Don't be surprised if your doctor asks you about guns

[INVAR]

Here is why government keeps getting in our lives and won't stop:

It is making laws that give them something to brag about to get elected again. 

It's actually simpler than that.

People want free shit at the expense of someone else without any responsibility and they are happy to use government to achieve that in addition to the fact your neighbors do not trust you with liberty.  They only trust government.

And government and it's members are all-too-happy to oblige that, because it keeps them in power.

Human nature covets wealth and power, and when wealth achieves power, human nature imposes control to ensure there is no threat to their wealth and power.

A people who are ignorant of our foundations are a people who want to be subjects, not citizens.

[thackney]

What I want to live in is our Constitutional republic, founded on the principal of government by the consent of the governed.   If the peoples' elected representatives favor such reasonable measures as registration of firearms,  you proclaim the right and intent to kill peace officers.  What you seek is anarchy.

What we seek is consent of governed.  You seek a government that doesn't exist in this country, thankfully.

[Jazzhead]

I don't care if you want to call it anarchy.  Just be afraid, because our will to resist you and your intentions is real and indomitable.

 

[Elderberry]

I saw activity on this thread, and it struck me. I thought up a reason that made sense, at least to me, why a doctor would ask about guns.

But then I saw that this thread had perverted to registration.

My thought though, if once the doc asked about guns, he would continue to ask if you were a reloader? And if so, he would ask if you cast your own bullets? And if you did, do you do your bullet casting in a well ventilated area to prevent the inhalation of lead vapors? We may need to test you for lead.

That was my thought. Feel free to beat that Dead Horse some more.

[Restored]

Jazz: We need to register guns.
Me: They are already registered
Jazz: We need to register them more.

Jazz, cars kill more people than guns. Why do we register cars first?

[Cyber Liberty]

I saw activity on this thread, and it struck me. I thought up a reason that made sense, at least to me, why a doctor would ask about guns.

But then I saw that this thread had perverted to registration.

My thought though, if once the doc asked about guns, he would continue to ask if you were a reloader? And if so, he would ask if you cast your own bullets? And if you did, do you do your bullet casting in a well ventilated area to prevent the inhalation of lead vapors? We may need to test you for lead.

That was my thought. Feel free to beat that Dead Horse some more.

If your Doc is a real suck-up to the politically correct Powers That Be, he'd be asking about guns to see if you are "sick" enough to simply own a gun (as defined by the CDC).  It has nothing to do with the harmful physiological effects of lead casting, but of the harmful societal effects of being one of those dreaded owners of Killing Machines.  (Especially if you are completely irresponsible and don't depend on daddy government to keep a list of who has these evil instruments.)  He may even be the sort to make sure his pals in the government are provided with the results of that exam room interrogation (it may even be required in some states).  Doctors don't work for the patients anymore, nor even the Insurance companies.  They work for the bureau that licenses them in that state, and they serve at their pleasure.

That's how the thread got onto the subject of "registration."  Sorry if that was not your expectation.

[Elderberry]

I post  with no preconceived expectations. I just throw it out there.

[driftdiver]

I post  with no preconceived expectations. I just throw it out there.

@Elderberry
The move to encourage doctors to ask patients about gun ownership doesn't have its foundation in healthcare.  The concept was created out of the gun control movement and is an effort to use medical doctors to pressure people with firearms.   Dangerous considering your MD can declare you unfit and dangerous and have you hospitalized.   Never to possess a legal firearm again.

Which is their ultimate goal.

[driftdiver]

@Jazzhead
Your responses are an excellent example of why gunowners have very little trust and reject so called offers to compromise.

While you say repeatedly that you don't want to ban guns and just want common sense laws the truth is there in  your posts.    You are simply hiding your ultimate goal in an effort to push your agenda.

 No you consider gun owners dangerous to the community and would cheer the banning of all firearms.   Which is why nobody believes a word you say when you say you support the 2nd Amendment and nobody trust the left.  Because you both have lied time after time.

[INVAR]

@Jazzhead
Your responses are an excellent example of why gunowners have very little trust and reject so called offers to compromise.

While you say repeatedly that you don't want to ban guns and just want common sense laws the truth is there in  your posts.    You are simply hiding your ultimate goal in an effort to push your agenda.

 No you consider gun owners dangerous to the community and would cheer the banning of all firearms.   Which is why nobody believes a word you say when you say you support the 2nd Amendment and nobody trust the left.  Because you both have lied time after time.

He does what all Leftist Trolls do on Conservative forum boards.

It amuses them and also provides them the space to try and inflict their agenda on the easily beguiled and ignorant.

He is being shown that crap he spews doesn't fly here.

[roamer_1]

Some do, some don't.   The point is there is far more incentive for the owner of a registered gun to report it stolen than the owner of an unregistered and untraceable gun.

I have guns, properly stored, that I haven't seen in years.  How the hell would I know if they've been stolen? And how does my not reporting (because unaware) make me responsible for whatever a criminal may do?

Documentation is helpful to the police by linking guns to their owners.   It is hardly a radical notion to ask a citizen to be responsible for the use and safekeeping of the killing devices he/she chooses to own.   

LOL! Howabout the truckloads of guns that will come over the border to fuel the market? how are you going to register those? because those are the ones that the criminals will be using.

This whole line of thinking assumes a radically closed system which hilariously untrue... And always will be.
 

[roamer_1]

This is because Jazzhead is up scared all night long thinking about all the guns Roamer_1 has bought off the back of a truck in the woods.  Jazzhead doesn't want to live in a country where such people live their lives unmolested by government agents, so such people need to be subjugated to stringent controls of the kind he proposes, or eradicated.

@INVAR
That's exactly right. And the funny part is, if all of his wet dreams came true, those trucks would still be there, and I'd still be buying my guns there.

And there ain't a damn thing anyone can do about it. All that would have happened at that point is that he will have made me a criminal for doing so...

[roamer_1]

What I want to live in is our Constitutional republic, founded on the principal of government by the consent of the governed.   If the peoples' elected representatives favor such reasonable measures as registration of firearms,  you proclaim the right and intent to kill peace officers.  What you seek is anarchy.

Your 'peoples representatives' are prevented from doing so by our founding documents. That they would do so anyway is not law, but the color of law. Our founding document, the DoI, provides the remedy and duty in that instance.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Jazzhead
Your responses are an excellent example of why gunowners have very little trust and reject so called offers to compromise.

While you say repeatedly that you don't want to ban guns and just want common sense laws the truth is there in  your posts.    You are simply hiding your ultimate goal in an effort to push your agenda.

 No you consider gun owners dangerous to the community and would cheer the banning of all firearms.   Which is why nobody believes a word you say when you say you support the 2nd Amendment and nobody trust the left.  Because you both have lied time after time.

 

[roamer_1]

Your proposals makes you a tyrant wannabe of the worst sort. 

That's right... Liberals all think they know better than you, and they're doing it 'for your own good'. There ain't a worse kind.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

 No you consider gun owners dangerous to the community and would cheer the banning of all firearms.   

Bullshit.  Absolutely untrue.  I do not participate on this board to lie and promote some hidden agenda, but rather to state my opinions on the issues of the day.  In a nutshell:

1.  I support the individual RKBA.   I support the Heller decision that says so, although I fear that the decision is fragile because the language of the 2A is flawed.   I advocate doing something to codify Heller in order in ENSURE THAT YOUR RKBA REMAINS PROTECTED.

2.  I have no agenda, hidden or otherwise, to confiscate your guns.  NONE.   I have repeatedly said I oppose lib attempts to limit the kinds and quantities of guns you want.  I have merely supported licensure and registration, same as with motor vehicles.  As far as I am concerned,  so long as you register them, you can own a dozen AR-15s.   

3.  Unlike many here, I have faith in this Constitutional Republic to protect against confiscation of legally owned firearms.   I do not consider this nation a "tyranny", but rather a nation of laws,  enacted by lawmakers who govern with the consent of the governed.  And backstopped by a judiciary obliged to uphold the rights of citizens as provided for in the Constitution.

I am, in short, a conservative on the issue of the 2A, even though I choose not to own guns myself for sound reasons I have explained before.  I DO NOT WANT ANYONE TAKING YOUR GUNS.     

[roamer_1]

I am, in short, a conservative on the issue of the 2A, even though I choose not to own guns myself for sound reasons I have explained before.  I DO NOT WANT ANYONE TAKING YOUR GUNS.   

I don't think that will pass muster with anyone here...

[INVAR]

That's right... Liberals all think they know better than you, and they're doing it 'for your own good'. There ain't a worse kind.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

This describes Jazzy to a T, seeking to impose a meddlesome tyranny for our own good, while he insists he is not a gun-grabbing-homo-shoving Leftist nut job pretending to be a Conservative.

Not a single solitary issue I have ever read from him on this board could be construed by anyone with a brain to resemble a Conservative position or idea.

[Cyber Liberty]

I don't think that will pass muster with anyone here...

I learned when I was knee-high to a grasshopper that when the mouth goes one way and the actions go another, believe the actions.

[Cyber Liberty]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

This describes Jazzy to a T, seeking to impose a meddlesome tyranny for our own good, while he insists he is not a gun-grabbing-homo-shoving Leftist nut job pretending to be a Conservative.

Not a single solitary issue I have ever read from him on this board could be construed by anyone with a brain to resemble a Conservative position or idea.

Liberals hate Lewis, and call him stoopit.

[roamer_1]

This describes Jazzy to a T, seeking to impose a meddlesome tyranny for our own good, while he insists he is not a gun-grabbing-homo-shoving Leftist nut job pretending to be a Conservative.

Not a single solitary issue I have ever read from him on this board could be construed by anyone with a brain to resemble a Conservative position or idea.

Exactly right, and on all counts...
And that CS Lewis quote is among the most erudite.

[roamer_1]

I learned when I was knee-high to a grasshopper that when the mouth goes one way and the actions go another, believe the actions.

That's right... And why one must always return to the principles of conservatism - without them, it can be anything folks might come up with, and call 'conservative'.

[Axeslinger]

Bullshit.  Absolutely untrue.  I do not participate on this board to lie and promote some hidden agenda, but rather to state my opinions on the issues of the day.  In a nutshell:

1.  I support the individual RKBA.   I support the Heller decision that says so, although I fear that the decision is fragile because the language of the 2A is flawed.   I advocate doing something to codify Heller in order in ENSURE THAT YOUR RKBA REMAINS PROTECTED.

2.  I have no agenda, hidden or otherwise, to confiscate your guns.  NONE.   I have repeatedly said I oppose lib attempts to limit the kinds and quantities of guns you want.  I have merely supported licensure and registration, same as with motor vehicles.  As far as I am concerned,  so long as you register them, you can own a dozen AR-15s.   

3.  Unlike many here, I have faith in this Constitutional Republic to protect against confiscation of legally owned firearms.   I do not consider this nation a "tyranny", but rather a nation of laws,  enacted by lawmakers who govern with the consent of the governed.  And backstopped by a judiciary obliged to uphold the rights of citizens as provided for in the Constitution.

I am, in short, a conservative on the issue of the 2A, even though I choose not to own guns myself for sound reasons I have explained before.  I DO NOT WANT ANYONE TAKING YOUR GUNS.   

m
@Jazzhead

Ok I’m gonna try (and fail, forewarning) to not lose my temper on your silly ass.

We DONT BELIEVE YOU.   We think you are lying troll.  Your own doublespeak has caused this.  Try and lawyer your way out of it all you want, we don’t give a shit.  You are either a liar or a drooling moron. 

See, because here’s the rub: you say you don’t want anyone taking our guns...but that’s exactly what happens when your bullshit schemes are employed.   We’ve told you this ad nauseum and yet you keep spouting it.  Therefore, you have a different agenda, one we’ve seen many times.  WE WILL NOT COMPLY!  And if the left tries to implement your bullshit schemes as your concern troll keeps telling us, the same end result happens:  it’s time to water the tree.  So in short, come up with new material, volunteer to go on the raids or STFU!

[driftdiver]

Bullshit.  Absolutely untrue.  I do not participate on this board to lie and promote some hidden agenda, but rather to state my opinions on the issues of the day.  In a nutshell:

1.  I support the individual RKBA.   I support the Heller decision that says so, although I fear that the decision is fragile because the language of the 2A is flawed.   I advocate doing something to codify Heller in order in ENSURE THAT YOUR RKBA REMAINS PROTECTED.

2.  I have no agenda, hidden or otherwise, to confiscate your guns.  NONE.   I have repeatedly said I oppose lib attempts to limit the kinds and quantities of guns you want.  I have merely supported licensure and registration, same as with motor vehicles.  As far as I am concerned,  so long as you register them, you can own a dozen AR-15s.   

3.  Unlike many here, I have faith in this Constitutional Republic to protect against confiscation of legally owned firearms.   I do not consider this nation a "tyranny", but rather a nation of laws,  enacted by lawmakers who govern with the consent of the governed.  And backstopped by a judiciary obliged to uphold the rights of citizens as provided for in the Constitution.

I am, in short, a conservative on the issue of the 2A, even though I choose not to own guns myself for sound reasons I have explained before.  I DO NOT WANT ANYONE TAKING YOUR GUNS.   

@Jazzhead

You're twisting of words is bullshit.  You've insulted gun owners.  You've said we are a threat to our neighbors.

All while pushing nonsense that does nothing to reduce crime but does make it much more difficult to own a firearm.  Your doubletalk is exactly what so many closet anti gunners do.

It's why I will not support a single step down the path of compromise.  Because nothing is enough for you guys except a total ban.