The feds take a shot at guns

Reports on state and federal legislators in addition to other public officials who have shown a willingness to ignore the Rights guaranteed under the State and Federal Constitutions

Moderators: SomeGuy, tjbert47

The feds take a shot at guns

Postby Tim Nunan » Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:42 pm ... -at-guns/#

For a decade, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been forbidden by Congress from doing research on gun-control issues. Such piddling hurdles as federal law don't matter to the Obama administration.

With a wave of a hand, the CDC has simply redefined gun-control research so the ban no longer applies. They're not researching guns; they're researching alcohol sales and their impact on gun violence, or researching how teens carrying guns affect the rates of non-gun injuries. "These particular grants do not address gun control; rather they deal with the surrounding web of circumstances," wrote National Institutes of Health (NIH) spokesman Don Ralbovsky.

Gun-control advocates claim that banning the CDC from examining gun control amounts to a gag order on science. After all, what can be wrong with further scientific inquiry? But the issue isn't about scientific inquiry. It is whether government resources should be used to promote an ideological agenda.

Take the Obama administration's justification for its new gun research. "Gun-related violence is a public health problem - it diverts considerable health care resources away from other problems and, therefore, is of interest to NIH," wrote the agency spokesman in an e-mail responding to questions from Republican members of Congress about new grants the CDC is giving out. The statement assumes the conclusion of the research before the first study is done.

The research on right-to-carry laws illustrates the problem with the CDC. Dozens of refereed academic studies by economists and criminologists using national data have been published in journals. While the vast majority of those studies find that right-to-carry laws save lives and reduce harm to victims, some studies claim that the laws have no statistically significant effect. But most tellingly, there is not a single published refereed academic study by a criminologist or economist showing a bad effect from these laws.

Look at the refereed academic research on laws that require people to lock up their guns in their homes. The number of accidental gun deaths and suicides of children remain unchanged, but the number of murders and other crimes rises. This is not too surprising as the locks make it more difficult for potential victims to quickly obtain a gun for protection, hence criminals are less likely to be deterred. Accidental gun deaths aren't affected because most involve guns fired by adults with criminal records.

The research on guns that the CDC conducted before the ban - and that "public health" advocates continue to produce - is a joke. The statistical methods to research people's behavior, such as criminal activity, are different from methods used to evaluate drug efficacy, where controlled experiments can be done.

In drug studies, patients don't determine who gets the real drug and who gets the placebo. In real life, gun ownership isn't assigned randomly. People who are more likely to be victims are more likely to own guns. They may still be more likely to be victims even after getting a gun, but are much less likely to be a victim than they would have been if they had never gotten one.

The CDC's brazen end run around restrictions on gun-control research is hardly surprising given that when President Obama served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, it was the largest private funder of gun-ban research in the country. Now he has the resources of the whole federal government.

First we'll get the half-baked studies followed by fawning press coverage. Then Democratic politicians and activists will pretend the gun restrictions they've always wanted were spurred by the new government research.
Tim Nunan
TFA/NRA Lifemember
GOA member

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." - Edward R. Murrow
Tim Nunan
Posts: 1253
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 2:24 pm
Location: Russellville, TN

Re: The feds take a shot at guns

Postby C. Richard Archie » Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:46 pm

There you go!

Scuze me while I throw up!
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

TFA/NRA Life Member
Chapter Leader, West TN Regional Chapter
C. Richard Archie
Posts: 902
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:42 pm
Location: Bells

Obama Picked ABC's Robin Roberts For Homosexual Marriage Fli

Postby TaylorMn » Sun Jun 07, 2015 12:27 am

In only one television look, President Barack Obama managed to re-energize his Democratic base. In an interview with ABC News, the president came out in favor of identical-intercourse marriage.

If you're speaking out about public policy you are not running your church... you are attempting to power a whole country to obey the foundations of your religion. Then labor unions ,information networks, feminists, homosexuals, Irish, Italians, Mexicans...and so on, are all political events?? There isn't a such factor as a political social gathering and what constitutes one within the Structure. There's, how ever, Free Speech and Free Affiliation.

VCERYVERYV ERY totally different. An elected official is using his energy to punish an opinion with which he disagrees. That's unConstitutional. You, as a non-public citizen, working in live performance to elect those who agree with you about zoning priorities or petitioning the federal government to assist your view isn't unConstitutional. If the Christians need to cease protesting it then I can be glad to march with them to get Chick-Fil-A eating places on every damn avenue nook. Then Conservative Christians can HAPPILY not go to deliberate parenthood offices and Gays can FORTUNATELY not visit both place. Nobody is banned from marrying. Marriage is one man and one lady and nobody is requested about their sexuality inorder to marry.

Sucks right? Sorry once you open a thread you don't have any management over where it goes. Good luck on future endeavors. Actually it was extra of a rueful laugh at thinking that any dialog started on an web forum is going to remain on subject for greater than 20 or so posts. None of my replies in this thread were hateful... however once once more if you select to assume that was then have at it. I personally do not choose to take every part stated as immediately referring to me so it never really offends me on a personal level. I find my life a bit extra theatrics-free that means.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the courtroom's conservative-leaning swing vote with a authorized history of supporting homosexual rights, joined his liberal colleagues within the DOMA resolution, which is able to dramatically expand the rights of married gay couples in the country to entry more than 1,000 federal benefits and obligations of marriage beforehand denied them. Congratulations are in order for Cynthia Nixon and Christine Marinoni, who were legally married this weekend in New York!

There was an excerpt from an interview with Dan Cathy, CEO of Chik Fil A, a very profitable enterprise. He has always been open and sincere about his religion and has run his enterprise with that faith in thoughts. Chik Fil A has at all times been closed on Sunday as a result of Sunday is for household and religion. If they sue, win and put a restaurant in that location, I'd be curious to see what effect the CEO's views have on that particular restaurant. It may very well be that nobody cares or their rooster is enough to make individuals forgive and neglect, or it could be that their views have a detrimental impact on the restaurant's bottom line.

A number of individuals believe in God... nobody is arguing that. Prayer was traditionally in class as a result of the one colleges that operated free to the public were sponsored by churches. When training was socialized prayer finally was phased out as a result of it violated separation of church and state. had been there any shootings in faculties when prayer was allowed in the faculty homes can we get the info on that. So, it's okay for you to pressure your beliefs on everyone but when individuals rail in opposition to it they're the bullies and forcing you to believe one thing. Humorous, because a short time ago, it was only a phrase factor. Y'all got to no less than get your story straight.

There are literally 1000's of cities where deliberate parenthood can't operate as a result of spiritual groups have stopped it underneath the undesirable clause. If having a Chick-Fil-A in my neighborhood means those services turn into easily accessible I am proper there. I might are likely to agree with that, Melissa. Nevertheless, what the mayors failed to address is the very fact their cities are crammed with institutions that harbor the very same individuals who help Chick-Fil-A - the Church buildings.

Arguing with you is pointless and no matter what I say you'll discover a way to come back with something to try to make me feel as if I'm not doing my job as a mother or father. Except you understand me or my assume too much. You could have posted adverse responses to half the folks on this thread. I am pondering you come back each day seeking to do the identical. Please, do not stop replying! Those of use with out 2039309248234 posts want you right here. Your opinion matters to me, don't let internet bullies win. I recognize all you must say to my matter, even if I don't agree with it.
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2015 2:32 pm

Return to Second Amendment Offenders

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest