LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

NRA and Florida gag pediatricians: no more firearm safety advice for parents

And we've seen over and over, that in the world of political correctness when guys like Question Mark, the AZ shooter or Hassan who should actually be kept away from guns, they aren't for fear of violating their Gawd-given rights under the "living" Constitution.

So what good is the information if it's only used to cow and intimidate responsible people while letting the irresponsible engage in free rein?
 
Frisco_Slug_Esq said:
They're pediatricians asking kids. Kids are trained to answer authority figures.

Hey, when you support big government for your cause, then you get big government politicians who are free to support other causes and to also fight back against the groups using government against them, thus exposing themselves to cries of hypocrisy from the no standards, no values, egalitarian crowd.

But Neo, you've been down that road before, you know where it leads...

And to skip back to some of cracker's comments, you sign a waiver that lets your insurance company use your record against you. Government just "takes" your record based on someone else figuratively signing the waiver for you in your own best interest, just like they want to delve into your child's life and usurp the role of parents, in their own best interest, after all, it takes a village, idiot...
Click to expand...

But the parent is in the room when the question is asked. So again, the parent can say that's none of your business, and take their child to another doctor. Also, the parent doesn't have to sign a waiver with the insurance company. Let the free market decide. Something you don't seem to want to do in favor of big government.
 
Peregrinator said:
Doctor: Do you own any guns?

Parent: Why?

Doctor: Just making sure you keep them safe from little Davey.

Parent: Fascist Communist Socialist Gun-hating Pacifist Lib Loon Cocksucker Freedom-Hating Obama Voting Big Government Loving Centralized Economy Supporting Government School Attending Non Constitution Reading Privacy Invading Overstepping Liberty Infringing Non-Patriot! I'm telling my nanny state government!
Click to expand...

Praise be to Allah that you had the wisdom to quit medical school...
 
SgtSpiderMan said:
But the parent is in the room when the question is asked. So again, the parent can say that's none of your business, and take their child to another doctor. Also, the parent doesn't have to sign a waiver with the insurance company. Let the free market decide. Something you don't seem to want to do in favor of big government.
Click to expand...

So, you force the parent to lie in front of the child...

If the parent wants the insurance, they do.

I want the free market to decide. The problem is, government has decided to be involved in the free market thus forcing me to fight government for my liberty. I don't want to tell doctors what to do, but at the point of a gun, my money is being taken from me and used to tell them what to do, and if I don't take it meekly, then you cry hypocrite as you did when you began the conversation yesterday...
__________________
When the government gets powerful enough to fight over, the people will fight over it, and to the victors go the spoils, thus setting up the next fight.
A_J, the Stupid
 
but here is the rub, dr's can make up some b.s. excuse saying that the child is in harm and keep the child.




SgtSpiderMan said:
But the parent is in the room when the question is asked. So again, the parent can say that's none of your business, and take their child to another doctor. Also, the parent doesn't have to sign a waiver with the insurance company. Let the free market decide. Something you don't seem to want to do in favor of big government.
Click to expand...
 
vetteman said:
In a nation of 300 plus million, it's a very minor issue. As I stated, doctors themselves are a bigger threat.
Click to expand...

So since, according to you, doctors are a bigger threat than guns, then we should probably have more regulation... Perhaps even a single payer health care system, where there would be a good amount of oversight, and they couldn't be so dangerous to the american public.
:rolleyes:
 
What happens when IPAB begins limiting resources to gun owners?

Who's next?

Meat eaters? McDonald's patrons? Whiffle-ball players?




Of course, the desire to limit government intrusion is the hypocrisy of the "limited government" crowd for wanting more government. It's like damning the hostage for wanting the ransom paid because he's opposed to kidnapping...
 
Frisco_Slug_Esq said:
I am not at all shocked that you so badly interpret what has been written...
Click to expand...

Really?

So, a gag order on doctors preventing them from speaking about certain subjects... that's "smaller government", "supporting the constitution", and "letting the free market work"???

Please how this viewpoint that you wingnuts are taking supports what is supposedly your core values.

Or is it selective? Feel free to be honest for once in your life.
 
richard_daily said:
Really?

So, a gag order on doctors preventing them from speaking about certain subjects... that's "smaller government", "supporting the constitution", and "letting the free market work"???

Please how this viewpoint that you wingnuts are taking supports what is supposedly your core values.

Or is it selective? Feel free to be honest for once in your life.[/QUOTE

...

So, the limited government contingent should not ever seek to limit growing government because that's growing government?

We should not engage in self-defense from the powerful lobbies of the rich, we should sit by and watch government grow more intrusive for fear that such as you will label us hypocritical serfs? Niggers who don't know their place? Injuns OFF the reservation?

Man, you make no sense at all...

In other words, what I just said.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Frisco_Slug_Esq said:
So, the limited government contingent should not ever seek to limit growing government because that's growing government?

We should not engage in self-defense from the powerful lobbies of the rich, we should sit by and watch government grow more intrusive for fear that such as you will label us hypocritical serfs? Niggers who don't know their place? Injuns OFF the reservation?

Man, you make no sense at all...
Click to expand...

So... you're too scared to actually answer the questions, so you go into random rambling AJ mode... It's kind of like watching a roomba do it's work.
 
I love the smell of pretzel logic first thing in the morning. :D
 
richard_daily said:
Really?

So, a gag order on doctors preventing them from speaking about certain subjects [1]... that's "smaller government"[2], "supporting the constitution" [3], and "letting the free market work" [4]???

Please how this viewpoint that you wingnuts are taking supports what is supposedly your core values. [7]

Or is it selective? [5] Feel free to be honest for once in your life. [6]
Click to expand...

You want a blow-by-blow?

OK, you asked for it...

1. very first post in this thread, I agreed this was wrong.
2. No it's not. It is a logical and anticipated reaction to bigger government. People don't just sit still when it's used against them.
3. Yes, it's supporting the Constitution because it's a push-back on those who ignore it.
4. It is not a free market any more.
5. No, it's not selective, it's a logical outcome.
6. I'm being honest and consistent.

7. This isn't even a coherent sentence, evidence you're flinging hoping that something will stick. At best, it's straw man argumentation.

Core values go out the window when it is not a shared commodity. Now it's a war between liberals and new-age liberals (socialists).
 
Frisco_Slug_Esq said:
You want a blow-by-blow?

OK, you asked for it...

1. very first post in this thread, I agreed this was wrong.
2. No it's not. It is a logical and anticipated reaction to bigger government. People don't just sit still when it's used against them.
3. Yes, it's supporting the Constitution because it's a push-back on those who ignore it.
4. It is not a free market any more.
5. No, it's not selective, it's a logical outcome.
6. I'm being honest and consistent.

7. This isn't even a coherent sentence, evidence you're flinging hoping that something will stick. At best, it's straw man argumentation.

Core values go out the window when it is not a shared commodity. Now it's a war between liberals and new-age liberals (socialists).
Click to expand...

I'm glad you could be honest, even if you're completely wrong.

So, core values go out the window when you're involved in a "culture war", you don't have to follow the constitution (here specifically; the first amendment), abide by any of your own values, and "push-back" against people who you disagree with.

Sounds exactly like fascism.
 
Frisco_Slug_Esq said:
So, you force the parent to lie in front of the child...

If the parent wants the insurance, they do.

I want the free market to decide. The problem is, government has decided to be involved in the free market thus forcing me to fight government for my liberty. I don't want to tell doctors what to do, but at the point of a gun, my money is being taken from me and used to tell them what to do, and if I don't take it meekly, then you cry hypocrite as you did when you began the conversation yesterday...
__________________
When the government gets powerful enough to fight over, the people will fight over it, and to the victors go the spoils, thus setting up the next fight.
A_J, the Stupid
Click to expand...


No one is advocating lying. That's completely out of left field. When the doctor asks the question, the parent lets the doctor know the question is totally inappropriate and immediately removes the child from the room en route to find a new doctor. Not answering an inappropriate question is not lying.

The parent doesn't have to sign with any specific insurance agency. Why can't the NRA simply have its members boycott any insurance company that would do this? Or the NRA could offer its members insurance. Those are 2 free market solutions to this problem that don't involve government.
 
richard_daily said:
I'm glad you could be honest, even if you're completely wrong.

So, core values go out the window when you're involved in a "culture war", you don't have to follow the constitution (here specifically; the first amendment), abide by any of your own values, and "push-back" against people who you disagree with.

Sounds exactly like fascism.
Click to expand...

If I abide by the Constitution, but you do not, that gives me a false sense of a higher morality as I turn a blind eye to your actions instead of trying to defend a document you clearly do not believe in.

(Fascism is an economic model, a form, let us say, flavor, of socialism.)

Organized (wealthy) Pediatricians who have formed a lobby want gun ownership entered into a record controlled by IPAB so they can direct resources to behaviors they approve of even if it mean taking out the fourth amendment without discussion, vote, or amendment; it can still be there, you can still own arms, but you cannot partake in the medical care you are forced to pay for at the point of a gun (which has been so constructed [Cloward and Piven] as to deconstruct to the point of single payer).

And if you wish to fight that legally, with government, then you're worse than those who want to usurp your rights and turn you into chattel...

It's quite the little argument you have going there. I'll turn you into a serf, a copper-top, and then denigrate you and figuratively whip you should you shrug the yoke...

Such a noble enslaver.
 
SgtSpiderMan said:
No one is advocating lying. That's completely out of left field. When the doctor asks the question, the parent lets the doctor know the question is totally inappropriate and immediately removes the child from the room en route to find a new doctor. Not answering an inappropriate question is not lying.

The parent doesn't have to sign with any specific insurance agency. Why can't the NRA simply have its members boycott any insurance company that would do this? Or the NRA could offer its members insurance. Those are 2 free market solutions to this problem that don't involve government.
Click to expand...

You either have to tell the doctor that you are a gun owner so the IPAB can deny you medical benefit to save costs, or you have to lie in front of your child to protect yourself and thus create a teaching moment that one has to lie to doctors/government.

It's a clever little way of trying to get you to voluntarily surrender your Fourth Amendment rights and a way, by proving the lie, to save costs governmental health care by denying you coverage due to deceit.

If you don't think a waiver is implicit in purchasing the insurance, how do you think they make decisions concerning paying out your claims? Dartboard?
 
Frisco_Slug_Esq said:
You either have to tell the doctor that you are a gun owner so the IPAB can deny you medical benefit to save costs, or you have to lie in front of your child to protect yourself and thus create a teaching moment that one has to lie to doctors/government.

It's a clever little way of trying to get you to voluntarily surrender your Fourth Amendment rights and a way, by proving the lie, to save costs governmental health care by denying you coverage due to deceit.

If you don't think a waiver is implicit in purchasing the insurance, how do you think they make decisions concerning paying out your claims? Dartboard?
Click to expand...

Dude, you don't have to tell a doctor squat, nor do you have to tell the government squat. You seem to want to ignore this gigantic fact.

The Constitution only protects you against the government, not against private entities.

I amazed at how conveniently you become ignorant.
 
SgtSpiderMan said:
Dude, you don't have to tell a doctor squat, nor do you have to tell the government squat. You seem to want to ignore this gigantic fact.

The Constitution only protects you against the government, not against private entities.

I amazed at how conveniently you become ignorant.
Click to expand...

Yes, you do now that government is taking control because answering any question untruthfully, just as you do with a private company, is grounds for denial of service. That Pediatrician is asking that question for political purposes, otherwise, he should probably be grilling the parents over their lawn-mowing habits...

You can change insurance companies (for a short remaining time) with ease. Changing a government, not so easy...

That's not convenient "ignorance."
__________________
"You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."
Ayn Rand
 
Frisco_Slug_Esq said:
So, the limited government contingent should not ever seek to limit growing government because that's growing government?
Click to expand...

Not by introducing additional legislation designed to intrude in the doctor/patient relationship. Don't you see that as hypcocritical?

And speaking of hypocritical, haven't you railed against "preventative" legislation which is exactly what this is? What happened to letting the courts redress grievances?
 
Zip probably thinks the Bill of Rights is intrusive, and that Libertarians want to do away with it in favor of literal anarchy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top