Flea markets are private transactions between individuals. Unless your particular state or locale has a regulation, there's no federal law against long gun sales between people. You should be able to buy and sell guns a flea markets.

As for pistols, heh, have you ever tried to do a NICS for a private handgun sale? Most police departments REFUSE to handle private handgun transfers. Period. I've never seen one that would. Your only choice is to go through a FFL dealer. How many people do you think really do that?

Granted, it is breaking the law, but if you believe the coathanger abortionist crowd, some laws were meant to be broken, right? I don't own a pistol myself. I prefer pump shotguns with #1. #00 is overrated.

I wasn't, but I'm definitely going to look into it. Thanks for the info.

Umm, I've met a few people who were militant and antigun, Dan. They use the GOVERNMENT'S guns, rather than their own, to enforce their militancy.



Well, then why don't they ask if the patient has dogs in the home and warn them of the dangers of dog bites? Why don't they ask if the patient has a can opener and warn them of the danger of cutting themselves on can edges? The simple truth is, Dan, there is a CLEAR agenda behind these questions.

Asking about guns in the home is beyond a doctor's responsibility. If he wants to send ALL children home with pamphlets about gun safety, that's cool with me, actually. But the truth is, what is reported to the doctor is NEVER confidential as far as the government is concerned, and his prying actually is a de facto illegal search when it is done on behalf of the government.

"Umm, I've met a few people who were militant and antigun, Dan. They use the GOVERNMENT'S guns, rather than their own, to enforce their militancy."

Is it a crime to own a gun? If the crime is you don't have your gun registered in your house then that's on you. Just because you have a gun in your house doesn't mean you have committed a crime, law enforcement won't bother themselves with you unless they can establish "elements of a crime"

Explain you haven't crossed over the edge into psychodom in connecting a situation where a doctor is asking a medical question, with answer kept in medical confidence unless the risk is great enough to the patient or society that they have to report it, and that that leads to what? An arrest? A confiscation of your illicit firearm?

Enforcement of militancy is bologne.

"Well, then why don't they ask if the patient has dogs in the home and warn them of the dangers of dog bites? Why don't they ask if the patient has a can opener and warn them of the danger of cutting themselves on can edges? The simple truth is, Dan, there is a CLEAR agenda behind these questions."

That's a propaganda message and your opinion. If you'd like doctors to ask questions about every potential risk then they'd have office appointments that last days instead of an hour or less. I guess if dogs bites were often as lethal as gunshot wounds and morbidity rates can openers then they might be asking about those. Nobody uses a can opener to commit a suicide or kill an entire family in a murder suicide.

Take for example, the 13 year old used in the initial discussion, teenagers and young adults going through puberty often have bouts of depression and difficulty fitting in and thoughts of suicide are a common enough tragedy because of how society and media attempts to exploit young adults. Unlocked guns, could be used in a suicide attempt, they are easy enough to load and easy enough to fire, easy enough to accidentally misfire as, if you don't know what you are doing as well. A doctor knowing a patients mental state, if suicidal or vulnerable, might check with parents that guns are locked up or suggest storing them someplace in accessible to minors.

Is the question "Do you have guns in the house" in the doctors office legitimate to you yet? Will it ever be?

"But the truth is, what is reported to the doctor is NEVER confidential as far as the government is concerned, and his prying actually is a de facto illegal search when it is done on behalf of the government."

Maybe in your country and also in your opinion. The government in the United States say you may keep and bear arms but they have plenty of other rights, like knowing you have them. During a traffic stop they ask if you have any on you and you are expected to report them as soon as you are in proximity with police so they are aware.

"OMG, lol, you didn't just equate gun ownership with "violence", did you? Yep, it looks like you did..."

I said If. Do you need to twist my words to hear your own version of what I said. Re-read it and relax nobody is coming at 2 am to take your guns away.

"I would have sworn you just said that a doctor asking a child if their parents own guns is akin to the doctor asking if a child is threatened with gun violence. I would assume gun violence and child endangerment are crimes."

I would assume they are as well. Do you think parents threatening gun violence and endangering their children ought to be able to maintain their right to bear arms? Why?

You ever hear of anonymous reporting, Dan? Doctors can and DO violate doctor patient confidentiality EVERY DAY simply because they don't like the parents or something the parents do by calling CPS.

Since you've resorted to ad hominem attacks, dan (and ad hominem attacks with bad grammar, nonetheless), it's apparent you're running out of arguments.

Here's the deal, Dan. It's actually illegal for social workers to interview children without their parents' consent (although most parents don't know it and don't protest when their rights are violated), so now they're using doctors to do it. Do you not understand that a doctor is now legally REQUIRED to notify CPS if they even SUSPECT abuse or neglect? This means if this is a routine series of questions and the doctor feels that owning guns constitutes abuse or neglect, he HAS to inform CPS.

I realize the Constitution doesn't matter to people like you unless we're protecting baby rapers, baby killers or homosexuals, Dan, but guess what? You don't get to override it singlehandedly. Ironic that questioning an Islamic terrorist in Gitmo is a violation of Constitutional rights, but grilling a child without a lawyer present is simply in the best interests of the child.

You disgust me, honestly.

"So... if a doctor knows a kid is threatened with gun violence... he should ask if the parents own guns. Odd sort of logic, there. One would assume once he knows a child is threatened with gun violence the question would be redundant.

If he doesn't, then he's fishing. In that light, why not teachers? Why not just have the government come in and inspect. Do we investigate crimes when there is no evidence of a crime?"

If a parent is threatening his or her children with gun violence, and that child is a patient of the doctor does not the doctor have the responsibility to look out for the welfare of his or her patient? Does not a teacher?

"Do we investigate crimes when there is no evidence of a crime?"

Would not allegations of violence be probable cause for investigation of a crime, perhaps if these allegations were matched up with an abuse patter in a patients medical history?

"he's fishing."

If a patient answers yes to several questions that indicate risk factors and the doctor pries, yes he's fishing, if a patient volunteers additional information would that not be to the benefit to everyone?

"How about doctors just go ahead and question kids to see if the parents molest them? The parents own genitals, I assume."

Again, the initial question was on the inquiry about guns in the house not genitalia.

"Whether a parent has a gun is NOT a medical question. Period. There's something like 200 million guns in private hands in America. If gun ownership was an indicator of a medical threat then car ownership would be a thousand times more dubious.
Again, you're assuming that simply knowing there are guns in the house somehow enables the doctor to know that there is a threat."

You are assuming I'm assuming. I was merely offering a different take on why a doctor would be asking the question. If you don't like the reasons, perhaps you should write your congressman, or medical lobby, and get their official response. I see no correlation or evidence to suggest that from, a yes or no answer to are guns in the house? any crime or threat would be averted or committed. I do see the chance for a dialogs about risk factors to be introduced between a medical professional and a patient.

There are only so many opportunities for of these dialogs to occur during the teenage years which are dangerous years for teenagers. But I do agree that the question probably doesn't do anything to prevent a crime or reduce a threat unless a discussion occurs from the question and a follow up by a doctor or parent is made. Maybe the idea is to get the parents involved in a return phone call after the visit, I'm not a medical professional I don't know.

"car ownership would be a thousand times more dubious"

I agree, I believe that seatbelt use is another question asked on this type of question asking rundown. Obviously a morbidity/mortality risk factor as well.

"Do you think doctors are agents of law enforcement?"

Did I say that? No I did not.

"Why do you keep coming back to gun violence? Are you trying to say that all people who own guns are suspect? Why would gun ownership imply gun violence to you? Does baseball bat ownership imply beatings?"

Did I say this or imply it? No I did not. What I did state were some statistics on fatalities from dangerous situations involving guns. Like I have said in the past, if you don't have guns in the home you don't have a risk factor for accidental gun death by your own firearm, if you have guns in the home that are unlocked, loaded, which a significant portion of Americans do, according to the survey, you have a dangerous situation and the POTENTIAL for a fatality or serious injury.

I'm not saying the risk is unacceptable but if a doctor already knows violence in the home occurs and that there are loaded guns kept unlocked there is a potential for a very sad and insane outcome. If murder didn't occur in our society then asking such a question might not be necessary. In your eyes asking the question isn't necessary even though I've cited a survey showing a significant percentage of American families have guns in the home and by your own admission millions and millions of them exist.

Domestic violence is a very serious problem in our country and a lot of it goes unreported. Medical professionals have to treat patients that are victim to the violence, that's why I come back to it, and why they have a vested interest in working to prevent it in any way. Simply asking questions about risky behaviors, children playing with guns without their parents knowledge can SAVE LIVES.

Truth is stranger then fiction, for kids your family doctor is one of the earliest trusted adults and some things told to doctors by kids get told to them before other adults, such as school counselors that kids have only a passing relationship with if one at all.

"If a child appears to be a suicide danger all it would take is to say IF there are guns in the house they should be removed. That takes a known threat, and offers a solution. You evidently want to smoke out the threats. Odd sort of attitude from you, would you agree with investigating, say, terrorism before there is evidence of it?"

A doctor-patient discussion is in confidence and private, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, and this is while you are still assumed innocent until proven guilty, see the difference in relationships between suspected terrorist/law enforcement and doctor/patient?

As a parent you have the right to be present at any and all conversations in confidence between your child's doctor and child. However, in denying the right to privacy to your child, you trade maintaining your privacy to a doctor who really holds no interest beyond assessing risk factors for a child, you trade that for potentially discovering and reacting to/treating a very risky behavior in your young adult.

Such as, an unknown addiction, unprotected sex, playing with guns, etc. I've already been here...

"I realize the Constitution doesn't matter to people like you unless we're protecting baby rapers, baby killers or homosexuals, Dan, but guess what? You don't get to override it singlehandedly. Ironic that questioning an Islamic terrorist in Gitmo is a violation of Constitutional rights, but grilling a child without a lawyer present is simply in the best interests of the child.

You disgust me, honestly."

If by questioning you mean, questioning another human being, utilizing illicit interrogation tactics i.e. torture, flying them to countries where torture is legal, in between visits to their cage, a cage which they have been held against their will, for years on end without being charged of a crime in Cuba, since their capture, for something they may or may not have been a part of? Who can know for sure, since they are never charged with a crime only detained indefinetly. I think there is a clear distinction and I'm angered and insulted that you would describe the two situations in the same light.

As for making a doctors visit, you are there on your own volition, voluntarily seeking medical treatment. The doctor is performing their job as they see fit. Problem with that, use KFC's solution, visit a new doctor.

Got a problem of disgust with me, don't let it eat you up inside, just relax? For the record, I have never advocated, giving baby rapers, baby killers, homosexuals, or anybody else rights above and beyond those guaranteed by the constitution, not that it's relevant, but people like me are people too. Suspected Islamic terrorists, ought to be brought to trial, prosecuted and given justice or their liberty.

Since when has our country been the champion of denying certain people their liberty for our own security? Since 9/11/01, and it's a reversible mistake.

Exactly why do I disgust you because I believe that free and innocent people should be set at liberty if their guilt cannot be proven? Well I'm sorry, but I have a hard time being an American and allowing people who may or not be criminals, sitting without a trial, even if guilty they deserve to stand trial for their crimes. If innocent of said crimes they deserve to be free to live their lives.

BACK ON THE TOPIC!

Look, your child can simply refuse to answer, or give a false answer. Nobody is grilling anybody on the subject. If you would like a lawyer present at a doctors office, as long as it doesn't violate medical privilege, I'm sure your doctor would be happy to accommodate you. I really don't see why you think this is such a very serious invasion of your privacy. Nobody is taking guns away because of this, they are only looking to protect the children at high risk factors by opening a dialog about those factors.

If you are performing very irresponsible things with your guns, shooting other people, leaving them lay in the open, allowing your kids to play with them loaded, threatening to kill them, if they make a mistake... There might be something to investigate there.

"Bitch is a derogatory term for a woman, taken to mean that she is malicious, spiteful, domineering, intrusive, or unpleasant."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitch

This is my one word opinion of you Whip. Perhaps you could consider why I hold the opinion. Oh I remember, it's your actions combined with your words.

(OBSERVED ACTIONS + OBSERVED WORDS) = (PERSONAL OPINION)

I'm using caps for enhanced effect.

"Respond in kind? Please show me where I launched a personal attack against you on this thread. The one you felt compelled to 'respond in kind' to."

So I'm limited to just keeping my thoughts about your behavior confined to this thread, and sourced here too. Just like you keep yours limited to each individual thread too. Right.

LOL, because you have dominated this thread with your superior input. Right.

Look, you've censored me. Right? Check.
You've made racial slurs, Right? Check.
By definition of the user agreement racial slurs are prohibited, so is trolling, yada yada yada...

I'm not really interested in bringing up the past, except on occasions to learn from it. You seemed to take issue with comments made by others and insult them on their own threads, i.e. mine, i.e. KFC's. i.e Jenn's.

Yet again, you never fail, when asked to just ignore KFC, maybe so she'd stop having you respond in a TROLLING way to her comments, you have to come up with something witty, i.e. the caps remark to make yourself out to not look like well, a bitch, and your words read like a drunk falling down like 18 flights of stairs. But with a smile on your face. Right? Check.

Am I the only one with the opinion?

"I find you making personal attacks all the time against me and others."

Very telling isn't it?

I guess not.

If a parent is threatening his or her children with gun violence, and that child is a patient of the doctor does not the doctor have the responsibility to look out for the welfare of his or her patient? Does not a teacher?

And just how would the doctor know "if" the parent was threatening gun violence to the child?

I'm not saying the risk is unacceptable but if a doctor already knows violence in the home occurs and that there are loaded guns kept unlocked there is a potential for a very sad and insane outcome. If murder didn't occur in our society then asking such a question might not be necessary. In your eyes asking the question isn't necessary even though I've cited a survey showing a significant percentage of American families have guns in the home and by your own admission millions and millions of them exist.

Again how would the doctor know this to be a fact in the first place. What it boils down to is he "doesn't" and because he doesn't, therefore has no business asking in the first place. If there was a history of violence in the home then CPS would have already removed the children and John Q. Law would have put the parents in jail.

"And just how would the doctor know "if" the parent was threatening gun violence to the child?" Maybe if a child states that there is abuse in the home. Just a guess.

Then that comes down to is, it isn't the "doctors" decision to ask "any" more questions about it. Once a child has stated they're being abused, it's out of the doctors hands. He is "required" by law to turn the question/answer period over to law enforcement. As a matter of fact, him asking questions the wrong way could/would jepordize the entire investigation. So like I said the "doctor" should not be asking that question at all.

"Then that comes down to is, it isn't the "doctors" decision to ask "any" more questions about it. Once a child has stated they're being abused, it's out of the doctors hands. He is "required" by law to turn the question/answer period over to law enforcement. As a matter of fact, him asking questions the wrong way could/would jepordize the entire investigation. So like I said the "doctor" should not be asking that question at all."

Are you a doctor Dr.Miller or do you just play on on the forums?

If yes, I'm curious as to whether or not you know what this question is all about, if it's come up in your medical practice. What kinda Dr. r ya? Where do you stand on the issue? As for your statement about handing the questions over to police I think that is the way to go.

Obviously if children are in danger or say they are, there ought to be some type of Q & A with who is responsible for them.

"Why cry about being on my blacklist (by calling it censorship"

This is my favorite one.

Q: What exactly is the difference between being unable to speak and being censored? LOL.
A: There is no difference.

I live in chicago,drove cab here. Some needed guns. That is a personal choice. here is a poem for you, myt like mindmed bud.





JIHADS END



OSAMA BIN LADEN
laughing at A PSYCHEDELIC PEACE BEAR
in his LAP TOP
as he HITs A HOOKA on A WEBCAM
and blows some sweet smoke into MY PARTY!!!!!


WE NEED ALL
EVOLVING beasts
IN THIS ONE SILLY ASS TRIBE

STAY IN YOURS

JOIN OURS

WHATEVER

CHILL


ARTISTS AND WARRIORS
YOU HAVE DESTROYED

NOW
YOU CAN FINALLY CREATE
HELP THE CHILDREN


HEROes

CIRCLE THE FORESTS and animals
BAYONETS DRAWN
let no enemies pass


LET the ragged soldier's GREAT FAMILY LEAD the desert
let his gentle smile be their true reward
softening our hearts and opening our minds

WE NEED TO FIND OUT
from bin laden
WHY THIS HATE EXPLODES ACROSS THE GLOBE


DON'T YOU WANT TO TAKE A CLASS WITH THIS DUDE

PICK HIS MIND
HAVE A DOOBIE AND ENJOY HIS GENTLE SMILE SIDE

HE FOUGHT FOR YOU
ONCE
BEFORE YOU LEFT HIM FOR DEAD
LIKE WE DID SO MANY
TO THE UNKNOWN HEART BREAK OF SILENT SPIES
AND POLS AND WARRIORS AND MOTHERS AND MONKS AND MAD MEN AND

PAIN here marching through the carnage
trying not to wretch again







LET HIM GO HOME

LET HIM ADD HIS WORDS

TO HISTORY

HE HAS EARNED HIS REsPEcT

HE IS A WARRIOR

LET HIM SING

I LONG TO HEAR HIS SONG




DON'T LET HIM DIE
ALL CRIPPLED AND DRUGGED
AND MYTHIC
THIS IS NOT THE TIME
FOR ANOTHER ABUSED CHILD
TO DIE FROM OUR LACK OF TEARS

let the hunters go home

"Then that comes down to is, it isn't the "doctors" decision to ask "any" more questions about it. Once a child has stated they're being abused, it's out of the doctors hands. He is "required" by law to turn the question/answer period over to law enforcement. As a matter of fact, him asking questions the wrong way could/would jepordize the entire investigation. So like I said the "doctor" should not be asking that question at all." Are you a doctor Dr.Miller or do you just play on on the forums? If yes, I'm curious as to whether or not you know what this question is all about, if it's come up in your medical practice. What kinda Dr. r ya? Where do you stand on the issue? As for your statement about handing the questions over to police I think that is the way to go. Obviously if children are in danger or say they are, there ought to be some type of Q & A with who is responsible for them.

Herein lies the true answer!

Yes, Dan, you can find another doctor. Sometimes, though, that happens AFTER said doctor has turned your world upside down. The problem is, there are far too many doctors trained to believe their role includes law enforcement and social work as it is, and many responsible parents are hesitant to taking their children to see doctors who are filling a role they were never trained to fulfill.

Which they aren't either one!