I would hope so.

 

As would I . I would think reporting a gun when you fear harm to your patient would be allowed.

I have 15, seventeen, and thirty round mags for several of my handguns. Believe me, most 9mm come stock with a 15 round mag or higher.

My glock holds 15

I would hope so.

 

In the case of a threat to self or others, I think it is mandatory.

I can buy a gun at a local auction (I never have) with minimum hassle. Legal resident of the state, of age and not convicted of a felony.

 

Now, I've never seen what folks are calling assault rifles; or high-capacity handguns being sold at the local auction house, but plenty of single-shot rifles and six-shooters.

Why?

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

 

rockmom, I have to agree with plainspoken. I wouldn't want to be in the position where my life or my loved ones' lives depens on me being able to stop an intruder (or even worse, intruders) with 5, 7 or even 10 rounds. But that is exactly what would be happening if mag capacities greater than 10 were prohibited.

 

I get and respect the fact that you don't want to be the position of using guns to defend yourself. I'm fine with that. But hopefully you'd not want to impose your belief on me.

 

To be honest with you, I keep my guns in a locked heavy duty gun safe in the basement. As such they would be very inaccessible to me if intruders broke into my house. Some would question why I do that. To be honest, I live in a very safe community and don't feel threatened by the possibility of intruders so I'd just rather keep my weapons secure in the gun safe. However, if there were a rash of break-ins or I felt threatened by other circumstances, I'm sure I'd move some upstairs and would choose the weapons that I felt would give me the greatest odds in defending myself and Henry. I can assure you that it would not be weapons with magazines with less than 10 round capacities that I moved upstairs. Why would I want to limit my defense to only 10 shots if I don't have to, when I may need more rounds than that?

 

Handguns aren't very accurate weapons to begin with. What people often see on TV (the one shot take down at 50 plus yards) just isn't very realistic. Sure training and practicing helps a lot, but because of the very short barrel length of handgums, they just aren't very accurate. Add into the equation the fact that I may be roused from my sleep; I may be moving as I try to protect myself and Henry; the intruder may be moving; and there may be multiple intruders I have to shoot in order to protect, and I'm probably going to need all the rounds I can muster to stop the intruders (and I consider myself to be pretty proficient with firearms).

 

 

So for me to agree with and support a law change that would limit my odds of defending myself and my loved ones, I'd have to be convinced that the ban of magazines over 10 rounds was going to make a significant difference in the number of homicides committed each year. Every statistic I've read tells me that wouldn't be the case however. While any homicide is tragic and the young kids killed at SH are particularly horrifying, the number of deaths caused by weapons fed with large capacity magazines is very small. Too small in my opinion to deprive a whole lot of gun owners the best opportunity to defend themselves and their loved ones. I hope you don't interpret that as saying the deaths of the young kids at SH are meaningless or irrelevant to me. That is not what I mean at all. Perhaps it's my cold, slave to logic, personality (as Henry surely knows) that causes me to be able to "accept" those kids losing their lives so that many more people will be able to defend theirs. If I could have exchanged my life for those kids, I surely would have. I don't feel the same about exchanging Henry's or my sons' lives (and maybe someday in the very distant future I hope, the lives of my grandchildren), being very honest with you.

Didn't know that. Wonder if there's any penalty if the person just refuses to answer.

 

Actually he did not specify VA. Just 'doctor'...though he is a Vietnam-era veteran.

 

Here it is in raw form:

 

"I now know that is true. When you go to doctors, they will ask if you have firearms at home. If you sat (sic) yes, they will report that to the government under the new health care bill.

 

 

 

I was ask that question this past week by my doctor."

An awful lot there that I like.

 

A couple of things I'm not crazy about.

 

Me too. I'm against the AW ban and the greater than 10 rounds magazine ban. There may be others also that I disagree with once I get greater specifics. Of the items stated in the 1-23 list, I'd want to see the AG report (item 15) before I could determine whether I'd agree with it or not. But the rest, at first blush, seem reasonable to me.

 

There is no need to be R.M. I own 48 guns. Twelve of them are pistols, four of them are what people would classify as assault weapons. One of the pistols is used for hunting big game, and three are .22's. The remaining 32 guns are what would be classified as hunting and sporting weapons. I am an extremely law abiding citizen. I have many, many friends that are in the same boat as me as far as enjoying shooting and hunting using all types of weapons. You have nothing to fear from me, but there are many people that would like to take what you have, or harm someone for no reason. A friend of mine that doesn't have his concealed carry was just robbed at gunpoint when the bars were closing on Bardstown road in Louisville last year. It is a shame that you would consider someone like me more of a threat than a common criminal. BTW, I highly doubt I am the only one who fits this bill on this site.

 

Oh you aren't the only one. Interesting about your friend. I live in the Highlands, a block from Bardstown Rd, a few blocks from most of the bars. Walk my dog every morning M-F at 4:30 am and around 6am on the weekends. Never had any problems.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

Sad thing is - the scope of this laundry list makes it crystal clear that we have been very, very negligent on multiple fronts.

Quotes on the 2nd from the founders....

 

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

 

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

George Mason

Co-author of the Second Amendment

during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

 

When you look at 'intent' from the author this looks like it.

 

Others from above:

 

 

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

George Washington

First President of the United States

 

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Richard Henry Lee

American Statesman, 1788

 

 

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "

Thomas Jefferson

letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

 

"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."

Thomas Jefferson

Third President of the United States

 

 

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."

Edmund Burke

British Statesman, 1784

 

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."

Thomas Jefferson

to James Madison

 

 

And another countries (temporary) founding father....

 

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

Adolph Hitler

Chancellor, Germany, 1933

 

 

The reason for a Constitution of the People is to ensure the People have the final responsibility. Ask someone who 'owns' the Constitution - they usually freeze and can not answer. But you know the opening sentance you know. It says who owns it. "We the People of the United States ... establish this Constitution." It then enumerates powers GRANTED to the government and via the Bill of Rights indicates what the Government the is created by the Constitution can not due. Ultimately the 2nd Amendment is about keep the owners in place of power. As pointed by Suzanne Gratia Hupp in her testimony on the Killeen mass shooting that took her parents - "the Second Amendment is about our rights, all of our rights (as she point back to the People in attendance) to defend ourselves from you guys, all of you guys, up there. (pointing to the panel of Senators)"

What exactly does this have to do with anything?

 

Think psychiatrist, not General practitioner. Presently this would be confidential doctor/patient communication I believe. Good, bad, indifferent it is taking away a civil liberty. So what next event takes away attorney/client privilige, priest/parishioner.....just wondering.

Think psychiatrist, not General practitioner. Presently this would be confidential doctor/patient communication I believe. Good, bad, indifferent it is taking away a civil liberty. So what next event takes away attorney/client privilige, priest/parishioner.....just wondering.

 

Federal rules may be different, but Kentucky does not recognize doctor-patient privilege and -- to my knowledge -- never has. Now there is a psychotherapist-patient privilege but that has several key exceptions designed to get people the treatment they need for their safety and the safety of those around them.

 

All HIPAA laws regarding personal medical information fall under a different protection.

Federal rules may be different, but Kentucky does not recognize doctor-patient privilege and -- to my knowledge -- never has. Now there is a psychotherapist-patient privilege but that has several key exceptions designed to get people the treatment they need for their safety and the safety of those around them.

 

All HIPAA laws regarding personal medical information fall under a different protection.

 

Thanks for the info. Your avatar makes me think you know what you are talking about.

Been out of the loop all afternoon, just now seeing the executive orders and directions to congress.

 

I don't see any real issues with any of the executive orders. Like many others I am 100% against the AWB and limited magazines.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

 

RM you said in another thread you were 100% against this, but in this thread you thought the Presidents directives were reasonable.

 

 

 

So is this reasonable or are you 100% against it?

Edited January 17, 201313 yr by Jumper_Dad