Andy9o8

I wonder how many divorces could be avoided if people realized in advance that they also marry their in-laws? This guy's got guts.

and his doctor likely didn't tell him anything about firearm safety Well, there you go.

I have a Galaxy and like it. And I like the idea of being able to quickly pop the battery out to re-boot it if it freezes up. Back when I bought my very first smartphone and was deciding between iphone & Android, that was a selling point. For me, at least.

In Chicago or Buffalo it sometimes feels that way; but no, it's just the city.

well, anyway - after reading this thread, I'm certainly not paying any attention to an MD trying to give me any advice on wiring or plumbing in my home That said, I doubt you'd argue with a pediatrician reminding a parent to child-proof cabinets and electrical outlets, or not to set the water heater too high to avoid risk of scalding. To my view, stuff like that is just part and parcel of responsible whole-patient doctoring.

I meant to say referred to "in news articles" but forgot to type it. It's a subset of sexism: penisism. Join my cause. See you at the barricades.

I feel compelled to speak out. I resent the shooter(s) being referred-to as a "gunman". Is there any evidence the shooter was a man and not a woman? Women shoot guns, too. Some women even give themselves firearm-themed screen-names online. So as presumptions go, it's really kind of nutless.

From the Court opinion of trial Judge Cooke (this was the initial ruling striking down the law, which the Court of Appeals later overturned) :

Heavily armed drug cops raid retiree’s garden, seize okra plants. Georgia police declare war on okra (Extra props for the photo caption)

I see what you did there.

FWIW: according to This, the Gallup poll generally interviews a minimum of 1,000 people (no maximum stated) for many of their social issues polls.

And abstinence is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Well, strictly speaking, it is. It's the teaching of abstinence that, with nothing more (like education on and easy access to condoms), will be inadequate, because so many teens will ignore the lesson and still be sexually active, and while bareback to boot. But if a teen truly is abstinent, he/she won't get pregnant or father a child. (Probably won't get an STI, either, unless it's transmitted via mouth to mouth kissing.) To your point, though, teaching "just say no" on most things, without more, is usually reductio ad absurdum that just doesn't work because it's too simplistic. Advocating not having guns in the home to adults who have made the decision to have them is pretty much guaranteed to cork them off. But just as there are dumbasses who, say, keep bleach in unlocked lower cabinets where the kids can get at them, so, too, are there dumbasses who don't practice proper gun-securing safety around kids. Those (at the very least) should be one target audience for further guidance, or at least the beginning of it. A related issue some have touched on here might be this: Doctors, if they're doing their jobs right, treat the whole patient, not just bits and pieces of them. So if a doctor has an adult patient (who has no kids at home) who's suffering from, say, depression or alcoholism, the doc could easily decide, as a matter of professional judgment, that he should inquire as to whether any aspect of the patient's lifestyle or life circumstances could place the patient at enhanced risk. Indeed, one might argue that it would be malpractice for the doctor not to do so. It also means that sometimes doctors' roles require them to act partly like social workers. (They do that all the time, for example, in instances of suspected or possible domestic violence.) This law chills that doctor's discretion to act on that judgment. And in the Florida case, the trial judge and one of the appellate judges recognized that.

You might be confusing Elk and Moose. Elk Moose

From the link you posted, one patient was told she would have to find another doctor when she refused to answer her doctor's question about guns. Do you agree with a doctor being able to refuse treatment if a patient refuses to answer? That sucks. I would hope and expect that there were already regulations in place regarding arbitrary refusal of care that would cover such a situation. But I'm not american, and you guys tend to view healthcare very differently to the rest of the world Well now you've got to deal with the definition of "arbitrary" refusal. The doc will say it's a matter of comprehensive patient and patient-family safety, in his professional opinion, and thus not arbitrary. You and I can see both sides of that debate, but it helps to frame the issues. They're not so cut and dried.

I sometimes wonder if their old guard goad their freshmen into doing insanely stupid things as a sort of hazing ritual. Well, in a world in which almost no publicity is bad publicity, Tom Cotton, who was a nobody last week, is a somebody today. Just like when Ann Coulter or Michael Moore say something outrageous, and their name is on everyone's phone screens for a week. For him, there's really very little down-side compared to the long-term up-side.

It got pretty bad when my friends and I would get on the Metro at night in STL, and hearing gunshots at certain stops just became normal Why do you hate the Second Amendment?

Evolution helped both you and them. It helped them because it gives them greater protection against skin cancer at more equatorial latitudes, where direct sunlight is more plentiful and less diffuse. It helped you in that it gives you greater ability to synthesize Vitamin D from sunlight at more polar latitudes where direct sunlight is less plentiful and more diffuse.

Are you equally shocked that trial judge Cooke and appellate judge Wilson have a problem with it? Rebut them, Jerry, not Bill. First, when you cut through the b.s. and cosmetic veneer of the loophole, it really is a de facto ban, so (I think) the framing is reasonable and not disingenuous. That's because the net effect of the law and its vague, ambiguous language would be to constantly intimidate doctors into a chilling effect to discuss the subject, for fear of being sanctioned or harrassed by people with an ideological agenda. Indeed, trial court judge Cooke made that very point when she struck down the law, and I think she's right. Second: again - I'm less interested in your debate with Bill and more interested in your rebuttal of the two judges who believe that the law does unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment. Yes, the two judges who voted to uphold the law are the current appellate majority, so they prevail for now; but of the total federal court judges who've officially opined on the matter thus far, it's evenly split at 2 to uphold and 2 to strike down. Your rebuttal to the 2 who would strike down?

Are you equally shocked that trial judge Cooke and appellate judge Wilson have a problem with it? Rebut them, Jerry, not Bill.

Who?

A reasonable point, but on balance, at the end of the day, it might not make a difference; and again, it's because OU is a public university, not a private one. That means that if codes of conduct, etc. a public institution sets are in conflict with constitutional rights, the code of conduct is trumped and the constitutional rights prevail.

Yes there is. ***For example, a person cannot utter a racial or ethnic epithet to another if those words are likely to cause the listener to react violently. If I called you a nigger and you reacted violently. I broke no laws, and you committed battery. Don't misunderstand any of this as my defense for the use of the word nigger, racism, or those kids true feelings. Since UO is a public university (where the institution generally may not abridge constitutional rights, including (but not limited to) the First Amendment), and not a private one (where the institution is permitted greater leeway to abridge constitutional rights in many instances), civil libertarians might support your point of view: TIME article: Civil Libertarians Say Expelling Oklahoma Frat Students May Be Illegal

We already have that- the DB Cooper thread.

Put it this way: it's like skydivers at the bonfire after a day's jumping at the DZ, but without the jumping, and it's every day for 4 years. So, yes.

LOL, I deleted it in the interest of harmony.