Florida Wants to Kill Kids

[asterism]

Actually Rabbi... yes. I do think that seatbelt laws and firearm laws(as it pertains to children) have a connection.

The only difference is that you will find me generally supporting both the right to NOT wear your seatbelt in your own vehicle AND possessing a reasonable firearm. In fact, I'd say that seatbelt laws are 100X more intrusive than any firearm legislation on the books today.

You have to fill out a questionnaire? Whoop-de-friggin-do. If you're clean and mentally stable, you can still get just about any weapon you want. Get pulled over without your seatbelt on? You're a criminal.

The most fucked up thing, is that in MY state(PA), you can ride a motorcycle without a helmet... but you have to wear your seatbelt in a vehicle surrounded by sheetmetal and specially designed Crumple zones that minimize the effects of a crash on the occupants.

Where is the sense in that?

As far as weapons. I support gun ownership... but I am also a reasonable man. I think that anyone that wants to have an assault rifle should have to apply for a more stringent permit than for a hunting weapon or pistol. I do agree with the ban on 30 round clips. If you are that shitty of a shot, you probably shouldn't own a pistol.

Actually, you're incorrect. Seatbelt violations are civil cites, not criminal.

 

[Steelplate]

Actually, you're incorrect. Seatbelt violations are civil cites, not criminal.

Call it what you will, it's still against the law.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually Rabbi... yes. I do think that seatbelt laws and firearm laws(as it pertains to children) have a connection.

The only difference is that you will find me generally supporting both the right to NOT wear your seatbelt in your own vehicle AND possessing a reasonable firearm. In fact, I'd say that seatbelt laws are 100X more intrusive than any firearm legislation on the books today.

You have to fill out a questionnaire? Whoop-de-friggin-do. If you're clean and mentally stable, you can still get just about any weapon you want. Get pulled over without your seatbelt on? You're a criminal.

The most fucked up thing, is that in MY state(PA), you can ride a motorcycle without a helmet... but you have to wear your seatbelt in a vehicle surrounded by sheetmetal and specially designed Crumple zones that minimize the effects of a crash on the occupants.

Where is the sense in that?

As far as weapons. I support gun ownership... but I am also a reasonable man. I think that anyone that wants to have an assault rifle should have to apply for a more stringent permit than for a hunting weapon or pistol. I do agree with the ban on 30 round clips. If you are that shitty of a shot, you probably shouldn't own a pistol.

I didnt ask whether there were points of comparison. I asked whether they were the same.

What is an "assault rifle"? Please define it for me.

 

[Valerie]

Pediatric doctors are highly qualified advocates for the health and safety of children... That IS their expertise. Parents should not be in fear of open communication with medical professionals who wish to help them with proper safety precautions... States should rather prohibit any intrusion into this PRIVATE relationship not dictate to it.

I don't fear these doctors, I think they should stick to their expertise. Nothing in Medical School qualifies them as pool safety experts nor gun safety. But since they are Doctors, people think they are qualified to inquire and educate patients about these matters.

Case in point, the doctor who precipitated this law said that he counsels parents on pool safety during the summer months. Does he not get that pools are dangerous all year long?

Outlawing a question designed to protect children because ignorant people think "it's none of their business" is based on fear. I have demonstrated here how the AAP is indeed very involved in the business of protecting children. READ the advocacy stuff I posted yesterday if you really want to know why pediatricians are the appropriate source for educating parents about child safety.



Here is a clip from the AMA (American Medical Association) defining the scope of Pediatric Residency Training which shows they are not only trained and qualified in medicine but also in all aspects of the well being of children.

Considering Pediatrics?

Pediatrics is not just “medicine for kids,” rather it is a broad field in medicine that encompasses the complete care of individuals from the pre-verbal, neonatal period through growth and development into late adolescence. As a future pediatrician, you will have the opportunity to care for and manage many aspects of health care for well, ill and medically complex children. You will also be charged with promoting healthy and safe development of your patients through preventative care and anticipatory guidance. You will have the opportunity to be an advocate in the local community in which you practice and/or in the policy-making areas of local, state and federal government promoting health care laws that directly affect the pediatric population. Finally, by deciding to be a pediatrician, you have selected a career in which you can choose to be a primary care physician, a subspecialist, a hospitalist, a principle research investigator or a full-time pediatric advocate.

Residency Programs: An Inside Look

 

[Valerie]

Im sorry you are unable to separate an organization that advocates from the profession of medicine. I tried every which way but obviously nothing can penetrate.
And quit putting words in my mouth.
For the rest, your inability to grasp the differences here make you iggy worthy.
Buh bye.

So how come you never bothered to answer WHY we need a new law here? It is you who never backed up your position. I'd love to see you demonstrate the need for a law to dictate to private pediatricians how to communicate with their patients. OUTLAW a question. pffft Why do you not acknowledge the nature of the relationship is PRIVATE and in no need of government intrusion. This is a case of ignorant politicians pandering to paranoia.

Community based solutions:

Just talking to your child about the dangers of firearms is not enough. Children are naturally curious. If a gun is accessible in someone's home, there is a good chance a child will find it and play with it.

So...ASK if there is a gun before sending your child over to play.

If the answer is NO...that's one less thing you have to worry about.

If the answer is YES...You have to determine if your child's safety is at risk. Guns should be kept in a gun safe with the ammunition locked separately or they pose a real risk to your child. Hiding guns is not enough. There are countless tragic stories of kids finding guns that parents thought were well hidden or safely stored. If you have any doubts about the safety of someone's home, you should politely invite the children to play at your house instead.

PAX / Real Solutions to Gun Violence

AAP - PAX ASK CAMPAIGN

You asked me that same question and I answered it. You seem to have ignored it.

I'm not sure which question you mean...???

 

[Gunny]

I personally think a gun should be unloaded whenever it's not in use. No need to have a loaded gun when you're not currently using it.

Do you actually know what you just said?

Oh wait ... don't shoot me 'til I load up .....

Yeah because, being in a confrontation with somebody doesn't count as "using" your gun? If somebody breaks into your house, you should have more than enough time to load your gun. If you can't load your gun that quickly-you probably shouldn't have one in the first place.

edit: or you should change the gun you use for your personal protection at home.

Or you should change where you get your stats from. The average gunfight lasts mere seconds, and the victim ALWAYS has the disadvantage of reacting to the predator, not preparing for him.

You're behind the 8 ball just because of the latter. Yet you want to reinforce your disadvantage by having to load your weapon as well.

What color is YOUR sky, dude? You sound like one of those inner-city Miami or Tampa knucklehead lefties that ruin the state for the normal people with your screwy, and VERY impractical ideals.

Glad I don't live there anymore. Florida's a nice place. The left in Florida are just evil. Not to mention dumber'n a box of rocks.

 

[Toronado3800]

Do you actually know what you just said?

Oh wait ... don't shoot me 'til I load up .....

Yeah because, being in a confrontation with somebody doesn't count as "using" your gun? If somebody breaks into your house, you should have more than enough time to load your gun. If you can't load your gun that quickly-you probably shouldn't have one in the first place.

edit: or you should change the gun you use for your personal protection at home.

Or you should change where you get your stats from. The average gunfight lasts mere seconds, and the victim ALWAYS has the disadvantage of reacting to the predator, not preparing for him.

You're behind the 8 ball just because of the latter. Yet you want to reinforce your disadvantage by having to load your weapon as well.

What color is YOUR sky, dude? You sound like one of those inner-city Miami or Tampa knucklehead lefties that ruin the state for the normal people with your screwy, and VERY impractical ideals.

Glad I don't live there anymore. Florida's a nice place. The left in Florida are just evil. Not to mention dumber'n a box of rocks.

I bet i am confused by all the random hate talk about leftists in Florida.

Are you saying it is should pointless for me to own a shotgun for hone defense because the defender is at a disadvantage? And further pointless because it is sratistically dangerous?

I am keeping my gun none the less?

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Do you actually know what you just said?

Oh wait ... don't shoot me 'til I load up .....

Yeah because, being in a confrontation with somebody doesn't count as "using" your gun? If somebody breaks into your house, you should have more than enough time to load your gun. If you can't load your gun that quickly-you probably shouldn't have one in the first place.

edit: or you should change the gun you use for your personal protection at home.

Or you should change where you get your stats from. The average gunfight lasts mere seconds, and the victim ALWAYS has the disadvantage of reacting to the predator, not preparing for him.

You're behind the 8 ball just because of the latter. Yet you want to reinforce your disadvantage by having to load your weapon as well.

What color is YOUR sky, dude? You sound like one of those inner-city Miami or Tampa knucklehead lefties that ruin the state for the normal people with your screwy, and VERY impractical ideals.

Glad I don't live there anymore. Florida's a nice place. The left in Florida are just evil. Not to mention dumber'n a box of rocks.

Put down the tin-foil hat for one second. I never said this should be mandatory-it was just my statement of opinion, for my own household. I'm not telling other people what they can, or cannot do in the privacy of their own homes, with legal firearms-none of my business. I never challenged the 2nd, and I'm happy with what firearms are currently legal, and illegal in the state.

Sorry not a lefty here, I've only voted for one Democrat in my life.

If you want to talk about advantages and disadvantages: you know your home better than the person coming in. You know where each room is, and any angles, much better than he ever will. I would be able to fend off any intruder no problem (and have done so on one occasion-the guy was running for the hills). If you can't get to your gun within 15-20 seconds max (which the moment you were outside my house and attempted to break in-my german sheppard would let me know), have it loaded and ready to use-you quite frankly need to brush up on your skills, or learn to be practical, and calm down in situations like this.

PS: How arrogant you label yourself as "normal", and liberals aren't. Ironically most people wouldn't label those of a different political philosophy than themselves as abnormal- so you'd be in the minority on that view (aka-not "normal").

edit: And I never mentioned any stats. Point out where I mentioned any statistics, ONCE. Otherwise you're just blatantly making shit up.

 

[BlindBoo]

Another "small government conservative" law that makes it a crime for a doctor to ask if there are guns at home...

Gotta love those "small government" conservatives...

Yeah. Preserving people's liberties and freedom from unwanted intrusion sure sounds like a conservative value to me.

I was just looking up the Constitutional Amendment where it preserves the right of the people to not have to listen to another persons opinion, professional or not, but I couldn't find it. Could you please direct me to the section of the US Constitution where this prohibition on doctors speech is spelled out?

 

[The Rabbi]

Another "small government conservative" law that makes it a crime for a doctor to ask if there are guns at home...

Gotta love those "small government" conservatives...

Yeah. Preserving people's liberties and freedom from unwanted intrusion sure sounds like a conservative value to me.

I was just looking up the Constitutional Amendment where it preserves the right of the people to not have to listen to another persons opinion, professional or not, but I couldn't find it. Could you please direct me to the section of the US Constitution where this prohibition on doctors speech is spelled out?

It's right under teh section that deals with questions a potential employer can ask.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yeah. Preserving people's liberties and freedom from unwanted intrusion sure sounds like a conservative value to me.

I was just looking up the Constitutional Amendment where it preserves the right of the people to not have to listen to another persons opinion, professional or not, but I couldn't find it. Could you please direct me to the section of the US Constitution where this prohibition on doctors speech is spelled out?

It's right under teh section that deals with questions a potential employer can ask.

A swing and a miss.

Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination: Questions And Answers

Not one word about citizens rights not to listen to Doctors asking questions about guns in the homes where children live, not one. Just stuff about equal job opps....

 

[R.D.]

There is no such thing as an Unloaded gun...

Gee, I have several lying here next to me. Wanna see?

I personally think a gun should be unloaded whenever it's not in use. No need to have a loaded gun when you're not currently using it.

You gonna throw it?

 

[The Rabbi]

I was just looking up the Constitutional Amendment where it preserves the right of the people to not have to listen to another persons opinion, professional or not, but I couldn't find it. Could you please direct me to the section of the US Constitution where this prohibition on doctors speech is spelled out?

It's right under teh section that deals with questions a potential employer can ask.

A swing and a miss.

Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination: Questions And Answers

Not one word about citizens rights not to listen to Doctors asking questions about guns in the homes where children live, not one. Just stuff about equal job opps....

Wow are you fucking dense.
Was that the Constitution you were citing?

 

[Steelplate]

I didnt ask whether there were points of comparison. I asked whether they were the same.

What is an "assault rifle"? Please define it for me.

I don't know... Uzis, AK's M14's and the like is my definition of assault weaponry. They were designed for military use. I know, I know... you could say the same about a Colt .45 or a Glock.

And remember... I never said you couldn't own one. Just that the licensing process should be more stringent for those types of weapons.

 

[The Rabbi]

I didnt ask whether there were points of comparison. I asked whether they were the same.

What is an "assault rifle"? Please define it for me.

I don't know... Uzis, AK's M14's and the like is my definition of assault weaponry. They were designed for military use. I know, I know... you could say the same about a Colt .45 or a Glock.

And remember... I never said you couldn't own one. Just that the licensing process should be more stringent for those types of weapons.

Is this an assault rifle?

 

[Steelplate]

Is this an assault rifle?

Don't try to play "gotcha" with me, which I know you are trying to do. That is a replica of a bolt action rifle used in what? WWI, WWII?

I have friends that deer hunt with original 303 British's(damn good rifle, BTW)

You know what I'm talking about.

 

[The Rabbi]

Is this an assault rifle?

Don't try to play "gotcha" with me, which I know you are trying to do. That is a replica of a bolt action rifle used in what? WWI, WWII?

I have friends that deer hunt with original 303 British's(damn good rifle, BTW)

You know what I'm talking about.

Well that was designed for the military. Springfield A3-03.

Which one of these guns is an "assault rifle"?

 

[Steelplate]

You are a rabble rouser. That's your only game in this thread.

Let me ask YOU something. Using those two rifles that you have so.... ohhhh.. conveniently displayed....

Which one would be most devastating in the hands of an Unstable person with a desire to make a publicized figure pay for the slight that that person felt devastated by?

I'd be willing to bet that in... let's say... even 80% of the population.. as a whole.. not as an assassin. The modern version of the assault rifle... which can be easily modified by any gunsmith worth his salt... would be the preferred weapon of choice.

Like I said... don't try to play "gotcha" with me on this subject. I am a country boy... I know my weaponry... I also spent 4 years in the United States Army. How much time have you spent in the service of the public?

I won't even get into what I have basically been doing for a living the past 22 years or so. But if you want, I will detail.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are a rabble rouser. That's your only game in this thread.

Let me ask YOU something. Using those two rifles that you have so.... ohhhh.. conveniently displayed....

Which one would be most devastating in the hands of an Unstable person with a desire to make a publicized figure pay for the slight that that person felt devastated by?

I'd be willing to bet that in... let's say... even 80% of the population.. as a whole.. not as an assassin. The modern version of the assault rifle... which can be easily modified by any gunsmith worth his salt... would be the preferred weapon of choice.

Like I said... don't try to play "gotcha" with me on this subject. I am a country boy... I know my weaponry... I also spent 4 years in the United States Army. How much time have you spent in the service of the public?

I won't even get into what I have basically been doing for a living the past 22 years or so. But if you want, I will detail.

So your choice is the lower one in black, am I right?

 

[JamesInFlorida]

It's right under teh section that deals with questions a potential employer can ask.

A swing and a miss.

Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination: Questions And Answers

Not one word about citizens rights not to listen to Doctors asking questions about guns in the homes where children live, not one. Just stuff about equal job opps....

Wow are you fucking dense.
Was that the Constitution you were citing?

The constitution limits what the government can, and cannot do. Not what private citizens can ask another one. You still haven't cited precisely where the constitution says a doctor cannot ask somebody about a gun. I'd like to see one, as I honestly don't ever recall there being one-but I could be wrong.