64
   

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2013 08:48 am
@parados,
Quote:
A statement by a single politician is not a piece of legislation. It is a vague claim since it has no power to do anything


Bills less alone laws come after such public statements by politicians not before and that is where the far left wing is headed for by their own words.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Wed 9 Jan, 2013 08:50 am
@BillRM,
God your English sucks. You have made a claim, and you have not substantiated it. When has any member of the "far, far left" (a term you have not defined) taken away anyone's guns? It's a simple question. Someone as simple-minded as you should have a simple answer.

Loon.
hingehead
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2013 08:54 am
@hawkeye10,
Thanks Hawk - it sounded spurious. Glad to see I was thumbed down for fact checking, good to see the right side of politics hasn't strayed from the path.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  0  
Wed 9 Jan, 2013 08:56 am
Jon Stewart's frustration was pretty evident tonight (out time):
http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-gun-control-nra-fox-news-daily-show-2013-1
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Wed 9 Jan, 2013 09:00 am
@hingehead,
Frustrated entertainers?

Who cares if the twerp is frustrated.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2013 09:00 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
When has any member of the "far, far left" (a term you have not defined)


You know far far left the same kind of people who does not even trust adults to picked the size of their soda containers and for their best interest will take such matters out of their hands by using government power.
Setanta
 
  0  
Wed 9 Jan, 2013 09:02 am
@BillRM,
That's not an answer to my question, Mr. English is a Mystery to Me. When has any member of the "far, far left" taken anyone's gun away? If you can't answer that question, your whole idiot scenario collapses.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Wed 9 Jan, 2013 09:02 am


After this mornings tragic accident, Princess Pelosi plans to ban NYC Ferry rides.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2013 09:33 am
This is one of the "freedom loving" "law-abiding" citizens whose "gun rights" the NRA helps to protect--James Holmes.
Quote:
Jan 8, 2013

CENTENNIAL, Colo. — Accused Aurora shooter James Holmes legally bought thousands of bullets, explosives chemicals and four guns months before prosecutors say he opened fire on a crowded movie theater, an ATF agent testified today.

The agent testified on the second day of a preliminary hearing, which is essentially a mini-trial as prosecutors present witness testimony and evidence to outline their case against the former neuroscience student.

Agent Steve Beggs gave the prosecution a timeline that showed Holmes started his buying spree on May 10, 2012 with the online purchase of tear gas grenades. From then until July 14, Beggs testified, Holmes legally bought nearly 6,300 rounds of ammunition, two Glock .40 caliber pistols, a .223 caliber semi-automatic rifle, a 12-guage shotgun, ballistic protection clothing, beam laser lights, bomb-making material and handcuffs. Some of the purchases were made online and some were made in person.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/01/james-holmes-legally-bought-arsenal-of-guns-chemicals/


No one should every question why someone purchases 6,300 rounds of ammunition, two Glock .40 caliber pistols, a .223 caliber semi-automatic rifle, and a 12-guage shotgun in slightly under a two month period, because the NRA doesn't want the privacy rights of mass shooters/terrorists infringed upon.

http://reconstitution.us/rcnew/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/holmes_nra.jpg

And the NRA's supposed support of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is revealed as phony and hypocritical in light of their pushing legislation to prevent physicians from even asking their patients about gun ownership--and that would include psychiatrists who are treating mentally ill patients and patients who are substance abusers, those physicians who might well be concerned about their patient's potential for suicide or homocide, particularly with easy access to a gun in the home, as was the case with Adam Lanza, who commited the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, or easy access to gun purchases such as those made by James Holmes, the Aurora movie theater mass murderer.

Quote:
Shooting Underlines Need to Ask About Guns, Doctors Say
Robert Lowes
Dec 21, 2012

Some 6 weeks before Adam Lanza shot to death 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, organized medicine made a point in a federal lawsuit that seems prescient today: "A physician is well positioned to warn a parent...that a teenager who shows symptoms of depression or impulsivity could harm himself or others if given access to a firearm," the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and 7 other medical societies wrote in an amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief.

The lawsuit, underway in a federal appeals court in Atlanta, Georgia, concerns a Florida law that prohibits physicians from asking patients or family members whether they own guns. The law allows for disciplinary action by the Florida Board of Medicine if physicians violate any of its provisions, "including causing a patient to feel harassed because questions about gun ownership were posed," according to a commentary published online today in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

Supporters of the law, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), view such questions as hostile to the Second Amendment right to bear arms. They say physicians have harassed gun owners and dropped their children as patients when they refused to answer the gun question. Medical societies such as the AAP counter that inquiries about gun ownership simply set the stage for conversations about gun safety, particularly proper storage, and avoid the tragedy of a toddler who discovers a loaded pistol in a closet.

Or a disturbed young man who picks up and loads his mother's military-style assault rifle.

Along with several individual physicians, Florida chapters of the AAP, the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), and the American College of Physicians (ACP) sued the state of Florida in a federal district court in Miami, challenging the law as an infringement of the First Amendment right to free speech. US District Judge Marcia Cooke struck down the law as unconstitutional, a ruling that the state — and the NRA — is now contesting at the appellate level.

The legal battle has gained more prominence in the wake of the Newtown mass murder on December 14, in which 20-year-old Adam Lanza also shot his mother and himself to death. It is widely reported that Lanza's mother, Nancy Lanza, owned and stored guns in their home, although the Connecticut State Police has not disclosed how she stored them. The 3 guns that Lanza brought into the elementary school — 2 handguns and a Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifle — allegedly belonged to Nancy Lanza...

Leaders of organized medicine this week responded to the incomplete narrative of the shooting by reiterating the need for physicians to ask patients about gun ownership.

"Part of my professional and ethical duty is to identify those things that can harm kids and their families," said M. Denise Dowd, MD, MPH, who coauthored the most recent AAP position paper on firearm-related injuries. Last week's massacre "underscored that point completely," Dr. Dowd told Medscape Medical News.

AAFP President Glen Stream, MD, said the Newtown shooting has reopened the dialogue about gun violence — a dialogue that physicians and patients also must have.

"What Florida did was appalling," Dr. Stream told Medscape Medical News. "What they were doing in the legislature was getting between patients and physicians and inhibiting a conversation about personal health."

In his society's response to the Newtown shooting, ACP President David Bronson, MD, said in a press release yesterday that "government must not impose any restrictions on physicians being able to counsel their patients on reducing injuries and deaths from firearms in the home, as some state legislatures have attempted to do." American Medical Association President Jeremy Lazarus, MD also affirmed physician free speech in a blog entry on the shooting.

In their brief in the appellate case, Florida Governor Rick Scott and other state officials maintain that this relevancy exception preserves the right of physicians to ask about gun ownership. The law, therefore, does not infringe on anyone's right to free speech, and US District Judge Marcia Cooke erred in declaring the measure unconstitutional, they contend. The NRA made the same argument in an amicus brief.

From the beginning, the medical societies and physicians who sued the state have claimed that the relevancy loophole is too vague to give clinicians any confidence that they will not get into legal trouble if they ask, "Do you own a gun?" Cooke concurred.

The plaintiffs in the Florida case, along with the national medical societies who filed an amicus brief in the appellate court, continue to pick apart the relevancy loophole. "Issues of firearm ownership may appear irrelevant at the onset of the physician-patient relationship, but they may become relevant later," the national societies argued in their brief.

While citizens of Newtown mourn their dead and lawmakers debate the merits of banning assault weapons, the appellate case on the Florida "gun gag" law grinds forward. Oral arguments have not been scheduled. When lawyers for the opposing sides eventually square off before the bench, one of the issues they will likely discuss is a much-debated loophole in the Florida law. It states that clinicians can inquire about gun ownership if they believe that "this information is relevant to the patient's medical care or safety, or the safety of others."

Bernd Wollschlaeger, MD, a family physician in Miami and one of the individual plaintiffs, sums up the loophole conundrum, as he sees it, in simpler language. "You can only determine the relevance of the question once you have the answer," he told Medscape Medical News.

Dr. Wollschlaeger, who carries a concealed handgun under a state permit, said that Florida officials have mischaracterized him and other physician plaintiffs.

"They say we are radical and politicized," he said. "We are not. We have not touched the Second Amendment with a single word."

He called the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School "horrific."

"It horrifies me that we don't learn from these events," he said.

Like others, Dr. Wollschlaeger said the solution to gun violence is more complicated than gun control laws. The problem will requires collective action by parents, teachers, physicians, clergy, and others to prevent people such as Adam Lanza and their families from falling through the cracks.

"If through my questions I can address gun safety," he said, "I'm part of the solution."
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/776556


This is the statement of physician groups regarding their legal fight in Florida..
Protecting the Patient-Physician Relationship in Florida
http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487135

Why is the NRA even intruding itself into health care, and the relationship between patient and doctor--and trying to muzzle physicians from asking questions or counseling their patients about guns? What does that have to do with the 2nd Amendment?
oralloy
 
  0  
Wed 9 Jan, 2013 09:36 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y., speaking during a radio interview, stated that in implementing new gun control measures, confiscation of guns is on the table for consideration.


It was clear they were thinking about a universal gun ban from the moment Obama started proposing registering all guns a couple days ago.

That's why we need to be ready to boycott any gun seller who dares to collaborate with the US government in this matter.

We did it to Smith & Wesson. We can do it again.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Wed 9 Jan, 2013 09:37 am
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:
Jon Stewart's frustration was pretty evident tonight (out time):
http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-gun-control-nra-fox-news-daily-show-2013-1


He's a freedom hater. He's just going to have to be frustrated, because America is going to remain free no matter how much he hates it.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2013 09:38 am

What is Obama's plan to get guns out of the hands of criminals?

All of this talk about banning guns and no mention of disarming criminals.

Makes you wonder what Obama's real agenda is...
oralloy
 
  2  
Wed 9 Jan, 2013 09:51 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
Why is the NRA even intruding itself into health care, and the relationship between patient and doctor--and trying to muzzle physicians from asking questions or counseling their patients about guns?


Because those physicians are trying to participate in the violation of people's civil rights, and the NRA will not stand for it.



firefly wrote:
What does that have to do with the 2nd Amendment?


Everything.
parados
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2013 09:53 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Good, then we can put your stupid ass in jail. In fact we can show you have stated an intent to violate gun laws.


I can just see a jury of 6 or worst 12 people that would not have people on it that would not hang such a jury in a millisecond.

Not to mention the little problem of finding room in the nations prisons to locked up the millions of men and women who will cheerfully and openly tell the government to go to hell.

Your problem is that gun owners outnumber all the law enforcement agencies personal together by a hundred or more and we are not going to be disarmed.




Right.. because you are so law abiding.... Drunk
If guns are banned the police only have to show up at one house at a time in overwhelming numbers. You are free to shoot it out with them being the criminal you will then be.
parados
 
  2  
Wed 9 Jan, 2013 09:56 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:


What is Obama's plan to get guns out of the hands of criminals?

All of this talk about banning guns and no mention of disarming criminals.

Makes you wonder what Obama's real agenda is...

I suppose it's better than your present plan to arm all criminals.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Wed 9 Jan, 2013 09:58 am


Why do Obama, Biden and Pelosi want to greatly restrict the civil liberties of law abiding citizens?
wandeljw
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2013 11:07 am
In the state where I live:

Quote:
Illinois Attorney General seeks new hearing on concealed carry
(The Associated Press, January 8, 2013)

Illinois' attorney general on Tuesday asked the entire 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review a lawsuit challenging the state's ban on concealed carry in an effort to salvage the only law in the nation that makes the practice entirely illegal.

Last month, a three-judge panel struck down the Illinois ban as unconstitutional and gave lawmakers 180 days to write a law legalizing it. But Attorney General Lisa Madigan is asking that all 10 judges on the court rehear the case, saying the previous decision "goes beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court has held" and conflicts with decisions by two other federal appellate courts.

The judges suggested in a 2-1 decision that legalizing concealed carry is long overdue. Judge Richard Posner, who wrote the majority opinion, said that there was nothing to suggest that criminal activity in Illinois was different enough from that in other states to justify taking a different approach to concealed carry.

Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said he was "OK" with Madigan's decision.

"That just puts (the issue) back in play," Pearson said. "If we get a favorable ruling, we'll be happy and if we get an unfavorable ruling, we'll be on to the Supreme Court."

Pearson and other gun-rights advocates have long argued that the prohibition violates the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment and what they see as Americans' right to carry guns for self-defense.

Madigan's request does not affect the court-ordered 180-day timeline to write a new law.

The appellate panel's ruling argued that Illinois had not made a strong case that a gun ban was vital to public safety. It also said the Supreme Court already decided that the Second Amendment "confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside."

The dissenting judge, Ann Claire Williams, said that firearms carried outside the home increased the risk of death or injury to a broader range of people.

Gun rights advocates had been threatening to make Illinois once again the center of the national gun-control debate over the issue. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court made Chicago's 28-year-old handgun ban unenforceable, ruling that Americans have the right to have guns in their homes for protection. The city responded by approving alternative methods of restricting who can have guns.

Last month's ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by a former corrections officer, Michael Moore of Champaign; a farmer, Charles Hooks of Percy in southeastern Illinois and the Bellevue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation.
firefly
 
  2  
Wed 9 Jan, 2013 11:09 am
@oralloy,
Quote:

Because those physicians are trying to participate in the violation of people's civil rights, and the NRA will not stand for it

How is a physician asking a patient about anything connected to health or safety a violation of "people's civil rights"?

Pediatricians routinely inquire about potential safety hazards in a home--like swimming pools, and other items in the home that should be either secured from children or kept out of the home. Asking about guns in the home is in the same category. Part of their professional responsibility is to help reduce or prevent accidents or deaths--because that is part of health care.

And psychiatrists, who can be held civilly liable for homicides and suicides of their patients, might definitely need to inquire about guns in the home when they treat very depressed patients, or cognitively impaired patients, or patients who suffer from a serious mental disorder and might become non-compliant with medication.

None of this has anything to do with the 2nd Amendment--it has to do with confidential doctor/patient relationships--something that the NRA has no business interfering with.

If we want to help prevent gun deaths and accidents by children, and gun violence by the mentally ill, or those who abuse substances, the last thing we should do is prevent the treating physicians from even asking if there are are guns in the home--and threaten them with fines, and even jail time, if they ask such questions.

This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment--nor can you point to anything in the 2nd Amendment that pertains to the confidential relationship between a doctor and patient.

In wanting to restrict the First Amendment rights of physicians, to engage in free speech with their patients, you, and NRA, are the real "freedom haters" who try to trample on people's civil rights in disregard of the Constitution.


H2O MAN
 
  0  
Wed 9 Jan, 2013 11:11 am


Anti-gun nuts and anti-freedom advocates are threatening to
ignore the constitution and take guns from law abiding citizens.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Wed 9 Jan, 2013 11:28 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:



Why do Obama, Biden and Pelosi want to greatly restrict the civil liberties of law abiding citizens?


Does anyone want to answer this question?
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 11/26/2024 at 03:34:17