• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida Bill Would Prohibit Doctors From Asking Patients About Their Guns

I agree with the OP. However, I don't agree with the law being passed. If you are libertarian or conservative, you should believe that a person can offer their services to you or not, its their choice and the market should sort it out.

This is why republicans aren't real free-market proponents.

Edit: PS The Civil Rights Act, for me personally, is a thorny issues though. It was systemic in society that something had to be done or else racism would never have been subdued.
 
Last edited:
That's so the Libbo Dems can use Obamacare to take away our gun rights.

Once it becomes commonplace for "doctors" to ask about unrelated firearms, the next steps will be:

Recording the answers. These will naturally be digitized and stored electronically.

Then:

Correlating the answers with state firearm registration databases.

Then:

arresting people with unregistered firearms.

Finally:

Confiscation.

Don't believe the Mayor?

Seat belts were optional.

Seat belts became mandatory equipment.

Wearing seat belts became a matter for start-interlocks, and later, alarms.

Wearing seat belts became MANDATORY for all states seeking federal hgihway funds, subject to possible tickets by state tax collectors when stopped for other reasons. (These tax collectors are called "cops" in the vernacular of the peasantry.)

Unconstitutional seatbelt check roadblocks were implemented. Another loss of freedom.

Finally, not wearing a seatbelt has become in itself, a ticketable offense for which any tax collector can stop a vehicle and submit a tax bill.
 
I ask about anything that I think is reasonable to assume that the individual would use to harm themselves. Guns, knives, and poisons/medications are at the top of my list, but depending on the patient, I would ask other questions. Whether they intend to drive is one, since I've had several that have threatened to drive their car into a tree.

In the situation that I am discussing there is a legitimate reason to ask about access to firearms. Since this is a danger to the individual... or perhaps another, this law would not apply to me and I could ask about one's gun ownership to my heart's content. If I suspect suicidality and the person refuses to answer, I can have them hospitalized as a danger to themselves.

Just asking, is all. The Mayor worked in a place where some loser decided to tie a plastic bag over his head in the little room where NAS spec manuals were kept. Some poor secretary found him right after lunch.. The man had some serious determination. Too bad it wasn't applied to succeeding at life.

The Mayor can certainly see the appropriateness of such questions in the mental health field.....even though patients lie all the time. Must be rough, that kind of job. For the record, the Mayor was not disagreeing with your position. But....is such a question appropriate for most circumstances an MD faces with his patients? Probably not.

Then again, note that the Mayor respects the First Amendment, and the Second, too.

It's not the questioning that's important, it's the potential of what can be done with the answers that presents the risk to freedom.
 
Just asking, is all. The Mayor worked in a place where some loser decided to tie a plastic bag over his head in the little room where NAS spec manuals were kept. Some poor secretary found him right after lunch.. The man had some serious determination. Too bad it wasn't applied to succeeding at life.

The Mayor can certainly see the appropriateness of such questions in the mental health field.....even though patients lie all the time. Must be rough, that kind of job. For the record, the Mayor was not disagreeing with your position. But....is such a question appropriate for most circumstances an MD faces with his patients? Probably not.

Then again, note that the Mayor respects the First Amendment, and the Second, too.

It's not the questioning that's important, it's the potential of what can be done with the answers that presents the risk to freedom.

The Captain also has respect for both the First and Second Amendments. And the Captain agrees that in most cases, asking this kind of question is inappropriate for MDs. Though this is true, the necessity of creating a law around it seems a bit over the top.
 
I love the idea of banning doctors from asking if you have a gun,hopefully they extend that other nosy people.

1st and 2nd amendment at ends with each other? Since merely asking isn't a restriction I'd give the victory to the 1st, although I'd agree there's no relevance to any medical problem unless the doctor is treating someone for a bullet wound.
 
Yes it is. It asks who you voted for and if you didn't vote his way to get lost.

No, it's telling you if you voted a specific way to go elsewhere for services. As it is on the entry door to the office, there is no need for any conversation with the doctor or their staff. You either keep your political affiliations to yourself and continue to see the doctor (if his service is worth the offense) or you keep your poltiical affiliation and go elsewhere (if the offense is not worth the service). That would apply to people who voted McCain as well, for that matter. Perhaps they would be offended by that sign and decide not to see that doctor. Me personally? I'm going to assume he's not as thinly spread after posting it and I'll see him for the shorter waits.
 
Once it becomes commonplace for "doctors" to ask about unrelated firearms, the next steps will be:

Recording the answers. These will naturally be digitized and stored electronically.

Then:

Correlating the answers with state firearm registration databases.

Then:

arresting people with unregistered firearms.

Finally:

Confiscation.

Don't believe the Mayor?

Seat belts were optional.

Seat belts became mandatory equipment.

Wearing seat belts became a matter for start-interlocks, and later, alarms.

Wearing seat belts became MANDATORY for all states seeking federal hgihway funds, subject to possible tickets by state tax collectors when stopped for other reasons. (These tax collectors are called "cops" in the vernacular of the peasantry.)

Unconstitutional seatbelt check roadblocks were implemented. Another loss of freedom.

Finally, not wearing a seatbelt has become in itself, a ticketable offense for which any tax collector can stop a vehicle and submit a tax bill.

How exactly does any of that harm you?
 
This thread proves that conservatives are just fine with big government, just as long as its the sort of government interference they want.

It's ok for the government to decide how your doctor can operate?

Doctors routinely ask about home risk factors, especially pediatricians. Are your electrical sockets covered? Are dangerous/poisonous substances kept out of reach? Is there a gun in the home, and if so is it kept in a locked box or safe?

The paranoia about "backdoor registration" is just absurd.

If the question bothers you, don't ****ing answer it. But no, you'd rather run to the nanny state to get Big Brother Government to make sure the meanie doctor doesn't ask you a question that might bother you.

Now, now, Duece. That's a mighty broad brush you're using to paint with there. I expected better from you. :2razz:
 
Yet another example of so-called libertarians goose-stepping along with oppressive government. Does the mere mention of the word "gun" completely scramble all you hoplophiles' logical faculties?

This isn't a gun rights issue. This is a free speech and medical privacy issue. The libertarian position is clear: the government should not interfere with a doctor and patient.
 
Last edited:
Yet another example of so-called libertarians goose-stepping along with oppressive government. Does the mere mention of the word "gun" completely scramble all you hoplophiles' logical faculties?

This isn't a gun rights issue. This is a free speech and medical privacy issue. The libertarian position is clear: the government should not interfere with a doctor and patient.

Yeah, pretty much this. Less government micro-management is ALWAYS a good thing. As several people have stated in the thread already, the doctor should be able to ask whatever they like, that doesn't mean a patient has to answer truthfully, or even at all.

Personally, I don't think it's any of the medical provider's business, but I don't need the government to tell them that, I'm perfectly capable of expressing my opinions all by myself. :2razz:
 
Last edited:
Why do you keep saying they're? How many physicians were reported doing this?

Does the word paranoia ring a bell.


Anti-2nd amendment loons work with baby steps.It is not far fetched to see them using this as a back door firearms registration. They already trying to start a back door DNA database with your baby's dna. Why not a back door firearms registry?

The government has your baby's DNA - CNN
 
How exactly does any of that harm you?

How does something that is a precursor to firearms confiscation hurt you? You have to ask? I suppose that if you do not own firearms then it doesn't hurt you? If you have some absurd notion that no government in the whole entire has ever turned on it's people or that even in this country a fire arm registry has never been used to confiscate firearms then sure you might have some delusion that a firearm registry will not hurt you.

GunCite - Gun Control: gun registration;firearm registration
New Zealand has had some form of firearms registration since 1921. In 1974, all revolvers lawfully held for personal security were confiscated. (Same source as previous paragraph)

In May of 1995, Canada's Bill C-68 prohibited previously legal and registered small-caliber handguns. Current owners of such guns were "grandfathered," which means the guns are to be forfeited upon death of the owner. Bill C-68 also authorizes the Canadian government to enact future weapons prohibitions.

On 10 May 1996, Australia banned most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Prior to this law, many Australian states and territories had firearms registration. Owners of these newly outlawed firearms were required to surrender them (with some monetary compensation). All such firearms are to be confiscated and destroyed after a 12-month amnesty program. Roughly 600,000 of an estimated 4 million Australian guns have been surrendered to authorities and destroyed.

"Since 1921, all lawfully-owned handguns in Great Britain are registered with the government, so handgun owners have little choice but to surrender their guns in exchange for payment according to government schedule...The handgun ban by no means has satiated the anti-gun appetite in Great Britain." (All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America", Hamline Law Review, 1999)

Even in the United States, registration has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. (NRA/ILA Fact Sheet: Firearms Registration: New York City's Lesson)
 
How does something that is a precursor to firearms confiscation hurt you? You have to ask? I suppose that if you do not own firearms then it doesn't hurt you? If you have some absurd notion that no government in the whole entire has ever turned on it's people or that even in this country a fire arm registry has never been used to confiscate firearms then sure you might have some delusion that a firearm registry will not hurt you.

GunCite - Gun Control: gun registration;firearm registration
New Zealand has had some form of firearms registration since 1921. In 1974, all revolvers lawfully held for personal security were confiscated. (Same source as previous paragraph)

In May of 1995, Canada's Bill C-68 prohibited previously legal and registered small-caliber handguns. Current owners of such guns were "grandfathered," which means the guns are to be forfeited upon death of the owner. Bill C-68 also authorizes the Canadian government to enact future weapons prohibitions.

On 10 May 1996, Australia banned most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Prior to this law, many Australian states and territories had firearms registration. Owners of these newly outlawed firearms were required to surrender them (with some monetary compensation). All such firearms are to be confiscated and destroyed after a 12-month amnesty program. Roughly 600,000 of an estimated 4 million Australian guns have been surrendered to authorities and destroyed.

"Since 1921, all lawfully-owned handguns in Great Britain are registered with the government, so handgun owners have little choice but to surrender their guns in exchange for payment according to government schedule...The handgun ban by no means has satiated the anti-gun appetite in Great Britain." (All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America", Hamline Law Review, 1999)

Even in the United States, registration has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. (NRA/ILA Fact Sheet: Firearms Registration: New York City's Lesson)

The comparison was seat belts. The rant was about seat belts. Seat belts not only save lives, but also save law enforcement, emergency management departments, and the government at large quite a bit of money, which means they indirectly save us quite a bit of money. It's legislation designed to benefit everybody. I've yet to see a blockade set up in Texas to check for seat-belts, but I have seen them set up for drunk drivers on days which are historically bad for drunk-driving accidents. I don't have a problem with them.

As far as this gun issue goes, I'm pretty sure your argument is hyperbolic. The doctors aren't exactly friends with the Fed right now, in many cases. I don't seem them handing over patients' answers to "do you have a gun at home?" for the purpose of helping the government create some sort of registry of gun owners.

This bill was stupid, the fact that they even created a bill was stupid, and the fact that we're arguing about how the fed is gonna steal our guns is equally stupid. If your doctor asks a question you don't like, don't answer it. If they won't treat you then find another doctor. Problem solved.

Jesus.
 
How does something that is a precursor to firearms confiscation hurt you? You have to ask? I suppose that if you do not own firearms then it doesn't hurt you? If you have some absurd notion that no government in the whole entire has ever turned on it's people or that even in this country a fire arm registry has never been used to confiscate firearms then sure you might have some delusion that a firearm registry will not hurt you.

Usually you and I are on the same page when it comes to gun issues, however, I just can't seem to get worked up over this issue. It's really not the same as a registry because there's nothing legally requiring a gun owner to disclose to the physician that they own a gun. It's no different than a co-worker asking me if I own a gun. In both cases, they're free to ask and in both cases I'll just say "no." It's just easier that way. On the flip side, as soon as there is a hint of me being required to disclose my gun ownership for any sort of official informational gathering, I'll be among the loudest voices crying foul.
 
Why do you keep saying they're? How many physicians were reported doing this?

Does the word paranoia ring a bell.

It might ring a bell to you. I've been asked by my physician during a physical whether or not I own a gun. Why would legislation be considered if only one or two physicians are asking? And since when have physicians assumed to be experts in firearms safety? Are you kidding me or what?
 
Maybe the Florida legislature needs to put a bill up to prevent doctors from asking who you voted for.
Maybe the AMA needs to stick to medicine, and leave politics to the citizenry.
 
It might ring a bell to you. I've been asked by my physician during a physical whether or not I own a gun. Why would legislation be considered if only one or two physicians are asking? And since when have physicians assumed to be experts in firearms safety? Are you kidding me or what?

My OB/GYN and I discussed gun ownership during my last check up (I had a slight burn from a shell casing from a recent trip to the gun range). He advised me on what type of gun my boyfriend should get and then joked that instead of buying a gun we should just have a baby so that he (the doctor) could get a new gun instead.

Context matters, I'd imagine, but I would think many doctors ask if they feel like the health of their patient is at risk for some reason. I had to tell my therapist whether I owned or had access to guns before I started my sessions with her. She said she needed to know what risks existed.
 
Yeah, pretty much this. Less government micro-management is ALWAYS a good thing. As several people have stated in the thread already, the doctor should be able to ask whatever they like, that doesn't mean a patient has to answer truthfully, or even at all.

Personally, I don't think it's any of the medical provider's business, but I don't need the government to tell them that, I'm perfectly capable of expressing my opinions all by myself. :2razz:

TAA - my sentiments exactly. If you feel the doctor is being intrusive, don't answer. I see no need for a law actually preventing doctors from asking such questions whatsoever.
 
Does anybody else see the possible pun in the title of this thread?

"Show me your guns!" Lol. I know, I'm a child.
 
No, but it shouldn't stop the question from being asked, which seems to be the point of contention here. I've given you a valid medical reason as to why a doctor should be allowed to ask the question. Well I think it's a free country and a doctor should be able to ask any question anyway; but whatever. Some people seem to contend that idea as well.


The doc can ask whatever he want's, doesn't mean I am compelled to tell him the truth. I think it is a back door resulting from this HC law from the Marxist n chief, and it is stupid. You want the doc to ask me if I own a gun? How about I tell him to go _____ himself! You did not provide a valid medical reason for the question being asked in a routine physical, you only seemed to display you lack of knowledge of depression, and mental illness.

But let's be clear, the doc can ask what ever he wants, he may not like the answer though.


j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom