March 28, 2017, 08:05 PM | #76 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
|
There is no such thing as being too conspiratorial when it comes to the issue of gun rights. Constant vigilance is required.
Quote:
|
|
March 29, 2017, 06:23 AM | #77 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: March 25, 2017
Posts: 115
|
Quote:
It is an odd question that you ask, LogicMan. The Florida Firearms Owners’ Privacy Act had three provisions limiting physicians' speech, and those provisions were all struck down on First Amendment grounds. Would one ask after the DC Circuit panel struck down DC's handgun ban on 2nd Amendment grounds in Parker v. DC, "What right of keeping and bearing arms is involved in a person buying a handgun?" Quote:
|
||
March 29, 2017, 11:04 AM | #78 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
I don't think the 1st Amendment was intended to -- or should -- restrict a doctor's freedom to discuss any topic with a patient. That said, I remain of the opinion that a doctor who has not received extensive training in firearms safety is committing a boundary violation by presuming to enter into a field about which he or she is not knowledgeable.
There are many dangers around the home: poisons, toxic chemicals, throw rugs, bathtubs, loose or missing handrails, hand tools and electric tools, knives ... yet the AMA wants doctors to zero in on firearms. That's my clue that the concern isn't patient safety, the concern is an anti-gun political ideology. When I was discharged to home after a heart operation, someone sent around an occupational therapist to review my living situation to be sure I wasn't in danger from things around the house while I was in a weakened condition. She went over the full list -- bathtubs, stairs, grab rails, stair handrails, loose rugs -- all the things that were likely to pose a risk of injury to someone who was weak and not fully mobile. Firearms weren't even mentioned. Once you remove murder from the statistics, firearms are barely a blip on the radar. Here's an article listing the five most prevalent causes of accidental death in the U.S.: http://listosaur.com/miscellaneous/t...united-states/ 1. Motor vehicles -- 42,000 2. Poisoning -- 39,000 3. Falls -- 25,000 4. Fires -- 2,700 5. Choking -- 2,500 6. Drowning -- 2,000 By contrast, accidental deaths due to firearms came in at 600. Draw your own conclusions. Last edited by Aguila Blanca; March 29, 2017 at 11:13 AM. |
March 29, 2017, 12:27 PM | #79 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
|
The fourth and fifth amendments both restrict what anyone can ask you to divulge about personal matters and expect a response. I will gladly share my medical history with my doctor but they don't need a financial statement or my recreational activities to provide health care. If necessary they can ask me to restrict my activities to aid in recovery of injury but they don't get to know whether I shoot guns or fire my howitzer in my recreational hours.
|
March 29, 2017, 12:51 PM | #80 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
First, the Constitution in general regulates only the conduct of the federal government, although certain rights protected by the Bill of Rights have been found (through application of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) by the courts in the last hundred or so years to also be protected against some regulation by states. Second, both the Fourth and the Fifth Amendments are very specific as to the personal interests protected against governmental intrusion. The Fourth Amendment protects one against unreasonable searches and seizures of one's person or property under federal or state governmental authority. The Fifth Amendment protects one against being compelled to testify against himself in a criminal case (as well as protecting certain other rights, such as requiring a grand jury indictment to be prosecuted by the federal, but not a state, government). It's important to understand what the Constitution does, as well as what it does not do.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
March 29, 2017, 01:10 PM | #81 | |||||
Junior member
Join Date: March 25, 2017
Posts: 115
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Again, please read the 11th Circuit's opinion. The court states that firearms safety discussions are well within the purview of medical care-givers. As it happens, the doctors have the same opinion. Your opinion that the court and the docs are wrong about that is, well, your opinion. Quote:
They do limit the government's powers of inquiry: what its agents can ask you, under what circumstances they can ask you, and whether it can impose penalties on you for refusal to respond as a means of compelling your reply. They do not limit what your doctor can ask you, just as they don't limit what you can ask him or her. Quote:
:-) |
|||||
March 29, 2017, 01:27 PM | #82 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
|
Our rights whether enumerated in the bill of rights or not are personal rights that are outside the control of the government. We retain those rights without governmental enumeration and they can only be restricted when they might conflict with the rights of others. You are not free to practice your religion in another's religious house (church) without the permission of the owner. You cannot carry a gun into the house of another without permission. You cannot freely travel across the land belonging to another without permission. You can't yell "FIRE" in a way or at a time that will needlessly endanger others. You can't use your free speech to incite illegal action in others.
As long as my rights are not infringed you are free to exercise yours. We had the rights before we had the government and we will have them long after the government is gone. The constitution does not provide our rights it tells government that they have to protect them. |
March 29, 2017, 01:48 PM | #83 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Please stick to an evidenced based discussion of the topic at hand.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
March 29, 2017, 03:36 PM | #84 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
Quote:
Despite the fact that I wasn't there to talk about anything other than my gallbladder (or lack thereof), the doctor nonetheless asked a number of questions relating to other things that might or might not be going on in my life. Things that don't affect my health, except perhaps in some extremely tenuous and undemonstrable way. By the definition YOU provided, that's a boundary violation. |
||
March 29, 2017, 04:18 PM | #85 | |||
Junior member
Join Date: March 25, 2017
Posts: 115
|
Quote:
Quote:
At first, your definition of a boundary violation was shown here: Quote:
Now, you are claiming that a doctor discussing gun safety is not part of the doctor-patient relationship, even though doctors and the 11th Circuit say it is; but instead that discussion is the doctor using the patient for "his or her own personal and emotional needs." Seems we're still missing your evidence that your definition of "boundary violation" has any validity beyond your unsupported opinion; and that a doctor discussing gun safety--or just having a gun question on a standard form--is using the patient for "his or her own personal and emotional needs." Last edited by Loosedhorse; March 29, 2017 at 04:31 PM. |
|||
March 29, 2017, 04:33 PM | #86 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2007
Posts: 3,101
|
I just want to mention that the subject of extracurricular activities is a natural one in many cases not related to firearms.
If you injure your knee, the MD may well ask if you play sports. During my hospital stay this month, they discovered a hole in my heart. Sports came up. Yes, I want to play roller hockey again, stroke be damned. I can already run half speed and juggle. Anyway, it's an example of recreational activities that are surely applicable to medicine. |
March 29, 2017, 05:53 PM | #87 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
You are, of course, at liberty to disagree. And you are taking liberties with the very definition you referred me to. There's more to it than just the doctor's personal needs and emotions. I quoted the definition to which you referred us above, but here it is again -- ALL of it: Quote:
Since you're new around these parts, some suggested reading: https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...dary+violation https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...dary+violation https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...dary+violation https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...dary+violation https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...dary+violation Last edited by Aguila Blanca; March 29, 2017 at 06:08 PM. |
||
March 29, 2017, 08:16 PM | #88 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 532
|
Quote:
First Amendment case law places limits and restrictions on how government seeks to regulate speech, where some limits and restrictions comport with that case law – and are valid and Constitutional – and some do not, such as government seeking to regulate the speech of doctors discussing guns in the home with their patients. In addition of being in violation of the First Amendment, the Florida measure is also invalid because it is predicated on the fallacy that doctors discussing guns in the home with their patients might have a ‘chilling effect’ on gun ownership, and the fallacy that doctors addressing the issue of guns in the home might ‘foment’ further ‘gun control,’ when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Quote:
Second Amendment ‘advocates’ engaging in hyperbolic conspiracy theories, unfounded demagoguery, and propagating ridiculous lies serve only to undermine the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment. |
||
March 29, 2017, 10:51 PM | #89 | |||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,835
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps you don't remember "if I could have gotten 51 votes, Mr & Mrs America, turn them ALL in!" The threat IS real. It's virulence ebbs and flows, but it doesn't end, or ever go completely away.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|||
March 30, 2017, 07:19 AM | #90 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: March 25, 2017
Posts: 115
|
Quote:
You claim that the doctor, by asking a gun question, "causes the patient to dissemble". No. The patient is not a child, and the doctor does not control the patient's action. If the patient CHOOSES to lie ("dissemble"), that's on him: he is his own agent and must take responsibility for his own decisions and actions. So, if there is any harm to the doctor-patient relationship, that has come from the lying patient--from HIS decision. The patient has options. Tell the truth. Refuse to answer. Object to the question (very strongly, if he wants). Find another doctor. Oh, and in case you're wondering: the patient choosing to lie is not a "boundary violation"; neither is the doctor's question. Quote:
I like his other writing, however. For example, his chronicling of the malfeasance and bias at the CDC and at some medical journals (like the NEJM) is great; it well documents why the CDC should (my opinion) never be trusted with funding "gun violence studies" again. |
||
|
|