Go Rick Scott

[Chrisj CMA]

I know hes not so popular right now, but on this one hes got the right stuff.  Hes backing legislation that will prohibit doctors and their staff from asking you about your guns as part of "medical treatment" 

I laugh, the doctor said it will hinder health care because they need to ask these questions about guns and ammo to insure the safety of their patients and their children.  Since when does having an M.D. qualify you to to tell me how to safely store my guns and ammunition.  LOL what a joke!

I sure hope this passes, I have been asked this before and it is really stupid, and just another time your name and the fact you own guns is documented needlessly

[John Schmidt]

Chris, I agree...Scott is on target with this one, I hope he follows through with it. I've actually been asked that question a couple times here in the Orlando area. My response was simple....I asked them a question: what does that have to do with the problem at hand? I then told them that whether I do or don't own a weapon is of no concern of theirs...or anyone's business except mine. One dr. informed me he needed an answer or he couldn't treat me. I corrected him by saying "you mean you 'wouldn't' treat me."  The other guy just smiled and said "I'm supposed to ask" and then went about his business.

[Serk]

I'm torn on this... On the one hand I really don't think it's relevant to the doctor's treating any illnesses (Other than potentially mental illness)

BUT...

While we're fighting so hard to get government to NOT meddle in health care, to get government OUT of the relationship between a doctor and a patient, it's hard to cheer for a law that inserts government right back into that private relationship between a doctor and a patient, even if it's for an honorable purpose...

[Chrisj CMA]

I'm torn on this... On the one hand I really don't think it's relevant to the doctor's treating any illnesses (Other than potentially mental illness)

BUT...

While we're fighting so hard to get government to NOT meddle in health care, to get government OUT of the relationship between a doctor and a patient, it's hard to cheer for a law that inserts government right back into that private relationship between a doctor and a patient, even if it's for an honorable purpose...

Serk, I think its the government mandating the gun questions.  Why would doctors from all over suddenly decide to care about my guns

[Daniel Meyer]

I'm much less sedate to my responses to those type of questions.

If I'm filling out a form, "NOYGDB"

If they ask verbally I'm not at all shy about expanding the acronym.

[Jack]

+1 DANIEL! 

[Bob E.]

Serk, I think its the government mandating the gun questions.  Why would doctors from all over suddenly decide to care about my guns

Actually, it's not the government asking/mandating the questions, but quite the opposite.  I just read an article on this today.  And actually, it is a question promoted by the American Academy of Pediatrics, a professional organization, as part of a series of questions for new parents about promoting safety in the home.  These questions/topics include a range of issues from car seats to bike helmets.  The prupose isn't to find out if the parents have guns, but rather to inform them of the safety issues with regards to children IF there are guns in the home.  They aren't mandating safety or requiring any sort of gun safes or anything like that, but rather just informing the parents that kids can be mischieveous or just plain curious and failure to take precautions is how tragedies happen.

I actually find this type of law being passed in Florida quite contradictory to the conservative ideaology of a "smaller, LESS INTRUSIVE government.  The republicans seem to be on a roll with this type of legislation lately. .

[Chrisj CMA]

Serk, I think its the government mandating the gun questions.  Why would doctors from all over suddenly decide to care about my guns

Actually, it's not the government asking/mandating the questions, but quite the opposite.  I just read an article on this today.  And actually, it is a question promoted by the American Academy of Pediatrics, a professional organization, as part of a series of questions for new parents about promoting safety in the home.  These questions/topics include a range of issues from car seats to bike helmets.  The prupose isn't to find out if the parents have guns, but rather to inform them of the safety issues with regards to children IF there are guns in the home.  They aren't mandating safety or requiring any sort of gun safes or anything like that, but rather just informing the parents that kids can be mischieveous or just plain curious and failure to take precautions is how tragedies happen.

I actually find this type of law being passed in Florida quite contradictory to the conservative ideaology of a "smaller, LESS INTRUSIVE government.  The republicans seem to be on a roll with this type of legislation lately. .

The bottom line Bob.  Medical records will soon be all on line and with the passing of Obama Care, the good ol federal government will have access to whatever is in those records.  Now if they cant mandate a gun registration why not document ownership in other more "harmless" ways.  Now, Im not paranoid enough to think thats what they are up to now.  But years from now if (God Forbid) they decide to find out just who has guns and who dont......they could decide, hey we have the answer in the medical records. Yeah, I trust them that little!

[Bob E.]

Serk, I think its the government mandating the gun questions.  Why would doctors from all over suddenly decide to care about my guns

Actually, it's not the government asking/mandating the questions, but quite the opposite.  I just read an article on this today.  And actually, it is a question promoted by the American Academy of Pediatrics, a professional organization, as part of a series of questions for new parents about promoting safety in the home.  These questions/topics include a range of issues from car seats to bike helmets.  The prupose isn't to find out if the parents have guns, but rather to inform them of the safety issues with regards to children IF there are guns in the home.  They aren't mandating safety or requiring any sort of gun safes or anything like that, but rather just informing the parents that kids can be mischieveous or just plain curious and failure to take precautions is how tragedies happen.

I actually find this type of law being passed in Florida quite contradictory to the conservative ideaology of a "smaller, LESS INTRUSIVE government.  The republicans seem to be on a roll with this type of legislation lately. .

The bottom line Bob.  Medical records will soon be all on line and with the passing of Obama Care, the good ol federal government will have access to whatever is in those records.  Now if they cant mandate a gun registration why not document ownership in other more "harmless" ways.  Now, Im not paranoid enough to think thats what they are up to now.  But years from now if (God Forbid) they decide to find out just who has guns and who dont......they could decide, hey we have the answer in the medical records. Yeah, I trust them that little!

Wow...that's pretty paranoid.  Maybe I'm just naive.  Plus, you are arguing in support of a government intervention in order to prevent government intervention.  This is the typical contradiction of ideaology that the really, really big "small government" republicans propose.  They continually try to have it both ways so long as the government intervention serves their purpose or their masters/donors.  Besides, as far as I know, handguns are required to be registered already in most if not all states.  I know mine are.  Not rifles or shotguns, though.  And I really don't believe that the doctors are recording whether they have guns or not.  They are just having a conversation and have a list of bullet (pun intended!) points of items that they cover with the new parents regarding safety in the home.  Like I said, do you think that they are recording whether you own a bicycle helmet for your toddler??

[BigAl]

OK the righting is on the wall so to speak.

Universal Healthcare ==== Less Freedom to no Freedom.

Guns are bad for you hence------------------- Illegal.

Smoking  same story.

Motorcycles same story.

Even Meat same story.

Pronography same story.

Trampeling the Bill of Rights. Constitution at that point will be a guideline only,,,,,,,,,, to the do gooder politicians that know best for us.



As soon as the Government gets involved with your private lives,,,United States as we know it now is dead.


Personally I think we should all move to New Hampshire,,their motto is Live Free or Die, I think. But it sounds good anyway.

Fight back VOTE>

[Bob E.]

OK the righting is on the wall so to speak.

Universal Healthcare ==== Less Freedom to no Freedom.

Guns are bad for you hence------------------- Illegal.

Smoking  same story.

Motorcycles same story.

Even Meat same story.

Pronography same story.

Trampeling the Bill of Rights. Constitution at that point will be a guideline only,,,,,,,,,, to the do gooder politicians that know best for us.



As soon as the Government gets involved with your private lives,,,United States as we know it now is dead.


Personally I think we should all move to New Hampshire,,their motto is Live Free or Die, I think. But it sounds good anyway.

Fight back VOTE>

Who is proposing any of this?

[Jess from VA]

Medical record access and central registry are a very legitimate concern for gun owners.  The G attempted to use VAs million man list of vets collecting disability for PTSD (and other neuroses-psychoses), and proposed that none were eligible to own firearms under existing laws for those either adjudicated incompetent or affected by mental disease...... even if only paid at the 10% rate (mild to nonexistant).

Doctors and nurses are not trained any better than the general public to counsel safety over gun ownership.

The records I have seen with gun questions are those you fill out prior to examination (patient self reported history) and they can end up in your permanent file.

You can say 'none of your damn business', or leave them blank (both square pegs in round holes).............. I simply lie and check NO.  What would you rather have in your records if or when they get around to looking for gun owners?  (like after a universal licensing and registration scheme is passed, and 50 percent of us refuse to cooperate)

[Bob E.]

Medical record access and central registry are a very legitimate concern for gun owners.  The G attempted to use VAs million man list of vets collecting disability for PTSD (and other neuroses-psychoses), and proposed that none were eligible to own firearms under existing laws for those either adjudicated incompetent or affected by mental disease...... even if only paid at the 10% rate (mild to nonexistant).

Doctors and nurses are not trained any better than the general public to counsel safety over gun ownership.

The records I have seen with gun questions are those you fill out prior to examination (patient self reported history) and they can end up in your permanent file.

You can say 'none of your damn business', or leave them blank (both square pegs in round holes).............. I simply lie and check NO.  What would you rather have in your records if or when they get around to looking for gun owners?  (like after a universal licensing and registration scheme is passed, and 50 percent of us refuse to cooperate)

Not to get off topic here, but you talk about people with some sort of mental illness with potentially suicidal or homocidal leanings...and your really going to argue that they shouldn't have to answer some questions about gun ownership?  Really?  Even after what just happened in Tuscon??

But as to the original topic, my point was that I don't see the harm in pediatricians reminding new parents of toddlers that if there are guns in the hosue, that they should secure them to keep them out of the hands of children, the same as they would remind parents about the benefits of proper car seats fitted to size, bicycle helments, door latches on cabinets, and mister yuk stickers on poisons.  I'll agree that maybe they shouldn't record whether there are guns in the house...if that would comfort some people...but rather they should just say "if" there are guns in the home, do this...

[RoadKill]

Medical record access and central registry are a very legitimate concern for gun owners.  The G attempted to use VAs million man list of vets collecting disability for PTSD (and other neuroses-psychoses), and proposed that none were eligible to own firearms under existing laws for those either adjudicated incompetent or affected by mental disease...... even if only paid at the 10% rate (mild to nonexistant).

Doctors and nurses are not trained any better than the general public to counsel safety over gun ownership.

The records I have seen with gun questions are those you fill out prior to examination (patient self reported history) and they can end up in your permanent file.

You can say 'none of your damn business', or leave them blank (both square pegs in round holes).............. I simply lie and check NO.  What would you rather have in your records if or when they get around to looking for gun owners?  (like after a universal licensing and registration scheme is passed, and 50 percent of us refuse to cooperate)

Not to get off topic here, but you talk about people with some sort of mental illness with potentially suicidal or homocidal leanings...and your really going to argue that they shouldn't have to answer some questions about gun ownership?  Really?  Even after what just happened in Tuscon??

But as to the original topic, my point was that I don't see the harm in pediatricians reminding new parents of toddlers that if there are guns in the hosue, that they should secure them to keep them out of the hands of children, the same as they would remind parents about the benefits of proper car seats fitted to size, bicycle helments, door latches on cabinets, and mister yuk stickers on poisons.  I'll agree that maybe they shouldn't record whether there are guns in the house...if that would comfort some people...but rather they should just say "if" there are guns in the home, do this...

If you need a professional to tell you that guns are not good toys for toddlers then I think you have just fouled the Gene pool !  I recommend buying a toaster with out the "do not use in the shower" warning label and have a nice warm bath and SOME FREAKIN TOAST ! Get the 220 V model if available!  Some people should wear tin foil helmets and condoms 24/7 ! it's safer that way 

[RoadKill]

Back on topic.....

I see NO reason for ANY doctor to know about my gun ownership or even my belief for or against them.
How ever I do not mind if my guns are registered or if I am in some database and listed as a wacko gun owner. If they come for them they better expect the inevitable consequences. If I am the first (not likely ) that they come for then I will be the one making all the noise so you all know it is coming.

"From my cold,dead hand"

[Bob E.]

If you need a professional to tell you that guns are not good toys for toddlers then I think you have just fouled the Gene pool !  I recommend buying a toaster with out the "do not use in the shower" warning label and have a nice warm bath and SOME FREAKIN TOAST ! Get the 220 V model if available!  Some people should wear tin foil helmets and condoms 24/7 ! it's safer that way 

I think you are missing my point...of which I have exactly two. 

First, I'm not arguing that doctors SHOULD be having this sort of conversation with their patients.  I'm arguing that the government should not be preventing it (nor mandating it)...especially when that government is controlled by so-called conservatives who constantly argue that they need to keep the government out of our business and off our backs.  This legislation does the exact opposite and inserts government into a situation (doctor-patient relationship) where they have no business.  I'd say the same thing if the legislation was to mandate that doctors have this conversation.

Second, people like the NRA are turning this issue into something it is not, and unfortunately the the FL legislature and governor (and some of the public apparently) are buying it.  It is a simple issue of reminding parents about safety regarding toddlers, with guns being only one of a litany of potential dangers in the home.  It is not about the government compiling some back door gun registry list.  Even if it was, think about that.  How useful would this list be when it is only a general question of gun ownership...not registrations and serial numbers, types of guns, etc?  Heck, there is no real check, so there is no reliability of the accuracy of the information.  And as often as people change doctors and insurance plans, there is no way to know if the list would even be up to date.  So really, what use would this list be to anyone?  And frankly, I'd think that the NRA would want to promote gun safety and applaud the American Academy of Pediatriatrics (AAP) for their efforts and perhaps even participate by suggesting their own gun-safety tips be referenced by the AAP. This is the same as the AMA promoting ATGATT while not supporting mandates for such equipment.  But instead, the NRA is the lead proponent of the legislation to prevent information about gun safety being discussed between pediatricians and new parents.  As a gun owner myself, I appreciate much of what the NRA stands for.  But when they use fear mongering about the government coming for your guns and all of the other "slippery slope" arguements...and then they turn an issue like this into something it is not, they lose me.

[Chrisj CMA]

If you need a professional to tell you that guns are not good toys for toddlers then I think you have just fouled the Gene pool !  I recommend buying a toaster with out the "do not use in the shower" warning label and have a nice warm bath and SOME FREAKIN TOAST ! Get the 220 V model if available!  Some people should wear tin foil helmets and condoms 24/7 ! it's safer that way 

I think you are missing my point...of which I have exactly two. 

First, I'm not arguing that doctors SHOULD be having this sort of conversation with their patients.  I'm arguing that the government should not be preventing it (nor mandating it)...especially when that government is controlled by so-called conservatives who constantly argue that they need to keep the government out of our business and off our backs.  This legislation does the exact opposite and inserts government into a situation (doctor-patient relationship) where they have no business.  I'd say the same thing if the legislation was to mandate that doctors have this conversation.

Second, people like the NRA are turning this issue into something it is not, and unfortunately the the FL legislature and governor (and some of the public apparently) are buying it.  It is a simple issue of reminding parents about safety regarding toddlers, with guns being only one of a litany of potential dangers in the home.  It is not about the government compiling some back door gun registry list.  Even if it was, think about that.  How useful would this list be when it is only a general question of gun ownership...not registrations and serial numbers, types of guns, etc?  Heck, there is no real check, so there is no reliability of the accuracy of the information.  And as often as people change doctors and insurance plans, there is no way to know if the list would even be up to date.  So really, what use would this list be to anyone?  And frankly, I'd think that the NRA would want to promote gun safety and applaud the American Academy of Pediatriatrics (AAP) for their efforts and perhaps even participate by suggesting their own gun-safety tips be referenced by the AAP. This is the same as the AMA promoting ATGATT while not supporting mandates for such equipment.  But instead, the NRA is the lead proponent of the legislation to prevent information about gun safety being discussed between pediatricians and new parents.  As a gun owner myself, I appreciate much of what the NRA stands for.  But when they use fear mongering about the government coming for your guns and all of the other "slippery slope" arguements...and then they turn an issue like this into something it is not, they lose me.

Bob...all what you say is rational and I agree 100%.  However, my concerns arent for now, these (as you correctly pointed out) are very general questions.  My concerns are this: (this is where you and I differ some)  I dont put it past an Obama type Administration to let something like this go on for years and if its not challenged, even if it wasnt their idea, even if it isint a govenment mandate.....I dont trust that some day they will get the idea to put their meat hooks into it and add another layer and maybe later, another until it is an accurate data base.  Maybe they never will, but if the data NEVER gets stored in the first place then there is no concern.  I wont trust them an inch for all the lies so far, so flame me

[Bob E.]

Bob...all what you say is rational and I agree 100%.  However, my concerns arent for now, these (as you correctly pointed out) are very general questions.  My concerns are this: (this is where you and I differ some)  I dont put it past an Obama type Administration to let something like this go on for years and if its not challenged, even if it wasnt their idea, even if it isint a govenment mandate.....I dont trust that some day they will get the idea to put their meat hooks into it and add another layer and maybe later, another until it is an accurate data base.  Maybe they never will, but if the data NEVER gets stored in the first place then there is no concern.  I wont trust them an inch for all the lies so far, so flame me

All is good...I'm not flaming anyone.  I was just trying to clarify my position, and I appreciate your respectful debate.  I would ask, though, about your statement of an "Obama type Administration" and what you mean by that.  Again, this is the sort of "slippery Slope" fear mongering arguement mentioned above that I feel gets in the way of a legitimate discussion about political topics.  So I would ask, specifically what legislation has Obama supported/proposed that would...well...I'm not sure what you mean...gather information on gun owners???  As far as I know, from everything I've read, since becoming president, he hasn't proposed any legislation restricting gun rights.  In fact, since he became president, he has shyed away from the topic and if anyting, gun laws have actually relaxed a bit under his administration.  An example is that you are now able to carry in National Parks.  If they really wanted information on gun-owners, I'm sure there must be a million more efficient and reliable ways of collecting this information.

And secondly, how would you reconcile your statement against the fact that it was a republican president (Bush type Administration), house, and senate that passed the "Patriot Act" which many would argue does exactly the type of thing that you are accusing an "Obama type Administration" of trying to do?  By the way, republicans are currently pushing for a 6-year renewal of the Patriot Act.  Do you support that?  Personally, I think the Patriot Act is the most unamerican, unconstitutional infringement on an individual's liberty by the federal government ever.  Wasn't it Ben Franklin that warned against giving up one's liberty for security...and untlimately deserving neither?

And I guess, third...this goes to my point about this issue being turned into something that it is not.  Your statement seems to assume that a "database" exists and is being constructed/maintained by the medical profession, I guess?  Do you really think that doctors are conspiring to actually record this data and centralize it such that it would be useful to anyone?  Like I said previously, I guess I could support a law to prevent the recording of such information in ones medical records since it's not medical in nature, but I do not think that it is inappropriate for a pediatrician to have a conversation about child safety in the home from a variety of potential dangers...including guns.

[musclehead]

OK the righting is on the wall so to speak.

Universal Healthcare ==== Less Freedom to no Freedom.

Guns are bad for you hence------------------- Illegal.

Smoking  same story.

Motorcycles same story.

Even Meat same story.

Pronography same story.

Trampeling the Bill of Rights. Constitution at that point will be a guideline only,,,,,,,,,, to the do gooder politicians that know best for us.



As soon as the Government gets involved with your private lives,,,United States as we know it now is dead.


Personally I think we should all move to New Hampshire,,their motto is Live Free or Die, I think. But it sounds good anyway.

Fight back VOTE>

you forgot about salt and trans fat.

ever see the movie 'demolition man'?  seems to be where they are trying to push us. maybe I'm being paranoid

[musclehead]

Medical record access and central registry are a very legitimate concern for gun owners.  The G attempted to use VAs million man list of vets collecting disability for PTSD (and other neuroses-psychoses), and proposed that none were eligible to own firearms under existing laws for those either adjudicated incompetent or affected by mental disease...... even if only paid at the 10% rate (mild to nonexistant).

Doctors and nurses are not trained any better than the general public to counsel safety over gun ownership.

The records I have seen with gun questions are those you fill out prior to examination (patient self reported history) and they can end up in your permanent file.

You can say 'none of your damn business', or leave them blank (both square pegs in round holes).............. I simply lie and check NO.  What would you rather have in your records if or when they get around to looking for gun owners?  (like after a universal licensing and registration scheme is passed, and 50 percent of us refuse to cooperate)

Not to get off topic here, but you talk about people with some sort of mental illness with potentially suicidal or homocidal leanings...and your really going to argue that they shouldn't have to answer some questions about gun ownership?  Really?  Even after what just happened in Tuscon??

But as to the original topic, my point was that I don't see the harm in pediatricians reminding new parents of toddlers that if there are guns in the hosue, that they should secure them to keep them out of the hands of children, the same as they would remind parents about the benefits of proper car seats fitted to size, bicycle helments, door latches on cabinets, and mister yuk stickers on poisons.  I'll agree that maybe they shouldn't record whether there are guns in the house...if that would comfort some people...but rather they should just say "if" there are guns in the home, do this...

its not just for new parents, John Schmidt isn't exactly a spring chicken. ..........well he;s not old either........... i'll stop while I'm behind 

[musclehead]

Bob...all what you say is rational and I agree 100%.  However, my concerns arent for now, these (as you correctly pointed out) are very general questions.  My concerns are this: (this is where you and I differ some)  I dont put it past an Obama type Administration to let something like this go on for years and if its not challenged, even if it wasnt their idea, even if it isint a govenment mandate.....I dont trust that some day they will get the idea to put their meat hooks into it and add another layer and maybe later, another until it is an accurate data base.  Maybe they never will, but if the data NEVER gets stored in the first place then there is no concern.  I wont trust them an inch for all the lies so far, so flame me

All is good...I'm not flaming anyone.  I was just trying to clarify my position, and I appreciate your respectful debate.  I would ask, though, about your statement of an "Obama type Administration" and what you mean by that.  Again, this is the sort of "slippery Slope" fear mongering arguement mentioned above that I feel gets in the way of a legitimate discussion about political topics.  So I would ask, specifically what legislation has Obama supported/proposed that would...well...I'm not sure what you mean...gather information on gun owners???  As far as I know, from everything I've read, since becoming president, he hasn't proposed any legislation restricting gun rights.  In fact, since he became president, he has shyed away from the topic and if anyting, gun laws have actually relaxed a bit under his administration.  An example is that you are now able to carry in National Parks.  If they really wanted information on gun-owners, I'm sure there must be a million more efficient and reliable ways of collecting this information.

And secondly, how would you reconcile your statement against the fact that it was a republican president (Bush type Administration), house, and senate that passed the "Patriot Act" which many would argue does exactly the type of thing that you are accusing an "Obama type Administration" of trying to do?  By the way, republicans are currently pushing for a 6-year renewal of the Patriot Act.  Do you support that?  Personally, I think the Patriot Act is the most unamerican, unconstitutional infringement on an individual's liberty by the federal government ever.  Wasn't it Ben Franklin that warned against giving up one's liberty for security...and untlimately deserving neither?

And I guess, third...this goes to my point about this issue being turned into something that it is not.  Your statement seems to assume that a "database" exists and is being constructed/maintained by the medical profession, I guess?  Do you really think that doctors are conspiring to actually record this data and centralize it such that it would be useful to anyone?  Like I said previously, I guess I could support a law to prevent the recording of such information in ones medical records since it's not medical in nature, but I do not think that it is inappropriate for a pediatrician to have a conversation about child safety in the home from a variety of potential dangers...including guns.

he said he would support another assault weapons ban, the number one reason I wouldn't vote for him. in for a penny in for a pound, "assault weapons" is a broadly abused term and means different things to different minds. I don't see a gray area like some, you support the constitution or you don't. I used to think this was a tin foil hat conspiracy, it might still be, but I'm not ready to dismiss that little voice in the back of my head.

do you ever wonder why liberals get along so well with dictators and in some cases idolize them? dictators have total and complete control of thier populace, you cannot control an armed populace.

[Bob E.]

he said he would support another assault weapons ban, the number one reason I wouldn't vote for him. in for a penny in for a pound, "assault weapons" is a broadly abused term and means different things to different minds. I don't see a gray area like some, you support the constitution or you don't. I used to think this was a tin foil hat conspiracy, it might still be, but I'm not ready to dismiss that little voice in the back of my head.

do you ever wonder why liberals get along so well with dictators and in some cases idolize them? dictators have total and complete control of thier populace, you cannot control an armed populace.

While he may have said he would support a ban, he hasn't been as agressive as the right has portrayed him in pushing it.  He hasn't done anything on it...he's certainly not out campaigning on it or "ramming through" bills. 

Whether there should be an all-out ban on assault weapons is a worthwhile debate and I can respect that.  I really don't even know exactly where I stand on that topic.  Somewhere in the middle I guess since I always thought it would be so cool to own a full-auto Thompson sub machine gun...like the gangsters in the '20's and 30's.  It's one of my favorite guns.  But on the other hand, I don't think just any nut-job ought to be able to go down to Wal-Mart and get one.  Even Dick Cheney has indicated that we should revisit reinstating the previous assault weapons ban or at least have some sort of common sense regulations on things like the high capacity magazines that were banned under the old law.  The question is really of where to draw the line.  Do you think it is reasonable for a common citizen regular Joe to be able to buy without restriction weapons like RPG's?  Missiles? Nukes?  How about large bore guns like a howitzer?  Anti-aircraft guns?  Extremely overexaggerated, I know.  But I would guess that most people would agree that it is unreasonable for just anyone to have access to these types of weapons.  So as we move down the spectrum of weaponry from the most extreme (nukes) down to bows and arrows...or maybe a rock and sling...the question remains as to where you draw the line.  My personal position is that, maybe some people with proper training and licensing including background checks, etc. should be allowed certain weapons like assault weapons or even large bore guns for parades and demonstrations and such.  Maybe even short range missiles...I was into rocketry as a kid.  But then we get into the whole arguement of government databases and such.

And I won't even touch the whole liberals loving dictators topic except to say that our government including both parties have propped up corrupt dictators around the world for decades.  Its not a "liberal" thing.  In fact most recently it was mostly republicans saying tht we shouldn't abandon our good friend Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.

[Chrisj CMA]

Bob...all what you say is rational and I agree 100%.  However, my concerns arent for now, these (as you correctly pointed out) are very general questions.  My concerns are this: (this is where you and I differ some)  I dont put it past an Obama type Administration to let something like this go on for years and if its not challenged, even if it wasnt their idea, even if it isint a govenment mandate.....I dont trust that some day they will get the idea to put their meat hooks into it and add another layer and maybe later, another until it is an accurate data base.  Maybe they never will, but if the data NEVER gets stored in the first place then there is no concern.  I wont trust them an inch for all the lies so far, so flame me

All is good...I'm not flaming anyone.  I was just trying to clarify my position, and I appreciate your respectful debate.  I would ask, though, about your statement of an "Obama type Administration" and what you mean by that.  Again, this is the sort of "slippery Slope" fear mongering arguement mentioned above that I feel gets in the way of a legitimate discussion about political topics.  So I would ask, specifically what legislation has Obama supported/proposed that would...well...I'm not sure what you mean...gather information on gun owners???  As far as I know, from everything I've read, since becoming president, he hasn't proposed any legislation restricting gun rights.  In fact, since he became president, he has shyed away from the topic and if anyting, gun laws have actually relaxed a bit under his administration.  An example is that you are now able to carry in National Parks.  If they really wanted information on gun-owners, I'm sure there must be a million more efficient and reliable ways of collecting this information.

And secondly, how would you reconcile your statement against the fact that it was a republican president (Bush type Administration), house, and senate that passed the "Patriot Act" which many would argue does exactly the type of thing that you are accusing an "Obama type Administration" of trying to do?  By the way, republicans are currently pushing for a 6-year renewal of the Patriot Act.  Do you support that?  Personally, I think the Patriot Act is the most unamerican, unconstitutional infringement on an individual's liberty by the federal government ever.  Wasn't it Ben Franklin that warned against giving up one's liberty for security...and untlimately deserving neither?

And I guess, third...this goes to my point about this issue being turned into something that it is not.  Your statement seems to assume that a "database" exists and is being constructed/maintained by the medical profession, I guess?  Do you really think that doctors are conspiring to actually record this data and centralize it such that it would be useful to anyone?  Like I said previously, I guess I could support a law to prevent the recording of such information in ones medical records since it's not medical in nature, but I do not think that it is inappropriate for a pediatrician to have a conversation about child safety in the home from a variety of potential dangers...including guns.

By "Obama type" I mean any administration like this one that seems to want to control everything.  It seems to a guy like this that the Constitution means nothing and the federal government cannot be too big, he wants a federal police force as powerful and well trained as the military (WHY?) He wants the whole ball of wax and he has an anti gun past, so what could he do in the future...........

No I dont think Drs are  compiling a database, however once all medical records are on line, any database can be arranged just with a smart "geek"

[Jess from VA]

Zero and the liberal left would love to hatchet the 2d amendment, from every angle, bans of this and that, magazines, gun shows, private transfers, ammo taxes, powder taggants, mandatory locks, and ultimately national licensing and registration of all guns and gun owners.  But it was never going to happen in his first term, because it was deemed other socialism like obamacare was more essential to ram down our throats first, without the damage a 2d amendment attack would cause in his (and fellow socialist's) reelection.  IF he gets a second term (poke me in the eye with a sharp stick), and had control of both houses, then the slippery slope would almost certainly begin.  He's already got the Supremes at 5-4 in this term.

Obamacare was argued in the 4th Cir, and the Solicitor Communist General argued the Fed can do ANYTHING it wants (US Const be cursed).  Three democrat appointed judges will decide, and if it goes Zero's way, on to the Supremes.   We should still be 5-4 against as in the DC and Chicago gun cases (and we'll see whether Sotomayor and Kagan are stooges or lawyers).  This is the most important litigation in US history IMHO.  I praise VA's Ken Cuccinelli and his crew in this endeavor against Holder's US Justice Dept.  (if you have a spare dollar, please send it their way)

Off the soap box....... for now. 

[Bob E.]

I can see I'm getting pulled into an arguement of talking points rather than an honest debate of actual facts.  And this is straying away from the original topic. 

So...I be done now.

[musclehead]

he said he would support another assault weapons ban, the number one reason I wouldn't vote for him. in for a penny in for a pound, "assault weapons" is a broadly abused term and means different things to different minds. I don't see a gray area like some, you support the constitution or you don't. I used to think this was a tin foil hat conspiracy, it might still be, but I'm not ready to dismiss that little voice in the back of my head.

do you ever wonder why liberals get along so well with dictators and in some cases idolize them? dictators have total and complete control of thier populace, you cannot control an armed populace.

While he may have said he would support a ban, he hasn't been as agressive as the right has portrayed him in pushing it.  He hasn't done anything on it...he's certainly not out campaigning on it or "ramming through" bills. 

Whether there should be an all-out ban on assault weapons is a worthwhile debate and I can respect that.  I really don't even know exactly where I stand on that topic.  Somewhere in the middle I guess since I always thought it would be so cool to own a full-auto Thompson sub machine gun...like the gangsters in the '20's and 30's.  It's one of my favorite guns.  But on the other hand, I don't think just any nut-job ought to be able to go down to Wal-Mart and get one.  Even Dick Cheney has indicated that we should revisit reinstating the previous assault weapons ban or at least have some sort of common sense regulations on things like the high capacity magazines that were banned under the old law.  The question is really of where to draw the line.  Do you think it is reasonable for a common citizen regular Joe to be able to buy without restriction weapons like RPG's?  Missiles? Nukes?  How about large bore guns like a howitzer?  Anti-aircraft guns?  Extremely overexaggerated, I know.  But I would guess that most people would agree that it is unreasonable for just anyone to have access to these types of weapons.  So as we move down the spectrum of weaponry from the most extreme (nukes) down to bows and arrows...or maybe a rock and sling...the question remains as to where you draw the line.  My personal position is that, maybe some people with proper training and licensing including background checks, etc. should be allowed certain weapons like assault weapons or even large bore guns for parades and demonstrations and such.  Maybe even short range missiles...I was into rocketry as a kid.  But then we get into the whole arguement of government databases and such.

And I won't even touch the whole liberals loving dictators topic except to say that our government including both parties have propped up corrupt dictators around the world for decades.  Its not a "liberal" thing.  In fact most recently it was mostly republicans saying tht we shouldn't abandon our good friend Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.

Mubarak was anti extremist and he was also a ruthless leader, we held our nose and just worked with him, no I don't think it was a good thing.

a howitzer is a howitzer, not a gun. a gun shoots directly at it's target a howitzer lobs them in. and yes average joes can own howitzers, RPGs they have to be disabled you see these kinds of guns frequently in front of VFW's(well not RPGs). what is an assualt weapon? some on the left define it as semi auto loading rifle with a detachable magazine, that description also matches the rifle I used to shoot my first deer. explosives are strictly verboten without training and certification.

last I read 'assault weapons' account for .0013 % of crime.

[Chrisj CMA]

I can see I'm getting pulled into an arguement of talking points rather than an honest debate of actual facts.  And this is straying away from the original topic. 

So...I be done now.

I just anwered your questions.....I truely believe this administration is power hungry socialist leaning and anti many things that made America great.  I dont trust them and Im sorry if I offended you, but nothing I said was meant as an afront to you or anything you commented on

[Bob E.]

I just anwered your questions.....I truely believe this administration is power hungry socialist leaning and anti many things that made America great.  I dont trust them and Im sorry if I offended you, but nothing I said was meant as an afront to you or anything you commented on

Not offended at all.  I just cannot have a serious debate when the talking points dissolve from being factual into just generalizations and bomb throwing.  With all due respect, you actually didn't answer any of my questions, but just made statements about government control, constitution destroying, socialism and power hunger.  I asked for specific legislation that he has proposed that supports any of your claims, with my point being that these accusations spread by the right are unfounded. And I would argue that the republicans during the Bush Administration actually did the things you accusing Obama of trying to do...like the Patriot Act I cited before.

Your generalization of Obama being a socialist, quite frankly would likely offend an actual socialist.  Did you hear Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and actual socialist, rail against his position on taxes last fall...for 10 hours straight??  He's far from it.  Many liberals/progressives are actually disappointed in Obama because his positions he has taken have been the republican position at some time in the past...in a futile effort to try and gain some of their support in changing the country for the better and solving real problems.  A perfect example is the health care law, a law designed and proposed by republicans back in the 90's, passed by a republican governor in Mass. then derided as "socialist" as soon as Obama endorsed it.  Sure, that law as passed did not have much public support.  But one stat that was not so publicized was that a large percentage of the public opposition was because the law did not go far enough. And when the new republican controlled house voted to repeal the law with HR 1, polls were showing that only 13% of the public supported repeal. Lots of people (myself included) really prefer a single payer system...or at least the so-called public option.  And yes, I'm willing to pay for it.  Currently, the plan that my employer offers as a "benefit" costs over $7200 in premium (my share) with high co-pays and deductibles such that my out-of-pocket costs would exceed $16000 per year including the premium, plus prescription drug co-pays.  This in over a third of what some people in our office make in gross salary...how can anyone afford that?? Then I read an article that Blue-Cross Blue Shield (our insurance co.), a non-profit insurance company by the way, actually pays out as little as about 60% of premiums towards medical care in some areas of the country. So I'd gladly pay into a government system that has an efficiency that runs in the mid to high 90's like Medicare does.

And saying that he is all for big government when the so-called small government republicans are passing the sort of legislation that you praised at the start of this thread rings hollow.

And finally, if he is so anti-gun as you say, why wasn't this his #1 priority when he had control of the house and senate during his first 2 years?

[Chrisj CMA]

Bob, I clarrified what I meant by Obama like.  Any adminidtration that can run up bills like this guy and buy out corporations prop up unions, play to his favorite companies and individuals at the expense of real jobs....and then lie so many times about what is really happening for example this oil business.  He has approved ONE (I think) drilling permit but has put all the prime sources "off limits" at the expense of thousands of jobs and then pays other countries like Brazil to do the drilling so we can buy from yet another country. His wealth distribution policies alone make him socialistic leaning (as I said before) in and of themselves.  But you and I will never agree, I dont want to get into an argument

[Bob E.]

Bob, I clarrified what I meant by Obama like.  Any adminidtration that can run up bills like this guy and buy out corporations prop up unions, play to his favorite companies and individuals at the expense of real jobs....and then lie so many times about what is really happening for example this oil business.  He has approved ONE (I think) drilling permit but has put all the prime sources "off limits" at the expense of thousands of jobs and then pays other countries like Brazil to do the drilling so we can buy from yet another country. His wealth distribution policies alone make him socialistic leaning (as I said before) in and of themselves.  But you and I will never agree, I dont want to get into an argument

Hey...we actually do agree!

I actually enjoy a spirited debate and I like being challenged.  I like to think I have an open mind and like learning others views, some of which amaze me on a variety of levels.  Like I said before, I appreciate your keeping it respectful, even though we disagree...compared to some of the threads I've read here.  I don't typically get into these political threads because they tend to get way off track from the original topic as this one has done and sometimes get ugly, which thankfully, this one did not.  It just so happened that I had read an artical on this topic right before jumping onto the VRCC and stumbling upon this thread.  So I waded on in thinking I could correct what I thought was a misstatement or misrepresentation of facts.

I hope to get to meet you sometime...maybe at the hillbilly ride, if you are attending.  I'm sure we could have a great conversation over a beer or three...motorcycle related of course.

[x]

Bob, I clarrified what I meant by Obama like.  Any adminidtration that can run up bills like this guy and buy out corporations prop up unions, play to his favorite companies and individuals at the expense of real jobs....and then lie so many times about what is really happening for example this oil business.  He has approved ONE (I think) drilling permit but has put all the prime sources "off limits" at the expense of thousands of jobs and then pays other countries like Brazil to do the drilling so we can buy from yet another country. His wealth distribution policies alone make him socialistic leaning (as I said before) in and of themselves.  But you and I will never agree, I dont want to get into an argument

Ummm... what 'wealth distribution policies' are you referring to?  Can you provide something concrete like legislation he has endorsed, or maybe regulations governing wealth distribution as published by a government agency?  As far as I am concerned, Obama has caved too many times to the bankers, whose greed created the last financial disaster, and whose contributions to Congress ensure that we cannot stop them from doing it again through regulation.  Wealth distribution, all right, but inexactly the opposite direction of what any good socialist would want.
 
I agree with Bob... you make generalized assertions, you rant, but you never back up your assertions with facts.  That is not a debate.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

OK the righting is on the wall so to speak.

Universal Healthcare ==== Less Freedom to no Freedom.

Guns are bad for you hence------------------- Illegal.

Smoking  same story.

Motorcycles same story.

Even Meat same story.

Pronography same story.

Trampeling the Bill of Rights. Constitution at that point will be a guideline only,,,,,,,,,, to the do gooder politicians that know best for us.



As soon as the Government gets involved with your private lives,,,United States as we know it now is dead.


Personally I think we should all move to New Hampshire,,their motto is Live Free or Die, I think. But it sounds good anyway.

Fight back VOTE>

Glad to know I'm not the only one noticing this. Glad you mentioned the meat thing too, the propaganda machine and the safety Nazis are working overtime on that one. Man, I'll bet they hate Adkins.

[x]

Although this poster was created in conjunction with debating another topic, I think the rules of engagement provided here apply to any sort of debate or discussion... otherwise, it's just noise.

[Chrisj CMA]

Bob, I clarrified what I meant by Obama like.  Any adminidtration that can run up bills like this guy and buy out corporations prop up unions, play to his favorite companies and individuals at the expense of real jobs....and then lie so many times about what is really happening for example this oil business.  He has approved ONE (I think) drilling permit but has put all the prime sources "off limits" at the expense of thousands of jobs and then pays other countries like Brazil to do the drilling so we can buy from yet another country. His wealth distribution policies alone make him socialistic leaning (as I said before) in and of themselves.  But you and I will never agree, I dont want to get into an argument

Hey...we actually do agree!

I actually enjoy a spirited debate and I like being challenged.  I like to think I have an open mind and like learning others views, some of which amaze me on a variety of levels.  Like I said before, I appreciate your keeping it respectful, even though we disagree...compared to some of the threads I've read here.  I don't typically get into these political threads because they tend to get way off track from the original topic as this one has done and sometimes get ugly, which thankfully, this one did not.  It just so happened that I had read an artical on this topic right before jumping onto the VRCC and stumbling upon this thread.  So I waded on in thinking I could correct what I thought was a misstatement or misrepresentation of facts.

I hope to get to meet you sometime...maybe at the hillbilly ride, if you are attending.  I'm sure we could have a great conversation over a beer or three...motorcycle related of course.

Cool Bob....Id sure share a ride and or a beer with you.  I know I have been sucked into arguments too, so I am now careful to keep it on the topic not on the person, I wish all could do that

[3fan4life]

I agree with Bob... you make generalized assertions, you rant, but you never back up your assertions with facts.  That is not a debate.

Talk about the Pot calling the Kettle Black

you might as well be crossing the freeway only to be smacked down by a big Mack truck.

Why do you post this tripe?  What is your point?  Are you looking for a response?  I think you are a Bezerker, long on rants, short on knowledge and insight.

[musclehead]

Bob, I clarrified what I meant by Obama like.  Any adminidtration that can run up bills like this guy and buy out corporations prop up unions, play to his favorite companies and individuals at the expense of real jobs....and then lie so many times about what is really happening for example this oil business.  He has approved ONE (I think) drilling permit but has put all the prime sources "off limits" at the expense of thousands of jobs and then pays other countries like Brazil to do the drilling so we can buy from yet another country. His wealth distribution policies alone make him socialistic leaning (as I said before) in and of themselves.  But you and I will never agree, I dont want to get into an argument

Ummm... what 'wealth distribution policies' are you referring to?  Can you provide something concrete like legislation he has endorsed, or maybe regulations governing wealth distribution as published by a government agency?  As far as I am concerned, Obama has caved too many times to the bankers, whose greed created the last financial disaster, and whose contributions to Congress ensure that we cannot stop them from doing it again through regulation.  Wealth distribution, all right, but inexactly the opposite direction of what any good socialist would want.
 
I agree with Bob... you make generalized assertions, you rant, but you never back up your assertions with facts.  That is not a debate.

sounds like we should agree to finance campaign reform and the fair tax. that will strip most of the power away from lobbists and help make our elected officials respond to us voters.