Replies

Since the origin of the question was with an anti-gun physicians group, they ARE "being politically incorrect", or accomplices to that. If ANY physician ever asks me that question, I will tell them it's none of their damned business, immediately leave their office, and find another practicioner.

Even so, do you believe the government should restrict someone's first amendment rights like this? If they can do that, then they can restrict your second amendment rights as well. And your choice to walk away from a physician who ask such a question is exactly what people should do if they don't like it. They should not be going to the government for censorship.

"Even so, do you believe the government should restrict someone's first amendment rights like this? If they can do that, then they can restrict your second amendment rights as well."

Since the question is NOT about any area of medicine, YES, I "do" think the legislature has the ability to restrict the what the doctor does. After all, they are ALREADY telling him that he can or cannot practice medicine at all. It's not a "free speech" issue.

The problem with the medical industry is that is highly regulated by state governments, as is the insurance industry. The states have fought hard to maintain control over medicine and insurance, in order not to have it slip into predominantly Federal jurisdiction, as has happened with banking, pharmaceuticals, railroads, and airlines. One way the states have accomplished this is to show that they are "tough" regulators, even in relatively conservative states like Virginia. Any given state's medical association is essentially a state-supported guild, not unlike those in medieval Europe, technically private and voluntary, but in actuality quasi-governmental and coercive. Since insurance companies are the primary repayment sources for many physicians, their guidelines compel doctors to perform their services in compliance with those guidelines.

Physicians are likely under pressure by their trade association and insurance companies to be proactive with regard to gun ownership. Additionally, in graduate schools as well as at the undergraduate level, leftist propaganda commingles with "hard" science. As a result, many physicians are liberals and therefore support gun control. At the last Presidential election, there were surveys that showed that people with graduate degrees were almost as likely to vote for Kerry as were those who did not graduate from high school, the low paid workers and welfare recipients that have been a Democrat "core" group since the New Deal era.

Ideally, insurance and medicine are services that should be freed from state regulation. However, that is unlikely to happen in our lifetimes. We are fortunate if we can successfully stop fully socialized medicine and elimination of the free market on vitamins and supplements. Given that we are stuck with a regulated commodity (medicine), it may be necessary to stop insurance firms and state medical associations from covertly promoting an anti-gun agenda. I do not think it is a violation of the doctors' First Amendment rights any more than it is for a postal worker or a soldier being prohibited from engaging in partisan politics by campaigning for a candidate.

Even so, do you believe the government should restrict someone's first amendment rights like this?

Considering that the doctor is seen as an authroity figure;

Considering that it is easy for the doc to make the patient feel intimidated;

Considering that the question can be asked of the child out of the parent's hearing;

Considering that the answer goes into permanent patient records:

Then, yes; it is warrented.

The practice of medicine is a state regulated, state licensed PRIVELEGE that gives the state the right to restrict the power & scope of practice.

If you want to practice public safety or public health, get out of G.P./F.P./Peds, and practice in the appropriate specialty area where this would be legitimate.

Now, if you want to ask about guns over coffee and donuts on YOUR time, then it is not the state's business.

Even so, do you believe the government should restrict someone's first amendment rights like this? If they can do that, then they can restrict your second amendment rights as well.

Yeah, before you know it, the gov't will be telling us we need permission to carry a gun, along with what kind of guns we can own and where we can carry them.

But seriously, I think you are missing the big picture.

The gun grabbers have come to the conclusion that they have failed at implemting their agenda through the legislative process. In all but a few states, it is impossible to enact any gun control. To the contrary, most states are currently liberalizing their gun laws to become more aligned with the intent of the Founders.

Having failed at the legislative process, the gun grabbers are now attempting to enact their agenda via multinational corporations and the insurance industry.

Want to work for XYZ corporation, or have medical insurance for your family? Then you must sign a form saying you don't have guns, and agree to a corporate HR bozo inspecting your home. That is where all this is going.

Virginia gunowners, fortunately, have a very proactive organization up there (VCDL) that is at the forefront in heading a lot of this stuff off.