Doctors can continue asking patients whether they own and safely store firearms.I'm likely to start another debate like the one that's going on over here, but I fear a state with the power to tell a doctor what he can or can't ask a patient more than I fear a doctor asking me about guns.
The Senate Education and Health committee, known for defeating controversial bills, voted down legislation that would have made it unlawful to routinely ask patients about firearms.
There are plenty of private ways to deal with a medico sticking his nose where it doesn't belong--from firing him and getting a doctor who isn't a bleater, to presenting him with a little questionnaire that ought to knock him back a few steps...
5 comments:
I'm with you on this one too.
Are we outcome oriented? Meaning: is it more important that no one questions our right to keep and bear arms or that the principles of freedom and liberty are upheld?
We cannot fall into the same trap that has firmly grasped leftists for many years. We cannot allow the PRINCIPLES of liberty and freedom to be undermined in order to achieve the OUTCOME that we desire. If we do that, we are no better than the leftists who would opress us.
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
--Thomas Paine
"If people are free to do as they wish, they are almost certain not to do as we wish. That is why Utopian planners end up as despots, whether at the national level or at the level of the local 'redevelopment' agency."
--Thomas Sowell
What is hilarious about this, is that the Federalist tells us plainly, WHO should should be instructing us about arms;
"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, OFFICERED BY MEN CHOSEN FROM AMONG THEMSELVES, fighting for their common liberties..."
It also provides the reasoning WHY the People should choose, and NOT the government. (Why should the government be entrusted over the engine used to DEFEAT it, in the event it became TYRANICAL?)
This 'doctor' law is perverse to the PLAIN INTENTIONS of The framers. If for any other reason than it is NOT govs. duty to appoint ANYONE to the task at hand. But, rather it is the choice of The People.
It is plain that our common enemy, (our servants), are intent upon undermining our Republic by subversive method(s).
Preceeding quote from Federalist #46, BTW.
As surprising as it may seem to some, due to our opposing views on parking lots, I too am in agreement that this law does not need to pass.
The doctor, depsite his unwarranted intrusion, cannot affect your exercise of your rights. Ergo, you have no warrant to try to legislate away his right to speak his mind or to ask his questions, questions to which he cannot force one to anwer.
Therein for me lies the difference. The doctor has no power over your rights, unlike the other situation.
Although, I must propose that doctors being much more deadly to the public than guns, perhaps they should concentrate their efforts more to cleaning their own backyard.
I agree with you, DC. Let the doc ask, I can always tell him to fuck off. If the state can force him to ask or not ask, it can ( and most assuredly would ) try to force me to answer.
Post a Comment