It's not always that easy. People using government health care (Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, VA) don't always get to pick and choose their doctors. Same for people in some insurance programs. Not to mention the delay and inconvenience that adds to getting medical service.
That's understandable, and in that case if, for some reason, you find a doctor who's an asshole... then you can sue him for all of the things you mentioned. The exact same situation could happen if I saw a doctor who decided not to treat me because I an unmarried and sexually active. That's an issue of someone being a bad doctor, not the questions being asked.
Owning a gun is a Constitutional right; seat belt use is not.
For that matter, why does a doctor need to know if you wear a seat belt? What does that help him diagnose?
A doctor isn't going to somehow prevent you from owning a gun. I fail to see how there's a constitutionality issue with the situations whatsoever. In regards to the seat belt thing... honestly, I don't know, because I'm not a doctor. I could make uneducated guesses, but they'd honestly probably sound silly. The reasons for asking about gun ownership presented in this thread (ie to inform those who might not already know about gun safety around small children) seem entirely reasonable to me.
I prefer the printed material because usually there are so many different things being discussed during my doctor visits that I'm overwhelmed with information and might forget something. I'd rather have something that I can read in the quiet of my home later.
If I'm in a waiting room long enough, I usually read everything on the walls, and pick up the interesting topic pamphlets to take home.
Hah, well, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to have pamphlets at all. That's perfectly fine, maybe something along the lines of the NRA website link posted, with more details on more in-depth safety classes, too. That's fine. I don't see why it has to be only one, though.
none at all. I'm saying that a mark in file can influence Police Chief in deciding whether or not to issue you a firearm license.
Okay, walk me through your nightmare scenario, because it doesn't make any sense. You go to a doctor. You currently do not have a firearm license. The doctor asks if you own a gun, because you brought your kid in for a checkup. Since you don't have a license, presumably, you don't own a gun. If you do, it's an illegal weapon, and you're likely admitting to committing a crime, but the doctor doesn't know that, they just "mark it in your file". You later decide to go get a firearm license. If you don't already own a gun, there's no "mark in a file" anywhere indicating anything at all for them to go on. If you do already own a gun, then it's illegal due to not having a license, and while I don't see how the licensing bureau (or police or whoever gives those out) would get access to your child's full medical history, let's just say they magically get it (by stealing it or threatening you or whatever), then I would say that already owning an illegal weapon
should count against you when applying for a license, just as having a police record for having gone on a joyride before even getting your temps would count against you when applying for a driver's license.
I don't think anyone in this thread (well, maybe jillio, I mostly skimmed the middle 10 pages or so,
) is specifically advocating in favor of
more gun laws. We're advocating against laws that make the topic of guns special and undiscussable.
