US Government wants to take firearms away by force!

Page 4 of 15 [ 238 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 15  Next

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

18 May 2013, 10:50 pm

Misslizard wrote:
My health care provider never asked me any questions like that,they just do my blood work.All they ever ask about is what medication I'm taking.It's different at the Health dept for annual "lady checkups",they do ask about personal stuff,and I expect them to.But they have never asked me about a gun.My therapist never asked either,I told him I had one.Maybe that was not such a good idea. :? But he does know there was a home invasion next door that wound up being a fight between the home owner and two drug addicts.She could not get to her gun,so she clocked the guy over the head with a wine bottle,the other one ran after away.And when I went to the ER a few summer back,no questions about a gun either,just what meds are you on.

Not all doctors will ask for complete backgrounds, especially in today's commoditized, fee-for-service medicine.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

19 May 2013, 12:50 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
As for who is running roughshod over the rights of others - recently, a right wing talk show host ranted and raved how he would tell the loved ones of the Newtown victims that his liberty was more important than their loss. He was hardly just speaking for himself.

I didn't see it whatever it was. However, his liberty and mine have nothing to do with any victims in Newtown unless you're implying that us giving up our rights will prevent further shootings like that. You're not going to be that naive are you?

Quote:
As for who is actually walking lockstep here, I think ArrantPariah has already addressed that matter.
And in closing, being anal about proper spelling doesn't make you a Nazi, it just means you're more likely an Aspie. I should know - I go back and correct my errors constantly after I post.

It's called satire. :roll:


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

19 May 2013, 12:55 am

LKL wrote:
Raptor wrote:
LKL wrote:
Raptor wrote:
LKL wrote:
Having a gun at home increases your likelihood of gun death, whether by your own hand or anothers'. It is a reasonable question to ask as part of a comlete patient history. A lot of background questions seem very invasive when one is taking a patient history - your sex life, your mental state, number and type of pets, etc - and all would be relevant for a complete general history, even for an immediate complaint of a sports injury.


Here we go again......
Quote:
Having a gun at home increases your likelihood of gun death, whether by your own hand or anothers'.

Yeah, forget that it can and often is used to defend oneself and just go with The Brady Center's "statistics"......NOT.

Quote:
It is a reasonable question to ask as part of a complete patient history. A lot of background questions seem very invasive when one is taking a patient history - your sex life, your mental state, number and type of pets, etc - and all would be relevant for a complete general history, even for an immediate complaint of a sports injury.

Try and rationalize it all you want, and I'm sure you will, but if it's not relevant to the issue at hand then it's none of anyone's business. Period.

Your statement is not accurate. It might not be relevant for an ER visit (ie, where they stabilize an injury and ship the patient out to someone else), but the standard of care for a GP requires that they treat the whole person, not just "the issue at hand." It might not quite be medical malpractice to avoid a complete history, but it certainly is sloppy at best.


Hope you didn't think I forgot about you. :P

Anyhoo, I looked at several GP patient questionnaires that I found online and none of them, not one, asked such silly and invasive questions about sex life, mental state, number and type of pets, or guns in the home.
Every question was actually relevant to the individual's health and health history including family health history, meds, smoking and drinking (which actually are relevant), etc.

I would immediately cease doing business with any healthcare provider that stepped out of line by asking such personal questions that you claim are relevant.
But then again I don't go to them unless I really need to. The only healthcare provider I see on a regular basis is the vet I take my dog to.

Sex life (ie, 'are you monogamous and satisfied') is relevant because it speaks to both STIs, likelihood of becoming a parent, and depression; pets are relevant because they affect allergies and depression. If a doc isn't asking about those, she's not being thorough. Of course, given that an appointment with a GP now often runs about 5 minutes, that is perhaps not too surprising.
Another important item that is often not included on a questionnaire is diet - do you eat enough fruits and vegetables, do you avoid fast food and soda. Extremely relevant to health, but often only discussed verbally or neglected entirely.

If it's a sexual related condition someone is being treated for, yes.
If it's an allergy that pets could attribute to, yes.
Otherwise it's irrelevant and nosy.
You know what I mean but whatever....


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

19 May 2013, 12:59 am

Misslizard wrote:
My health care provider never asked me any questions like that,they just do my blood work.All they ever ask about is what medication I'm taking.It's different at the Health dept for annual "lady checkups",they do ask about personal stuff,and I expect them to.But they have never asked me about a gun.My therapist never asked either,I told him I had one.Maybe that was not such a good idea. :? But he does know there was a home invasion next door that wound up being a fight between the home owner and two drug addicts.She could not get to her gun,so she clocked the guy over the head with a wine bottle,the other one ran after away.And when I went to the ER a few summer back,no questions about a gun either,just what meds are you on.


And they shouldn't ask you about guns, that's the whole point.
About the only time that's come up between me and ANY doctor I've done business with is that a dentist I was going to I also saw at the shooting range and we talked a little about that and my dog's vet used to be a competitive shooter.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

19 May 2013, 1:14 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
How will the armed forces defend us from foreign enemies, or for that matter, how would law enforcement protect us from criminals?


Well, if citizens can't own firearms, then criminals won't be able to. If they do, they'll be breaking the law.

If the people don't need them, the government doesn't need them (being as the government is composed of the people).

I don't see many foreign enemies invading much of the West. Though I see a lot of the West invading foreign countries (which has been slowing down as of late, thankfully).



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

19 May 2013, 1:24 am

Quote:
Well, if citizens can't own firearms, then criminals won't be able to. If they do, they'll be breaking the law.

I'm willing to break that law.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

19 May 2013, 1:53 am

I'm sure there's lots of people who are.

To add, the "do it for the kids"-types see self-defense as not worth the risks (accidents and whatnot) -- if you defend against an invading force, you'll most likely cause far more casualties on both sides than if you just let them invade.

So, weapons in the hands of the government isn't logically sound if you're of a, "do it for the kids"-type.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

19 May 2013, 2:22 am

The "do it for the kids" crowd seems to not be interested in anything other than deaths/injuries from gunshot.
Forget all the other combined cause and just focus on gun related ones.
It doesn't take a genius to see their real agenda.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,239
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 May 2013, 2:26 am

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As for who is running roughshod over the rights of others - recently, a right wing talk show host ranted and raved how he would tell the loved ones of the Newtown victims that his liberty was more important than their loss. He was hardly just speaking for himself.

I didn't see it whatever it was. However, his liberty and mine have nothing to do with any victims in Newtown unless you're implying that us giving up our rights will prevent further shootings like that. You're not going to be that naive are you?

Quote:
As for who is actually walking lockstep here, I think ArrantPariah has already addressed that matter.
And in closing, being anal about proper spelling doesn't make you a Nazi, it just means you're more likely an Aspie. I should know - I go back and correct my errors constantly after I post.

It's called satire. :roll:


He meant exactly what he said - the loss of life is not as important as his right to own or shoot whatever his black little heart desires.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,239
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 May 2013, 2:30 am

Dillogic wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
How will the armed forces defend us from foreign enemies, or for that matter, how would law enforcement protect us from criminals?


Well, if citizens can't own firearms, then criminals won't be able to. If they do, they'll be breaking the law.

If the people don't need them, the government doesn't need them (being as the government is composed of the people).

I don't see many foreign enemies invading much of the West. Though I see a lot of the West invading foreign countries (which has been slowing down as of late, thankfully).


I never said citizens couldn't own fire arms - just that the government wouldn't be able to defend the citizens from enemies within or without if disarmed.
And if we have no army, who says no one would attack us, then? Or how would we fight enemies like overseas terrorists?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

19 May 2013, 2:39 am

Raptor wrote:
It doesn't take a genius to see their real agenda.


I think they just don't put the thought into it.

I mean, they're willing to pay people to defend them, yet the irony of that fact is utterly lost on them (doing it yourself or paying someone to do it is the same thing).



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

19 May 2013, 7:46 am

All fire arms? Some fire airms? And if so, when? Meanwhile there are at least 300,000,000 fire arms in the hands of American civilians. The government will not be able to seize more than a small fraction of them.

Gun clubs are legal and people are learning how to shoot every day of the year.

ruveyn



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,239
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 May 2013, 10:05 am

ruveyn wrote:
All fire arms? Some fire airms? And if so, when? Meanwhile there are at least 300,000,000 fire arms in the hands of American civilians. The government will not be able to seize more than a small fraction of them.

Gun clubs are legal and people are learning how to shoot every day of the year.

ruveyn


That's something gun rightsers refuse to consider.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

19 May 2013, 12:11 pm

I’m just gonna do three at once to save space.

Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
I didn't see it whatever it was. However, his liberty and mine have nothing to do with any victims in Newtown unless you're implying that us giving up our rights will prevent further shootings like that. You're not going to be that naive are you?

He meant exactly what he said - the loss of life is not as important as his right to own or shoot whatever his black little heart desires.

Which right wing talk show host (or whoever it was) was it and what exactly did he say? A Youtube video would help. I have a black little heart, too, but I can’t make sense of these allegations without some substance.

Dillogic wrote:
Raptor wrote:
It doesn't take a genius to see their real agenda.


I think they just don't put the thought into it.


I think that’s what Vladimir Lenin referred to as “useful idiots”.

ruveyn wrote:
All fire arms? Some fire airms? And if so, when? Meanwhile there are at least 300,000,000 fire arms in the hands of American civilians. The government will not be able to seize more than a small fraction of them.

Gun clubs are legal and people are learning how to shoot every day of the year.


I’ve been saying this all along but the anti’s have gotten their way enough times make them a threat. Maybe not right now but who knows about later.
I don’t expect there will ever be an all-out gun ban but I do expect nibbling away at the edges like there has been until they get close enough to the center that we can call it an all-out gun ban in effect.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


wittgenstein
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,523
Location: Trapped inside a hominid skull

19 May 2013, 12:47 pm

Fnord wrote:
I thought Alex Jones had died.

Why hasn't he?

Your thinking of Breitbart. He died. Like Jones he was a crazy conspiracy guy.


_________________
YES! This is me!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gtdlR4rUcY
I went up over 50 feet!
I love debate!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtckVng_1a0
My debate style is calm and deadly!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-230v_ecAcM


DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,661
Location: Earth, mostly

19 May 2013, 12:55 pm

So, because I don't think you need full-auto firearms with 30-round clips in your house, I'm now an "anti-gun nut"?

Interesting. I suppose that means I have to turn in my bolt-action .30-06 with the 5-round magazine, and surrender my annual hunting license...

There isn't a line of sight in my house where I can't provide better home defense with various so-called "harmless" household items than I possibly could with a firearm. The problem I find is that most people, even those who pride themselves on "thinking outside the box", have far too limited a definition of weapons. My "thrown weapons" include coffee mugs, heavy ceramic plates, two cats, two ferrets, and a selection of knives (not all of them are properly balanced for throwing, although in a pinch even the carving knives can be used to distract an assailant until I can close to hand-to-hand range). Close-in weapons include more knives (what can I say, I like knives), the guitar controllers for playing Rock Band on my XBox (seriously, heft one by the neck sometime - those things are serious clubs), three dogs (which have the advantage of being self-directed), and of course my hands, feet, elbows, knees, and assorted other hard parts. And that's leaving out the possibilities inherent in the kids' toys, or using the wired controllers of my old PS2 as improvised bolas...


_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.