Sunday, January 18, 2015

The CDC and Guns

It's an oft-quoted meme from the gun control cabal....."why oh why, does the GOP and the eeevil NRA, refuse to allow the Centers for Disease Control study gun violence in America?!"

Please, oh please.....somebody from the gun control side of the house, show me where the charter or mission statement of the CDC allows it the altitude to study gun use and deaths occurring from firearms?

53 comments:

  1. Well, as I understand it, the CDC stopped looking at gun studies in the mid-90's because the gun crowd said they were pushing control. So, since then, for about 20 years now, there have been few research studies (the CDC would be involved because it covers the role of the national public health research funding for the universities). Obama then ordered a current research summary a few years ago and got a report that basically said there was not enough research. And that's about that.

    Ignorance is apparently the goal of the gun nuts. It fits them.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And of course you failed the entire premise. You cannot state where it falls within the purview of the CDC to study guns. Period.

      You also fail to understand the findings of the report issued under CDC direction,The Committee on Priorities for a Public Health Research Agenda to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence - which puts a bullet [pun intended] in the gun control cabal's arguments...if you had only read it.

      Ignorance is indeed bliss, isn't it?

      Delete
  2. I said, for Christ's sake, "the CDC would be involved because it covers the role of the national public health research funding for the universities." Because you guys want ignorance, you promote ignorance, you need ignorance, there have not been enough studies to show anything to anyone. Only a drooling retarded moron from stupidland would think otherwise.

    Dude. Why do you get so friggin' retarded on this one single issue???

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I asked a simple question.You failed.

      And thank you for also showcasing the typical maturity found in the gun control cabal. It makes for great entertainment from those of us who laugh at the antics.

      The petulant tantrums are comedy gold, especially when you willfully deprive yourself of educating yourself on the very issue that you posture like a peacock.

      Delete
  3. Failed what? Are you that stupid man?

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you're deficient in reading comprehension as well?

      Delete
  4. Look, try to get this, the CDC provides the funding for the universities to do public health research. You guys stopped them from doing that in regards to gun violence. Do you get this? Please, God, tell me you understand at least that. Really, man, this can't be real. It's a like a Monty Python sketch. I get it - you think guns should flow like wheat over the land - really, got it. But for Christ's sake, at least acknowledge reality. You can still hold you're position without pretending to be functionally retarded.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One could take the time to patiently explain to you that gun violence is neither a "disease" nor a "public health issue" but rather a criminal activity best dealt with by existing law enforcement agencies, but that would require some comprehension on your part that government is not empowered to do whatever it wishes, however it pleases.

      Delete
    2. And Viburnum for the win. Trying explain anything related to firearms, to JMJ....is like being sentenced by the judge to indefinite hours of community service.

      Delete
    3. True, but succeeding would indeed be a public service. ;-)

      Delete
    4. Jersey is also apparently ignorant of the other, taxpayer funded firearms studies conducted in the time the CDC has been prevented from reaching outside of its scope.

      He's also confused in thinking that I mind these studies; I firmly believe that the findings will be in line with the most recent CDC report. It's the gun control cabal that should be worried with regards to what they ask for. Their self righteous sense of importance will bite them in the ass when confronted with reality.

      Delete
    5. "the CDC provides the funding for the universities to do public health research. You guys stopped them from doing that in regards to gun violence."

      That's a really silly way to spin it, Jersey. What's the real story? The CDC doles out precious and limited taxpayer funds for research into public health...diseease control.

      As a division within the US Federal Goverment, it is required t to uphold the United States Constitution, not waste money on cooked "studies" entirely unrelated to disease... which are pushed by evil-minded people who have no interest in public health, but instead want to strip away our basic human rights.

      -------------

      C.I. said: "Jersey is also apparently ignorant...."

      That is a very succinct summary of all of Jersey's arguing concerning our Second Amendment rights. A willful ignorance, and a tendency to insult instead of learn.

      So, C.I. do you agree that it is a very bad idea to boost our debt problem (which Obama has made almost twice as bad as under Bush) by wasting money to serve those who want to destroy a chunk of the Constitution?

      We do have a massive debt problem. One which was very bad under Bush. but Obama chose to make twice as bad. I have no problem with pro-fascistic, but private organizations like "Handgun Control Inc" blowing their own money on these studies. But the Federal government has no business being involved.

      Delete
    6. Vib said: "that government is not empowered to do whatever it wishes, however it pleases."

      That is a good point, Vib. The hard left, others, and Jersey when it comes to gun control will always side with the caprices of those in power to crush the interests of the ruled, the "Average Joe"

      The Jerseys of the world support a sort of social darwinism. The US government is perhaps the most powerful corporation in the world. "Might makes right", correct?

      Delete
  5. "Well, as I understand it, the CDC stopped looking at gun studies in the mid-90's because the gun crowd said they were pushing control"

    It's not just what the "gun crowd said". The ridiculous idea of the CDC getting involved in this is indeed part of an agenda of control, confiscation, and obliteration of our rights.

    It's all about a rabid phobia based on a complete misunderstanding of firearms and related issues.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Exactly, C.I. Jersey is arguing from a complete ignorance, and contempt for knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, you idiots think there is no gun problem in America. So, as they say down here in the South "Bless your hearts."

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why, we certainly do have a gun problem. Starting with the idea that harassing law abiding gun owners is a positive thing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Jersey is arguing from a complete ignorance, and contempt for knowledge."

    As illustrated by the reliance on pejoratives and sweeping memes.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You can always tell when someone is uncomfortable in their position by how they co-opt certain points. I see "ignorance" was bandied about heavily after I pointed out that it seems what you guys want is in fact ignorance of the data involving gun violence in America. You don't want the CDC to even look at it. You don't want studies. You don't think it's something people need to know, even though many people want to know. You think you know better than them what they want to know.

    But here's where you guys just look terrible. If you were confident in your position, you'd be glad to have studies, happy to see your position validated. The fact that you don't want the information even looked at shows me you know just how weak and wrong your position is.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, genius...I asked you before about reading comprehension. I stated above "He's also confused in thinking that I mind these studies; I firmly believe that the findings will be in line with the most recent CDC report. It's the gun control cabal that should be worried with regards to what they ask for. Their self righteous sense of importance will bite them in the ass when confronted with reality."

      I welcome studies. I don't welcome the wrong agencies conducting them, nor an obscene waste of tax dollars to try and stroke the ego of the gun control lobby.

      Delete
    2. Well, like I said, over and over, and you just refused to realize, the CDC is the relevant agency here. Many people, like myself, want to look at the public health impact of guns in our society, and the CDC is the agency that would do that. The CDC looks at automobile safety, alcoholism and drug abuse, pollution, all sorts of things one may not call "diseases," but, like diseases, have shared structural public health impacts throughout the country. Via the CDC, studies are promoted through the university system, agglomerated and further studied for the consumption of public policy makers, among it's many other responsibilities. They are a remarkable agency, actually, and much admired and sometimes feared around the world.

      That's just reality, CI.

      There never was any argument here.

      You just get really weird on this subject. I gotta tell ya', most of the time, I think you're one of the smartest bottom-line style bloggers I've ever read. But on guns, you're way out there.

      JMJ

      Delete
    3. Sure there was an argument. Your notion that the CDC is the right agency to conduct a study on gun violence is no more valid than my advocacy for a more proper agency, such as the DOJ.

      I'm not really sure how I'm 'way out there' on supporting my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms....but your opinion is fully negated by mine, where I believe the same of you. It is not I nor my fellow compatriots, who are pursuing litigation against the manufacturer of a lawful item, based on the actions of a consumer many times removed from the point of origin and sale; it is not I who embarks on a campaign of demonization of a material item, when the appeal to emotion has failed to motivate the citizenry; it is not I who has attempted to ban a lawful item based on it's cosmetic features because, and I quote ""The weapons' menacing looks coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semiautomatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons".

      The simple solution for the gun control lobby is to proffer a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

      Delete
    4. "I'm not really sure how I'm 'way out there' on supporting my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms"

      It's not the keeping and bearing that bothers people.

      JMJ

      Delete
    5. Of course, where it regards my civil liberties....I couldn't care less what may "bother someone". But why so cryptic? Please define how I'm "way out there"?

      I'm up for a chuckle.....

      Delete
    6. CI, you don't want any responsibility for, nor regulation or limitation of, arms among the public whatsoever. You're a loon on this. When people say "gun nut" they're talking about you.

      JMJ

      Delete
    7. Thanks Jersey! This was just the sort of laugh I was looking for....because it's cute when you lie, yet you're not even cognizant that you're lying.

      So, you are opining that I believe I [or the general public] should face no penal repercussions if using a firearm in the commission of a crime? That I should be immune from civil litigation if found negligent in the use of a firearm? How, pray tell.....did you come to divine this when I've offered no written statement in support of your accusation?

      Tell me, what are my thoughts on NICS, FFL, evidence of training for CCW requirements, etc.

      I'll wait....if you dare.

      And of course, civil libertarians wear pejoratives from statists as badges of honor....so I'm rather unimpressed by your stale use of the childish insult.

      Delete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This whole argument concerns the WRONG government agency being asked to compile the stats and produce a report??? Which agency should do it? Gun violence costs our country a LOT of money. Reducing it would save money. So I'm not sure how a study that might do that could be argued against as a waste. Or is acknowledging that gun violence exists and wanting to reduce it amount to a "rabid phobia"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not too sure that I would trust the Holder Justice Department, either, CI.

      Delete
    2. I have little trust in the AG, but the federal department is far more qualified and appropriate than the CDC. Which begs the question...why would the gun control lobby fear having a DOJ funded study on gun violence?

      Delete
  13. .

    "Please, oh please.....somebody from the gun control side of the house, show me where the charter or mission statement of the CDC allows it the altitude to study gun use and deaths occurring from firearms? "

    Ema Nymton cannot help 'Libertas and Latte' on _altitude_. Maybe one needs to contact the Federal Aviation Administration to sort out issues that 'Libertas and Latte' has on altitude.

    But, as for data collection to study gun use and deaths occurring from firearms ...?

    The CDC is USA′s health promotion, prevention, and preparedness agency in public health. The CDC coordinates public health efforts to prevent and control infectious and chronic diseases, injuries, workplace hazards, disabilities, and environmental health threats. CDC sponsors/conducts research and investigations. CDC applies research and findings to improve people′s daily lives and responds to health emergencies. CDC works with states and other partners to provide a system of health surveillance to monitor and prevent disease outbreaks, implement disease prevention strategies, and maintain national health statistics.
    (http://www.cdc.gov/about/history/index.html)

    One can see that the CDC is qualified and capable of conducting needed research/study gun violence in America

    Ema Nymton
    ~@:o?
    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Environmental hazards? By your logic, altitude [odd analogy] is just as appropriate for the CDC to tackle as any other agency. You will notice that the CDC blurb above does not reference criminal activity, which comprises the bulk of firearm related violence.

      But again, as I noted above with the findings in the most recent CDC study.....bring it on. The left is going to misuse our tax dollars anyway....they're not going to like what they see with their precious 'studies',

      Delete
  14. .

    "You will notice that the CDC blurb above does not reference criminal activity, which comprises the bulk of firearm related violence. "

    It is worth noting that 'LAL' immediately associates criminal activity to firearm ownership/usage. LAL has compromised LAL's position as an honest broker on said subject. LAL displays LAL's prejudices against objective data collection studies/surveys.

    So bring it on. Sniveling that the studies will not be objective and honest even before a study is authorized/conducted is just BS. LAL dismisses the idea because LAL sees that data does not support LAL's position.

    CDC studying gun use and death facts, figures, and information does not queer the data on criminal activity collected by other government agencies. It enhances the subject. And allows for informed decision making by all.

    Ema Nymton
    ~@:o?
    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's cute that you think a CDC study will validate your position; I refer you again to the findings of the most recent CDC report. It's also cute that you would proffer yourself as an honest broker on this subject. Once again, the only decision making available to you, is to attempt a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

      What is with the weird third person usage?

      Delete
    2. .

      In a response above, LAL wrote, "So you're deficient in reading comprehension as well?"

      LAL is projecting into Ema Nymton's writing LAL's bias, ignorance, and prejudice. Making a statistical study of gun use/violence and criminal activities is not an attempt to repeal the 'Bill of Rights.'

      Ema Nymton's replying to the writings of LAL blog is just that, a response to erratic writing based on weak reasoning and failed logic.

      "What is with the weird third person usage?"

      Try it some time. One cannot be accused of personal attacks and innuendo. And one is forced to stick to the subject of the original post.

      CDC is full capable of conducting and open, objective, and honest study of the data, information, and statistics.

      Ema Nymton
      ~@:o?
      .

      Delete
    3. "CDC is full capable of conducting and open, objective, and honest study of the data, information, and statistics."

      And. of course, the pro-fascist , destroy our basic rights folks like Ema Nymton will run the other way if this study refutes their "government control yes, popular control no" ideology.

      Delete
  15. If the CDC REALLY wanted to save lives, they would have studied the FDA and not damned guns, in that it is the former agency which has been responsible (extrapolating from their own numbers) for literally hundreds of thousands of deaths in this country (type 2 errors) due to bureaucratic inertia and a paranoiac adherence to the precautionary principle.......Sorry for the tangent but I just wanted to put forth a little perspective in response to Jersey's tunnel-vision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really, though....what would you expect? This is from the camp that thinks nothing of the federal government exceeding it's enumerated powers in appeals to emotion.

      Delete
  16. I don't want the 2nd amendment to be repealed, although I'd be OK with going back to interpreting it as written. The 2nd amendment discusses the right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed upon WITHIN the context of a well regulated militia. The SCOTUS kings changed the meaning of the amendment when they legislated from the bench and decided the 2nd should refer to individual rights - as opposed to collective rights (which holds that the right is dependent on militia membership). The so-called "originalists" rejected the original intent of the Founders. There is no individual right to bear arms in the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except that your mistaken. The Second Amendment is the only entry in the federal Constitution that uses both a justification clause as well as an operative clause. But this use is echoed in several State Constitutions. Using these as a further guide [and I can cite examples if you like], there is no apparent determination that the justification clause is a condition of the operative clause. The manner in which the Amendment is worded does not give allowance for Congress to deprive people of the right to keep and bear arms, even if that right doesn’t specifically further the purpose of the justification clause. The justification clause aids in the construct of the operative clause, but does not trump it. The Second Amendment is not worded [I believe] as carefully as many State Constitutions of the day, but they are clearly complimentary in nature. In the Senate ratification of the Bill of Rights, they omitted the verbiage from the draft that stated “for the common defense”; at least implying strongly, that the right to keep and bear arms was not dependent on use solely for the defense of the nation.

      The militia clause does not set a prerequisite for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, it was an explanatory phrase to state the single most important reason the right must be protected, the common defense. It is an amplifying clause...not a qualifying clause. Further, the amplifying clause is not limiting the right, nor is the right dependent on said amplifying clause. The Militia [in this case, the Unorganized Militia] has been consistently held and codified to mean the people.

      The Founders drew from Blackstone's use of 'Absolute Rights' of personal security, personal liberty, and private property; and the 'Auxiliary Rights' in support.

      Delete
    2. Further, while you lazily blame SCOTUS, the 2nd Amendment [along with the other protections of rights] has always been considered to be that of the individual, not the collective. Tench Coxe in his 1789 Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution:

      "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

      Later Supreme Court Justice James Wilson writes in 1790 of the Pennsylvania Constitution:

      ".....it is the great natural law of self preservation, which, as we have seen, cannot be repealed, or superseded, or suspended by any human institution. This law, however, is expressly recognised in the constitution of Pennsylvania. "The right of the citizens to bear arms in the defence of themselves shall not be questioned." This is one of our many renewals of the Saxon regulations. "They were bound," says Mr. Selden, "to keep arms for the preservation of the kingdom, and of their own persons."

      St Greorge Tucker, US District Court Justice appointed by Madison wrote in 1803:

      "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty."

      The bearing of arms was never intended to be confined only an active member of an organized Militia. Justice William Rawle writes in 1829:

      "The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

      Delete
  17. Replies
    1. My "world" being that I have differing opinions that Will Hart is afraid of (so afraid that he can't even look at them on his blog). Anyway, CI wrote quite a bit but I don't agree with any of it. The 2nd amendment pertains to militias (as written).

      Jeffrey Toobin (Lawyer/Legal analyst): Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? ... For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear... The courts had found that the first part, the "militia clause", trumped the second part, the "bear arms" clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms - but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon. (link).

      Oh, and the NRA is evil. Or "eeevil" (seems that conservatives think stretching out a word - as they do with "raaacist" - is a excellent method by which to mock).

      Delete
    2. Indeed, some courts have ruled differently over the years. But by all means, please proffer some evidence...any evidence, that the authors of the Bill of Rights meant for the 2nd Amendment to be a collective right...stuck in the middle of other individual rights. Toby is welcome to his opinion, but he's wrong.

      NRA is evil? OK. Dervish Sanders is evil. There. That was easy. Immature, irrelevant and lacking any intellectual maturity whatsoever....but really easy....I see why you engage in it.

      Petulant and empty pejoratives deserve to be mocked.

      Delete
    3. You know that not to be the case, wd. BB Idaho, Jerry, Truth and even Les disagree with me on a host of things and there has never been a problem (and by a problem I mean them spamming me with HUNDREDS of comments which are never read and which are deleted summarily/dispassionately).

      Delete
    4. Will: Isn't it thousands by now?

      Delete
    5. You know that not to be the case, wd.

      It is the case. I did absolutely zero "spamming" that lead you to ban me from your blog. It is untruthful for you to suggest I did.

      Delete
  18. The NRA (the propagandists of the gun manufacturers) uses fear of "gun bans" that have ZERO chance of ever becoming law to fool people who vote against their own interests into buying much more of the gun manufacturer's product then they need. They've bought off (and bullied) our lawmakers into voting against (or weakening) reasonable gun legislation, including safe storage laws, laws designed to block sales to anyone on the terrorist watch list, laws regarding gun-trafficking and straw purchases, laws expanding background checks to ALL gun sales, etc.

    A CNN article explains why the NRA opposes BG checks... "Cutting off sales to the mentally ill and criminals will reduce crime and thereby reduce the public's demand for guns for self-protection. The gun manufacturers saw gun sales plummet during the dark days of the Clinton administration when crime dropped sharply every year. The 42% drop in the murder rate from 1993 to 2000 was a nightmare for gun sellers. Nothing scares the NRA as much as a sense of calm and safety in the public".

    The NRA works HARD to get guns into the hands of criminals. If that isn't evil, I don't know what is. The NRA terrorist organization is one of the most evil organizations in the world.

    As for your request that I proffer some evidence... I already did. It's called precedent. The courts (for more than a hundred years according to the previously linked to article) established what the Founders meant. According to political scientist Robert J. Spitzer "from the time U.S. law review articles first began to be indexed in 1887 until 1960, all law review articles dealing with the Second Amendment endorsed the collective right model".

    Law professor Carl T. Bogus referred to the collective right interpertation of the 2nd amendment as "settled constitutional law" saying "the United States Supreme Court addressed the Amendment three times in 1876, 1886, and 1939 and on each occasion held that it granted the people a right to bear arms only within the militia" (source).

    And an article on the Brown Political Review website notes that "until the Roberts Court reexamined the issue of collective vs. individual gun rights in 2008, the most recent ruling on the matter was the 1939 case, United States v. Miller. Over seventy years ago, the Court unanimously ruled that if a particular type of weapon... does not clearly have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument'".

    Of course now precedent supports the individual rights model (I'll give you that). But this occurred AFTER the 100 years of the courts affirming the collective rights model... the original interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yawn. I appreciate the work you spent quoting the articles, but all you've done is reiterate what we already agree on...that the courts throughout our history, have ruled in differing ways on the RKBA. You keep trying to tie your premise back to original intent, but have not once proffered any evidence in the writings of the framers, contrary to the 2nd Amendment being an individual right, and not restricted to that of the militia.

      There reams of documents from both the founding era and that of the previous common law that was referenced by the Founders....that give complete weight to the 2nd being exactly what it is, an individual right. Just as is the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th.....you get the idea.

      Had your premise been true, the Amendment would have omitted any reference to the People. I would also recommend a bit more study on the uses of justification clauses in the colonial State Constitutions, and how they also provide the guarantee of an individual right not restricted to the collective. Eugene Volokh has written some impressive educational pieces on this subject.

      I'm not terribly interested in your specious conspiracy theories on the NRA; I'm not a member and they are so transparent as to not really warrant serious consideration. It's a well-woven meme that your camp will not let out of it's clutches....so the rest of us will simply continue to chuckle and shake our heads.

      Delete
    2. According to the University of Hawaii's, R.J. Rummel (a political science professor and researcher), a grand total of 262 MILLION citizens have been slaughtered at the hands of their own governments over the past 113 years (more than 6 times the number that have been killed in wars). He refers to this phenomenon as democide and I would hazard a guess here that this is a number that the "evil" NRA could only dream about.

      Delete
    3. Correct, Will. The problem is not too little government. It's too much government.

      Delete
  19. Dervish, that was brilliant. I hope CI is paying attention.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.