turtlespeed 226 #26 January 24, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Thank you think that politicians are best suited for determining what privacy you just shouldn't have is interesting to me. That's why we elect them, to make laws for us, like HIPPA and ERISA, and FERPA, and ... Indeed! They enacted these laws because physicians, insurance companies, etc., were busily revealing private medical information. And in fact, people STILL violate HIPAA and when they do there is trouble. http://www.informationweek.com/healthcare/security-privacy/ucla-health-system-pays-865000-over-priv/231001236 I am saying that these bars to the release of personal information are EXACTLY what President was discussing. The laws preventing the release of private medical records are a significant barrier to the identification of anyone who has ever been depressed. To do that, the government has to have unfettered access to all personal medical and mental histories. HIPAA is a codification of the right of privacy. Are you willing to overturn Roe v. Wade? . . . If it saves just ONE child. . . Oh wait. . .I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #27 January 24, 2013 QuoteAre you willing to overturn Roe v. Wade? . . . If it saves just ONE child. . . Oh wait. . . ZING!!!!! My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #28 January 24, 2013 Quote[ Are you willing to overturn Roe v. Wade? Last time I checked a judicial hearing was NOT required before having an abortion. Just a licensed physician.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #29 January 24, 2013 Yes. That's because there is a right to privacy. Are you willing to say that a right to privacy doesn't exist? If so, overturn Roe v. Wade and you've got it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #30 January 24, 2013 QuoteYes. That's because there is a right to privacy. Are you willing to say that a right to privacy doesn't exist? If so, overturn Roe v. Wade and you've got it. Tried to get on a commercial flight recently?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites normiss 897 #31 January 24, 2013 They perform abortions on flights now? Or just violate our HIPPA laws? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #32 January 25, 2013 QuoteThey perform abortions on flights now? Or just violate our HIPPA laws? T S A... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davjohns 1 #33 January 25, 2013 QuoteThey perform abortions on flights now? Or just violate our HIPPA laws? I got violated on a flight once. And I'm ok with aborting the HIPPA laws.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #34 January 25, 2013 QuoteQuoteA goal of increased gun sales? That is not the goal of the NRA. It is, actually. Gun manufacturers are major financial supporters of the NRA. ...and there's a problem with that? Pretty much wasted effort for the people if there are no manufacturers. Why would they NOT support manufacturers?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,588 #35 January 25, 2013 I don't think he was suggesting ther'es a problem with it, he was just countering the statement that a goal of increased gun sales is not the goal of the NRA. One can quibble and say "it's not the only goal," but it'd be hard to contend that it wouldn't at least be seen as a positive outcome. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #36 January 26, 2013 Thanks for the "correction". It was a rhetorical question directed anyone and everyone who would think that it is a problem.. I should have put 'everyone' in the reply-to.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #37 January 26, 2013 Quote Quade... the guy clearly shouldn't have been let out in the first place. Send him back to Briarcliff. Not clearly at the time of release, obviously. All well and good for the Monday morning quarterbacks and the infamous Kallend Mindreading Machine. Question 1: If a person is detained like that, should he be kept forever...just because he might do something...even though you don't think he will? Question 2: There are numerous reasons why one would be detained like that. Some even voluntarily. Do you keep them all? If not, which ones are not to be released even though it is thought that he would not do something rash in then future. People who think that there can be perfect laws and enforcement or a perfect judicial system will always have something to whine about.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davjohns 1 #38 January 26, 2013 QuoteI don't think he was suggesting ther'es a problem with it, he was just countering the statement that a goal of increased gun sales is not the goal of the NRA. One can quibble and say "it's not the only goal," but it'd be hard to contend that it wouldn't at least be seen as a positive outcome. Wendy P. I'll go along with that. While I very much doubt the NRA has a stated goal of increasing gun sales, more guns make it harder for the government to ban them. And manufacturer interests and NRA interests certainly travel well together. Personally, I have given firearms to friends who did not own one. I like knowing they can protect their families. I like knowing we can share a sport together. I like knowing they are a citizen and not a subject.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bignugget 0 #39 January 26, 2013 Quote Personally, I have given firearms to friends who did not own one. I like knowing they can protect their families. I like knowing we can share a sport together. I like knowing they are a citizen and not a subject. Before or after a background and mental health check? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davjohns 1 #40 January 26, 2013 QuoteQuote Personally, I have given firearms to friends who did not own one. I like knowing they can protect their families. I like knowing we can share a sport together. I like knowing they are a citizen and not a subject. Before or after a background and mental health check? lol...if I'm giving you a firearm worth hundreds of dollars, I don't need to do a check. I know you.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bignugget 0 #41 January 26, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuote Personally, I have given firearms to friends who did not own one. I like knowing they can protect their families. I like knowing we can share a sport together. I like knowing they are a citizen and not a subject. Before or after a background and mental health check? lol...if I'm giving you a firearm worth hundreds of dollars, I don't need to do a check. I know you. You see 0 problem with that approach I am sure. Which is of course the major problem. Of course people give guns illegally to friends and family all the time. One of the many ways illegally possessed firearms come about. And a perfect example of why having so many easily available for you to buy to give away illegally is such a bad idea. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #42 January 26, 2013 You don't know Dave. Considering Dave's credentials and his professions, Dave can find out more about you than you know about yourself. Dave is one of those few people where if he vouched for someone I'd take it as conclusive. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,588 #43 January 26, 2013 And I would trust your evaluation. Not so sure I'd trust others' evaluations, though. After all, in some circles, the fact that someone slaps their wife (or husband) around wouldn't be seen as a real problem. In others, the fact that they are an alcoholic wouldn't be seen as a real problem, or maybe being paranoid conspiracy theorist who believes in individual action (and plans to act on it). Etc. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #44 January 26, 2013 Quote and the infamous Kallend Mindreading Machine. I'm pissed that VP Biden gave me no credit when he proposed the same thing that I proposed.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bignugget 0 #45 January 26, 2013 QuoteYou don't know Dave. Considering Dave's credentials and his professions, Dave can find out more about you than you know about yourself. Dave is one of those few people where if he vouched for someone I'd take it as conclusive. You are correct. In fact I don't know anyone you know, and you don't know anyone I know. I'm glad you have confidence in his judgement and believe him passing guns out to people is ok. I am with Wendy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #46 January 26, 2013 Quote I am with Wendy. Thank you so much for the image. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,588 #47 January 26, 2013 I think the real question is do we aim the standards for who can conduct background checks at the highest or lowest standard. Iowa's method (as described by rushmc) sounds like it makes some sense -- have a "can buy" card that you can show. Has to be renewed periodically (annually sounds reasonable, maybe make it more frequent for certain things, like maybe a drunk driving conviction). Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites normiss 897 #48 January 26, 2013 More than easy enough. Florida has the criminal system database tied to the CWP database - two entirely different agencies even. It's supposed to revoke your CWP within 72 hours. I'm not sure it's quite that fast, but they do try. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #49 January 26, 2013 Oh, well, 72 hours. Nobody has ever created havoc in that period of time.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #50 January 26, 2013 QuoteThat law is so fucking stupid. My dad wanted one for him and one for my mom. Had to wait a month... fucking stupid. Why couldn't your mom order her own gun on the same day?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
lawrocket 3 #27 January 24, 2013 QuoteAre you willing to overturn Roe v. Wade? . . . If it saves just ONE child. . . Oh wait. . . ZING!!!!! My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #28 January 24, 2013 Quote[ Are you willing to overturn Roe v. Wade? Last time I checked a judicial hearing was NOT required before having an abortion. Just a licensed physician.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #29 January 24, 2013 Yes. That's because there is a right to privacy. Are you willing to say that a right to privacy doesn't exist? If so, overturn Roe v. Wade and you've got it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #30 January 24, 2013 QuoteYes. That's because there is a right to privacy. Are you willing to say that a right to privacy doesn't exist? If so, overturn Roe v. Wade and you've got it. Tried to get on a commercial flight recently?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 897 #31 January 24, 2013 They perform abortions on flights now? Or just violate our HIPPA laws? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #32 January 25, 2013 QuoteThey perform abortions on flights now? Or just violate our HIPPA laws? T S A... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #33 January 25, 2013 QuoteThey perform abortions on flights now? Or just violate our HIPPA laws? I got violated on a flight once. And I'm ok with aborting the HIPPA laws.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #34 January 25, 2013 QuoteQuoteA goal of increased gun sales? That is not the goal of the NRA. It is, actually. Gun manufacturers are major financial supporters of the NRA. ...and there's a problem with that? Pretty much wasted effort for the people if there are no manufacturers. Why would they NOT support manufacturers?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,588 #35 January 25, 2013 I don't think he was suggesting ther'es a problem with it, he was just countering the statement that a goal of increased gun sales is not the goal of the NRA. One can quibble and say "it's not the only goal," but it'd be hard to contend that it wouldn't at least be seen as a positive outcome. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #36 January 26, 2013 Thanks for the "correction". It was a rhetorical question directed anyone and everyone who would think that it is a problem.. I should have put 'everyone' in the reply-to.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #37 January 26, 2013 Quote Quade... the guy clearly shouldn't have been let out in the first place. Send him back to Briarcliff. Not clearly at the time of release, obviously. All well and good for the Monday morning quarterbacks and the infamous Kallend Mindreading Machine. Question 1: If a person is detained like that, should he be kept forever...just because he might do something...even though you don't think he will? Question 2: There are numerous reasons why one would be detained like that. Some even voluntarily. Do you keep them all? If not, which ones are not to be released even though it is thought that he would not do something rash in then future. People who think that there can be perfect laws and enforcement or a perfect judicial system will always have something to whine about.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #38 January 26, 2013 QuoteI don't think he was suggesting ther'es a problem with it, he was just countering the statement that a goal of increased gun sales is not the goal of the NRA. One can quibble and say "it's not the only goal," but it'd be hard to contend that it wouldn't at least be seen as a positive outcome. Wendy P. I'll go along with that. While I very much doubt the NRA has a stated goal of increasing gun sales, more guns make it harder for the government to ban them. And manufacturer interests and NRA interests certainly travel well together. Personally, I have given firearms to friends who did not own one. I like knowing they can protect their families. I like knowing we can share a sport together. I like knowing they are a citizen and not a subject.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bignugget 0 #39 January 26, 2013 Quote Personally, I have given firearms to friends who did not own one. I like knowing they can protect their families. I like knowing we can share a sport together. I like knowing they are a citizen and not a subject. Before or after a background and mental health check? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #40 January 26, 2013 QuoteQuote Personally, I have given firearms to friends who did not own one. I like knowing they can protect their families. I like knowing we can share a sport together. I like knowing they are a citizen and not a subject. Before or after a background and mental health check? lol...if I'm giving you a firearm worth hundreds of dollars, I don't need to do a check. I know you.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bignugget 0 #41 January 26, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuote Personally, I have given firearms to friends who did not own one. I like knowing they can protect their families. I like knowing we can share a sport together. I like knowing they are a citizen and not a subject. Before or after a background and mental health check? lol...if I'm giving you a firearm worth hundreds of dollars, I don't need to do a check. I know you. You see 0 problem with that approach I am sure. Which is of course the major problem. Of course people give guns illegally to friends and family all the time. One of the many ways illegally possessed firearms come about. And a perfect example of why having so many easily available for you to buy to give away illegally is such a bad idea. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #42 January 26, 2013 You don't know Dave. Considering Dave's credentials and his professions, Dave can find out more about you than you know about yourself. Dave is one of those few people where if he vouched for someone I'd take it as conclusive. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,588 #43 January 26, 2013 And I would trust your evaluation. Not so sure I'd trust others' evaluations, though. After all, in some circles, the fact that someone slaps their wife (or husband) around wouldn't be seen as a real problem. In others, the fact that they are an alcoholic wouldn't be seen as a real problem, or maybe being paranoid conspiracy theorist who believes in individual action (and plans to act on it). Etc. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #44 January 26, 2013 Quote and the infamous Kallend Mindreading Machine. I'm pissed that VP Biden gave me no credit when he proposed the same thing that I proposed.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bignugget 0 #45 January 26, 2013 QuoteYou don't know Dave. Considering Dave's credentials and his professions, Dave can find out more about you than you know about yourself. Dave is one of those few people where if he vouched for someone I'd take it as conclusive. You are correct. In fact I don't know anyone you know, and you don't know anyone I know. I'm glad you have confidence in his judgement and believe him passing guns out to people is ok. I am with Wendy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #46 January 26, 2013 Quote I am with Wendy. Thank you so much for the image. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,588 #47 January 26, 2013 I think the real question is do we aim the standards for who can conduct background checks at the highest or lowest standard. Iowa's method (as described by rushmc) sounds like it makes some sense -- have a "can buy" card that you can show. Has to be renewed periodically (annually sounds reasonable, maybe make it more frequent for certain things, like maybe a drunk driving conviction). Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 897 #48 January 26, 2013 More than easy enough. Florida has the criminal system database tied to the CWP database - two entirely different agencies even. It's supposed to revoke your CWP within 72 hours. I'm not sure it's quite that fast, but they do try. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #49 January 26, 2013 Oh, well, 72 hours. Nobody has ever created havoc in that period of time.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #50 January 26, 2013 QuoteThat law is so fucking stupid. My dad wanted one for him and one for my mom. Had to wait a month... fucking stupid. Why couldn't your mom order her own gun on the same day?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
