agrees with them?

You might want to open your eyes because I answered the question. It should occur to you that some questions are not so black and white but I know how liberals like to play gotchya

[MastaG8r]

Because everyone seems intent on avoiding answering it, yet complaining that Obama did answer it.

Do you think that doctors should be prohibited, by law, from asking this question?

If you think that doctors should be prohibited from asking this question, what is your justification for passing laws to prohibit this? If you don't think that we should be passing more laws to prohibit this, then why are people complaining so much that Obama agrees with them?So you're going to join in this game of pretending it's all about whether doctors can ask the question, when we all know the real issue is what they can do with the answer? Under what circumstances should a doctor be allowed to share information about a patient's gun ownership with anyone, particularly the government?

[gatorman_07732]

Please make sure to consult your doctor when you are in the market to buy a firearm

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Do you think that doctors should be prohibited, by law, from asking this question?



I do not think government can or even should try to control the content of the conversations with our doctors. That said, most of my conversations with my doctor are around medical issues. Over decades of conversations, gun ownership has never come up.

I also do not have gun ownership conversations with the guy that cuts my hair. Or the guys that mow my lawn. Or the cashier at Publix.

[wgbgator]

I think doctors are capable of discretion in choosing the relevant questions to ask to people, like any competent professional.

[gatorman_07732]

There are many issues of safety when it comes to homes and children such as chemicals, windows, pools, knives, electricity........so why the concerted effort to target firearms?

[philnotfil]

You might want to open your eyes because I answered the question. It should occur to you that some questions are not so black and white but I know how liberals like to play gotchya

Your response to the question:
I have a problem with this being in a executive order. Outside of my pediatrician asking I never had this asked to me before. I believe something else is going on here, this guy is slick. He thinks a lot like Rahm Emanuel and he has outed himself on this issue.

You state that you disagree with it being an executive order. You state that you have never had this asked of you other than by a pediatrician. You state that you believe something else is going on here and that Obama thinks a lot like Rahm Emanuel.

I don't see an answer to the question in there anywhere. Was there another post where you answered the question? When you say that you disagree with it being an executive order are you implicitly saying that you agree with Obama that doctors shouldn't be prohibited from asking the question?

[gatorman_07732]

Your response to the question:


You state that you disagree with it being an executive order. You state that you have never had this asked of you other than by a pediatrician. You state that you believe something else is going on here and that Obama thinks a lot like Rahm Emanuel.

I don't see an answer to the question in there anywhere. Was there another post where you answered the question? When you say that you disagree with it being an executive order are you implicitly saying that you agree with Obama that doctors shouldn't be prohibited from asking the question?

Seriously, either you're blind or you're playing stupid so you need to keep looking. I answered it clearly after river starting whining at that answer.

[philnotfil]

Seriously, either you're blind or you're playing stupid so you need to keep looking. I answered it clearly after river starting whining at that answer.

Ah yes, there it is. My apologies, I didn't think to look at the posts after the one that started this conversation.

[gatorman_07732]

Ah yes, there it is. My apologies, I didn't think to look at the posts after the one that started this conversation.

I assume you are happy and were waiting for me to say yes so you can jump all over the conservative issue :yes:

[philnotfil]

I assume you are happy and were waiting for me to say yes so you can jump all over the conservative issue :yes:

Not particularly. More confused over why all the outrage over informing doctors that they aren't prohibited from asking the question if no one disagrees with this. I usually get outraged by things that I disagree with, rather than things that I agree with, but apparently I'm doing it wrong.

[gatorman_07732]

Not particularly. More confused over why all the outrage over informing doctors that they aren't prohibited from asking the question if no one disagrees with this. I usually get outraged by things that I disagree with, rather than things that I agree with, but apparently I'm doing it wrong.

People have explained ad nauseum here, but it's an unwillingness absorb what they are saying in an effort to try to diffuse they're arguments.

[Gatoragman]

Liberals the kings of complaining about code words used by conservatives. Conservatives don't like something because it is a code word and liberals don't understand.
Hmmmm

[DaveFla]

Because everyone seems intent on avoiding answering it, yet complaining that Obama did answer it.

Do you think that doctors should be prohibited, by law, from asking this question?

If you think that doctors should be prohibited from asking this question, what is your justification for passing laws to prohibit this? If you don't think that we should be passing more laws to prohibit this, then why are people complaining so much that Obama agrees with them?

Simple answer.

No. The doctor should never be prohibited, legally, from asking a patient that question.

No. The patient should never be legally obligated to answer the question.

Yes. The doctor should be legally prevented from disclosing the patients answer (HIPAA?)to ANYONE else, including the government-run healthcare.

Clear enough for you?

[philnotfil]

Simple answer.

No. The doctor should never be prohibited, legally, from asking a patient that question.

No. The patient should never be legally obligated to answer the question.

Yes. The doctor should be legally prevented from disclosing the patients answer (HIPAA?)to ANYONE else, including the government-run healthcare.

Clear enough for you?

Yes, thank you.

[DaveFla]

Funny. That's what everyone was saying all along, yet you needed clarification.

[gatorman_07732]

Funny. That's what everyone was saying all along, yet you needed clarification.

yep, he and river wanted that one word answer so then they can bombard you with their questions instead of qualifing the "no" answer on the law.

[philnotfil]

yep, he and river wanted that one word answer so then they can bombard you with their questions instead of qualifing the "no" answer on the law.

No, I wanted a simple straightforward answer instead of people dancing around the question. Thank you DaveFla for providing that.

[gatorman_07732]

No, I wanted a simple straightforward answer instead of people dancing around the question. Thank you DaveFla for providing that.

You want to make it look like people are dancing but they're not

[philnotfil]

You want to make it look like people are dancing but they're not

I wish I knew myself as well as you do. I'm still not sure what I should have for lunch, could you tell me what I want?

[gatorman_07732]

I wish I knew myself as well as you do. I'm still not sure what I should have for lunch, could you tell me what I want?

crow?

[philnotfil]

crow?

Isn't that usually what you eat when you find out you were wrong about something? What was I wrong about here?

[gatorman_07732]

Isn't that usually what you eat when you find out you were wrong about something? What was I wrong about here?

:laugh: good one

[MastaG8r]

crow?Instant classic! :tongue::yes::grin:

[philnotfil]

:laugh: good one

So you weren't able to find anything? I did you the courtesy of looking up what you wrote and responding to what you actually said.

[gatorman_07732]

So you weren't able to find anything? I did you the courtesy of looking up what you wrote and responding to what you actually said.

Hijack much?

[rpmGator]

So a nut steals a gun and uses it.

So rules on legal sales have to be changed. Got it.

Common sense, isnt the venue of the gun hater.

[philnotfil]

Hijack much?

I take it that you still can't find anything I was wrong about in this thread.

I was willing to go through the entire thread to make sure that I didn't misrepresent you. Why are you unwilling to extend the same courtesy to me?

[gatorman_07732]

I take it that you still can't find anything I was wrong about in this thread.

I was willing to go through the entire thread to make sure that I didn't misrepresent you. Why are you unwilling to extend the same courtesy to me?

I have no intentions of hijacking this thread with your feeble arguments

[philnotfil]

I have no intentions of hijacking this thread with your feeble arguments

My responding to your false claims is now hijacking a thread? Wouldn't the false claims be the hijacking of the thread?

[wcj786]

I agree. I'd love to hear the reasons from some who claim that doctor shouldn't be allowed to ask the question.

River, here is an example.

You have a child that is suspected to be abused.
His father had an altercation and was claimed to have abused his previous wife during a divorce case.
He was asked by the doctor during the child's examination if he had any weapons at home.
The father stated that he had both a rifle, shotgun and handgun.
The doctor recommended to the courts that the father no longer have any visitation rights to the child, as it was her belief that he was the perpetrator of the abuse, even though both the father and the child stated it was anoth kid on their street.

This actually happened on my street as I was growing up. I also was a witness to the child being beaten up by another kid 7 years older. Luckily, I told me dad about it when I asked why I never saw John any more. My dad told John's father and his lawyer was able to open the case back up and get the ruling overturned.

The whole thing hinged on the doctor who had a child killed by a driveby shooting. So, when she heard he had weapons in the house, she immediately made up her mind that it was the father who caused the abuse.

And, this happened in the late 70's. God forbid what would happen to the father now. He couldn't be prosecuted back then, because there was no evidence. In today's environment, it would not be a stretch to find him arrested and tried as a child abuser.

[gatorman_07732]

My responding to your false claims is now hijacking a thread? Wouldn't the false claims be the hijacking of the thread?

Phil, for your psychological sanity let it go

[philnotfil]

Phil, for your psychological sanity let it go

You falsely speculated on my motives, and I am the one who should let it go? I refuse to let you lie about me. You're just going to have to deal with it.

[gatorman_07732]

You falsely speculated on my motives, and I am the one who should let it go? I refuse to let you lie about me. You're just going to have to deal with it.

no, really I'm not...honestly, really, no

[wcj786]

Because everyone seems intent on avoiding answering it, yet complaining that Obama did answer it.

Do you think that doctors should be prohibited, by law, from asking this question?

If you think that doctors should be prohibited from asking this question, what is your justification for passing laws to prohibit this? If you don't think that we should be passing more laws to prohibit this, then why are people complaining so much that Obama agrees with them?

Phil, I will answer your question and give you my response back.

No, I don't think that a doctor should be prohibited by law from asking the question.

BUT, that same doctor SHOULD be prohibited by law from disclosing the answer, REGARDLESS of whether it is YES or NO, to any entity, whether that be government, employer, or anyone else. And, I believe that should be an amendment to The Constitution, so that the liberals can not change the law, if they ever get complete control of Congress.

Whether you think me paranoid or delusional, we all know that the vast majority of liberals in Congress are against the 2nd Amendment, so it behooves us to make sure, through any means necessary, to curtail their ability to remove even more of our rights.

It is not a stretch or a conspiracy theory to believe that the liberals would try and require doctors to disclose the answer to this question to the government, otherwise why would it even be an issue. With that said, IF they were able to force the doctors to disclose this, then they could force doctors to disclose other information, including your full medical history.

So, to recap, No, a doctor should not be prohibited from asking the question. But, the doctor SHOULD be prohibited from disclosing that information to any other entity.

[MastaG8r]

I take it that you still can't find anything I was wrong about in this thread.

I was willing to go through the entire thread to make sure that I didn't misrepresent you. Why are you unwilling to extend the same courtesy to me?phil, you wrongly accused the guy of ducking a question that he did answer. You admitted it! Are you of the opinion that if you apologize for being wrong about something then that means you weren't wrong about it anymore?

Why do you feel the need to repeat someone elses question?

Because everyone seems intent on avoiding answering it, yet complaining that Obama did answer it. Do you think that doctors should be prohibited, by law, from asking this question?

You might want to open your eyes because I answered the question.

I don't see an answer to the question in there anywhere.

Seriously, either you're blind or you're playing stupid so you need to keep looking. I answered it clearly after river starting whining at that answer.

Ah yes, there it is. My apologies, I didn't think to look at the posts after the one that started this conversation.

...and now you're denying that you were wrong about anything in this thread? :huh:

[DaveFla]

crow?

BOOM!