Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > The ACLU is far more than neutral. They have filed numerous amicus curae
> > briefs with the courts against the individual rights interpretation, and
> > they are also involved in the Trauma Project, an alliance of the AMA,
> > APA, the ABA, and the ACLU along with Handgun Control Inc (now styling
> > itself as "The Brady Project") and Andrew McKelvey's (of monster.com
> > fame) Americans for Gun Safety in a Orwellian project to assemble a
> > private nationwide database of gun ownership by violating the medical
> > privacy rights of private citizens. If your doctor is aware of, or has
> > asked you, your spouse, or your children if there are firearms in your
> > household, in the past three years, then you are now on this database.
> Why would they need to ask? In California they took address and
> checked it against driver's license and gave it to the FBI at
> gun purchase time. It would be pointless for the docs to also
> go snooping.
You do not seem to be aware of what the law actually is. The Insta-check
system mandated by the Brady Act prohibits the use of such data to
assemble a national gun registration system. When you purchase a gun,
your name is checked against a database of those prohibited from purchse
(felons, domestic abusers, insane, etc). If you are not on the database
of those who are prohibited, then the record of you being checked is to
be deleted, with no permanent record that your name was ever queried.
> > Despite this sort of invasiveness being a 'boundary issue' ethical
> > violation of doctor-patient confidentiality, millions of family doctors
> > and emergency room staffers are engaging in this illegal campaign to
> > identify all gun owners in the US. Furthermore, they are advising family
> > members of gun owners of the alleged 'risks' of gun ownership (despite
> > the total lack of training by such practitioners in risk assessment or
> > risk management, a lack of certification in the same, and a lack of
> > liability insurance for the same). If, for instance, your wife is told
> > by her OB-GYN that your self defense pistol should be kept unloaded and
> > locked up in a safe at all times, they are placing themselves in a
> > position of liability if your lack of ability to access your firearm for
> > self defense results in injury, death, or other financial losses.
> I know all of this but I still don't think it is a good excuse
> for comparing the ACLU to terrorists or claiming they are
> murderers. Why not leave that sort of purple prose to those on
> the other side of your position?
> > The ACLU will, though, happily defend your doctor against your civil
> > suit in the event you take him/her to court, claiming that the doctor
> > has a first amendment right to disseminate the lies and propaganda of
> > the anti-gun movement, that whether the doctor is wrong or not is
> > immaterial to the doctors intent to help protect the patient from harm
> > (an argument that carries no water in malpractice case law, but would
> > play in front of a jury).
> Well, as a matter of fact, he does have that right to say
> whatever he wants for whatever reason he wants. Just like I
> have the right to tell him to mind his own business which is
> what I am paying him for and what he is presumably trained for.
> Really, I have never had a doctor ask me any such questions.
Uh, no, he doesn't. You may say it's okay with you, but under the
standard principles of medical ethics, it isn't. If a medical provider
advises you of anything, they must have the training and certification
to show that they a) know what they are talking about, and b) are
insured for malpractice regarding that. This is why a podiatrist can't
advise you about AB/GYN issues, and vice versa etc.: They are not
qualified to have an opinion. They can refer you to someone who is
qualified, but they cannot give you a medical opinion about it.
> > The ACLU is as much a terrorist organization as the al Barakhat money
> > wiring organization in Somalia is. They may not get their own hands
> > bloody, but they enable the deaths of thousands.
> That organization is also not terrorist. Whatever happened to
> anarcho-capitalism and especially the cyber version of same?
Al Barakhat has been documented to have funnelled millions of dollars to
al Qaeda from it's own profits, and is owned by an associate of bin
> Did everyone decide these great ideas aren't so great if maybe
> some bad people also use them? BAH! Some committment to
> freedom. Damn hypocritical if you ask me. And no, wiring
> money around does not necessarily make you culpable for anything
> unless you explicitly know what the money is for and endorse
> it. If you say otherwise then you are only a step from saying
> that ISPs are utterly responsible for every byte of information
> and intent that goes through their servers.
If you give a part of your profits to, say, fund Timothy McVeigh's
activities, when you know he is a right wing extremist who advocates the
killing of people, does that no make you party to the conspiracy?
Al Barakhat does more than just wire money for others who may or may not
be legitimate. The fees it charges for such service are used in part to
fund al Qaeda operations. If they just wired money for anybody,
terrorist or no, I'd agree with you. But they do not. They fund it from
their own profits.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:31 MDT