Anti-gunners say...

[actaeon277]

This is the last panel in a cartoon, but I can't find the rest of it.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

View attachment 197486


This is the last panel in a cartoon, but I can't find the rest of it.

Cake And Compromise – Illustrated Guide To Gun Control – Everyday No Days Off

www.everydaynodaysoff.com

 

[actaeon277]

Cake And Compromise – Illustrated Guide To Gun Control – Everyday No Days Off

www.everydaynodaysoff.com

 

[grillak]

Her oath of confidentiality does not prohibit her from reporting concerns she has. As an example, if in the course of treatment, a patient were to state that they either had committed or were about to commit a kidnapping, or that they had horrible thoughts regarding a specific child or group of children, the doctor is bound by law to report such things. If she can articulate that a patient, diagnosed with Bipolar disorder and thus, prone to mood swings, is a danger to herself or others because she is in possession of a firearm, she is within her authority to make such report.

I don't like it, but I recognize it.

By the same token, I am bound by my own honor and sense of poetic justice to prevent good people from falling into that trap, so I tell that story whenever the situation arises. I don't know what has happened to that shrink, but she does not appear to be in my general area any longer. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Blessings,
Bill

but i would think that unless she knows of an imminent threat or crime there is nothing to report.

if it is based on the red flag laws maybe i could understand. but the shrink is way out of line with reporting anything to anyone if the patient is simply stating that "i own a firearm" during a counseling session.

i'm not a lawyer though.

 

[grillak]

Letter: Guns not the root of the problem amid violent crime increase

A letter to the editor writer talks about the recent increase of violent crime and how the root cause of crimes lies beyond the weapons involved.

www.savannahnow.com

check out what the preacher says...i've been trying to convince people of this for years

 

[bgcatty]

Simple response to anti gunners: Show me a weapon that jumped up by itself and shot someone? Then say: Hey Jerkoff there is no such thing as gun violence - it is people violence. People shoot people. Gangs shoot other gangs. Certain ethnic groups shoot certain ethnic groups. This is the cause of criminal violence. Sorry my 2 cents.

 

[Vodnik4]

Simple response to anti gunners: Show me a weapon that jumped up by itself and shot someone?

here:


And

 

[actaeon277]

Cake And Compromise – Illustrated Guide To Gun Control – Everyday No Days Off

www.everydaynodaysoff.com

Everyone should share this on whatever social media they are on.
People say we are unwilling to "compromise".

THIS is why.

 

[BigRed]

Simple response to anti gunners: Show me a weapon that jumped up by itself and shot someone? Then say: Hey Jerkoff there is no such thing as gun violence - it is people violence. People shoot people. Gangs shoot other gangs. Certain ethnic groups shoot certain ethnic groups. This is the cause of criminal violence. Sorry my 2 cents.

Damn straight....save for the apology.

 

[Bill of Rights]

but i would think that unless she knows of an imminent threat or crime there is nothing to report.

if it is based on the red flag laws maybe i could understand. but the shrink is way out of line with reporting anything to anyone if the patient is simply stating that "i own a firearm" during a counseling session.

i'm not a lawyer though.

I agree with you, FWIW. I also recognize that she is a physician, and that Doug Carter is in charge of the agency that issues the permits (which in just under 2 months, will have a whole lot less importance) and that as a physician, her opinions are considered factual. The imminent threat does seem to me to be a discriminating factor, which if absent, seems to me to remove her duty to report. Here's the thing, though:

What happens if Dr. Ducknoise calls up the ISP, identifies herself as a physician, a psychiatrist, and expresses that a certain person should not be permitted to own a firearm.... and ISP does not respond to that report by doing everything it can to disarm that person.... And then they go commit some form of mayhem..... Whose fault will it be? So whether she's right or wrong, they will respond in SOME way that does not promote individual liberty, and is therefore wrong.

 

[marvin02]

What happens if Dr. Ducknoise calls up the ISP, identifies herself as a physician, a psychiatrist, and expresses that a certain person should not be permitted to own a firearm.... and ISP does not respond to that report by doing everything it can to disarm that person.... And then they go commit some form of mayhem..... Whose fault will it be? So whether she's right or wrong, they will respond in SOME way that does not promote individual liberty, and is therefore wrong.

Dr. Ducknoise reports Joe Somebody because the Dr. thinks they may harm others. It is determined that Joe owns guns and they confiscate them. Joe goes to the gas station buys 5 gallons of gas and burns down his ex-wifes house with her and her new boyfriend in it. Everybody feel good that they did what they could?

Or, ex-wifes boyfriend hears Joe has no guns because they were confiscated and busts in his door and kills him? Great result right? Joe's not a threat anymore.

Point 1 - there are plenty of tools to use to harm yourself or others, are we getting to the point where they start licking up the people reported to protect them or the people they might harm with no due process? That's what it would take to stop someone really determined to do harm.

Point 2 - There is no consideration of the gun owners need to protect themself or their family. Joe was ranting in the Docs office about his ex-wife's boyfriend and the rant made the doc determine Joe was a threat, but what if the rant was because the threat was to Joe?

 

[grillak]

I agree with you, FWIW. I also recognize that she is a physician, and that Doug Carter is in charge of the agency that issues the permits (which in just under 2 months, will have a whole lot less importance) and that as a physician, her opinions are considered factual. The imminent threat does seem to me to be a discriminating factor, which if absent, seems to me to remove her duty to report. Here's the thing, though:

What happens if Dr. Ducknoise calls up the ISP, identifies herself as a physician, a psychiatrist, and expresses that a certain person should not be permitted to own a firearm.... and ISP does not respond to that report by doing everything it can to disarm that person.... And then they go commit some form of mayhem..... Whose fault will it be? So whether she's right or wrong, they will respond in SOME way that does not promote individual liberty, and is therefore wrong.

please believe me, i see exactly where you're coming from. i was just doing my lil rant/rave dance.

it is wrong for these dr's to label people as "dangerous" when they refuse to speak up against these idiots who routinely put us all in danger with their lifestyle.

like you stated...the shrink is gone and the law about to take affect makes it a moot point anyway.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Dr. Ducknoise reports Joe Somebody because the Dr. thinks they may harm others. It is determined that Joe owns guns and they confiscate them. Joe goes to the gas station buys 5 gallons of gas and burns down his ex-wifes house with her and her new boyfriend in it. Everybody feel good that they did what they could?

Or, ex-wifes boyfriend hears Joe has no guns because they were confiscated and busts in his door and kills him? Great result right? Joe's not a threat anymore.

Point 1 - there are plenty of tools to use to harm yourself or others, are we getting to the point where they start licking up the people reported to protect them or the people they might harm with no due process? That's what it would take to stop someone really determined to do harm.

Point 2 - There is no consideration of the gun owners need to protect themself or their family. Joe was ranting in the Docs office about his ex-wife's boyfriend and the rant made the doc determine Joe was a threat, but what if the rant was because the threat was to Joe?

please believe me, i see exactly where you're coming from. i was just doing my lil rant/rave dance.

it is wrong for these dr's to label people as "dangerous" when they refuse to speak up against these idiots who routinely put us all in danger with their lifestyle.

like you stated...the shrink is gone and the law about to take affect makes it a moot point anyway.

I need to clarify, the doc didn't say she'd "red flag" anyone. She just said she'd contact the state to revoke any carry license. That's not to say that's not a bad thing also, but rather that what she did was bad enough, I don't need to cast aspersions. It would be like calling Pelosi a child molester. As far as I know, she is not, and she has enough things she really HAS done for me to be upset about that I don't need to lie about things that I can't confirm she did.

In addition, Marvin, Are you trying to use logic? You silly right winger, everyone knows that you have to appeal to the feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings when you talk about guns. And those people who die by being burned or beaten to death? Doesn't matter. Someone who dies because they were killed with a gun is a victim, those other people, well, life is risky, and sometimes bad things happen. It's still better no one had a gun.

Someone get a mop, there's something purple dripping from this post.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[marvin02]

In addition, Marvin, Are you trying to use logic?

I forgot where I was.

 

[Bill of Rights]

…Someone get a mop, there's something purple dripping from this post.

Blessings,
Bill

I forgot where I was.

Uhoh, it got on your post too!

 

[actaeon277]

 

[actaeon277]

 

[jamil]

View attachment 202170

 

[MCgrease08]

Gun grabbers aren't usually very bright, but this self-own by George Takei is just breathtaking.

He just explained the entire reason we have a second amendment in a single sentence and doesn't even realize it.

 

[grillak]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/philadelphia-da-krasner-blames-mass-190531465.html

when the lights come on but your eyes are still closed