Speakeasy forum: Republican pollster Frank Luntz conducted a poll on Gun regs

would support BO's executive order that doctors now will be required to report any of their patients who have 'violent' tendencies AND find out if they have guns in their house? Basically doctors will now be 'deputized' to report to the Feds.........so much for patient confidentiality when you consider that most of those patients will not be asked if they have knives or clubs or ball bats in their house or took karate classes or boxing training ........and most domestic killings are done with weapons (including their hands) other than guns.

I wonder how many patients will now hesitate or not consider seeing their doctor anymore?

From what I understand, the killer of those children tried a week or so before the mass shooting to purchase a gun and was turned down........didn't stop him from STEALING it from his own mother who PASSED that background check, did it?

I wonder if a doctor would be required to ask the mother now if she has any 'deranged' family members who might need to be reported after finding out if SHE has guns?

is that the doctor wouldn't be required to notify the person who is possibly in danger but instead has to notify the Feds and give the patient's name, address, if they have a gun and what type, and the person or persons being threatened. That puts all that information about the patient into a national database, including their complete medical history...........I'm not sure if the doctor is also required to find out what OTHER guns might be available to this patient such as family members or friends.

That kind of record keeping can be devastatingly long-lasting. I know from experience........when Derek was 8 yrs old and his father died, he was an angry little boy. I took him to a 'psychiatrist/psychologist' locally to help him get over that anger. That jerk put into Derek's file that he thought he was suicidal and/or homicidal and when I went to get life insurance through the school for Derek at an inexpensive rate, it was denied (as were future applications for insurance until he turned 16) for that reason. I sure as hell wouldn't trust the Federal Government to not misuse information like that and label a person forever.

The camel has his nose in the tent.........You take a few isolated incidents, blow them out of proportion for an agenda and you have Nazi Germany all over again. No thanks........

http://thenewsunit.blogspot.com/2012/02/tennessee-man-loses-guns-after-seeing.html

Democratic voting roles.

...if not with previously confidential information?"

Court proceedings are public record.

Mark

But as for myself, I think we should have background checks on everyone and require them to register with the government before they exercise their 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech. Everyone should also be limited to no more than 10 pages at time, and any technological advances made since the time the Amendment was written should be banned.

I'm being facetious, obviously - Mark

are required to report what appears to be child abuse. What is a worse child abuse than someone killing them?

Diana

What's funnier than a barrel full of monkeys?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
..
.
.
..

Dropping a lit string of firecrackers into a room full of Liberals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miBMb43x3Yw

......but they also managed to weaken existing laws to the point that gun shops are not even required to keep track of their own inventories. Why hasn't the BATF had a director for six years? Thank the NRA for that too.

The NRA's "don't give an inch" attitude is extreme and clearly out of step with the beliefs of its own membership.