A Gun control solution - perhaps

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Quack, Mar 7, 2018.

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    The amendment forbids the CDC from advocating or promoting gun control.
    Does the CDC advocate for eradicating shoe lace related injuries?
    (are they controlled by the shoe lace lobby?)
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    One mystery is what happens to you when it comes to guns, even setting aside the bit about stalkers. Since Stockton, at least, there has been an element of futility about all this in the American discourse. Why amend with the Constitution? People are pissed off about Heller. People are pissed off about hearing how the Second is some sacred cow and stumbling block. People are pissed off at always hearing the explanation being the botchery of our Second Amendment. Given your penchant for liberalized populism in recent years, and regardless or our disagreements thereunto, it is, indeed, a striking proposition that these elements are some manner of "mystery".

    Screwing around with the Constitution? Alright, the Second Amendment is no longer an appropriate invocation about firearm safety.

    And when the next regulation is refused because of the Second Amendment, we'll look around at the people who say stupid things like—

    Hence the mystery: why are so many people obsessed with screwing around with the Constitution? Why the attacks on the 2nd Amendment? They threaten, to no purpose.

    —and wonder where they've been the last twenty-nine years. Oh, right. They''re not really so puzzled; they're just showing their true colors while pitching NRA propaganda.

    Seriously, like Sculptor's↑ post, I doubt the pretense that either of you really are so ignorant.

    Sculptor playing the doctrinaire conservative is hardly a new phenomenon. Neither, I suppose, is your routine, but, seriously, if you're going to pretend some "mystery", then you're either fucking with people or too ignorant to be taken seriously.

    Honestly, Iceaura, this is one of a couple issues where you just switch into automatic mode and start shoveling out the unbelievable.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    It forbids the CDC from studying gun violence, such as looking at the cause of gun violence, as the results of those studies could indicate that guns are a major factor. The reason behind the Amendment is quite clear, as is it's history. I mean, we can dick around some more with:

    No, really, what the hell is this?

    This would have to be one of the most stupid strawman's I have ever seen on this site.

    That is if you want to continue to make a fool of yourself at the altar of the 2nd Amendment.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The Dickey Amendment has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. If the 2nd Amendment were to vanish tomorrow, the Dickey Amendment would remain unaffected.
    Not explicitly. That is an obvious inference, a power play driven home by a carefully calculated budget cut directed at the CDC when it was passed, but not in the language.
    With a different Congress, different hands on the budget, the Dickey Amendment would have little effect on research at the CDC or anywhere else.
    Keep threatening, keep losing.
    Many reasonable people - not just gun rights focused - will mistrust anyone who wants to change the Constitution on such pretexts.
    So they attack the propaganda by incorporating its suicidal presumptions, the silliest of its idiocy and illogical ravings, into their own policy? They believe their own bullshit, and ask for the power to amend the Constitution and expand the authoritative State on its behalf?

    Many reasonable people will mistrust those who behave like that.

    Because the people who want gun control - the vast majority who favor every reasonable proposal on the table - are politically divided and opposed to each other. It's a "bothsides" problem - possibly the only actual, existing, bothsides problem in the American political arena.
    Both examples of you believing your own hallucinations, confused by your own rhetoric.
    And illustrating why the behavior of your "side" is seen as a threat. You guys are not in the right, you are in the wrong, on a half dozen aspects of gun control. You have bought into irrational and deluded premises, from which any number of bad realities can spring. And you want power, power you think you can control, that you appear to think will obey your good intentions and unwritten rules. That's a threat.
    "Is refused because of"? The passive voice and vague allegations of the bullshitter.

    Name the first. Name the first reasonable and sound gun control regulation that actually and necessarily ran foul of the 2nd Amendment. Not via NRA agitprop - they're raving extremists in the service of amoral power, nuttier than a fruitcake, remember? - but in the sober assessment of people making sense.
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2018
  8. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."
    and then
    a spokeswoman for the agency, Courtney Lenard, told the Washington Post that "It is possible for us to conduct firearm-related research ...".

    Ok ---research yes-------just be careful how you phrase your results such that you do not "advocate or promote gun control."

    Which does not preclude braying jackasses from claiming that the amendment says or does something else.
    And, if you listen to them, and repeat their nonsense, you are being played for a fool.
    I would hazard the guess that you do not now, nor never have owned a firearm?
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Nope. The GOP made it VERY clear that they are not to conduct any research. To make sure no one at the CDC missed this, they cut the CDC's budget by the exact amount the CDC was proposing to spend on firearm related research.

    Hopefully the recent budget change will help reverse this prohibition.
    Aye. The question is - will you continue to let yourself be played for a fool?
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Of course.
    But none of that was written into the law itself, explicitly. Sculptor is correct - if the CDC officials were not (legitimately) wary of the Republican Congress and White House vindictiveness, nothing in the Dickey Amendment itself would have affected their research in the least.
    And that informs this:
    The prohibition is via the will of the Republican Congress and Executive, not the Amendment per se. That is what needs to be changed. The new budget will not help if the CDC still fears the Congress and Executive.

    Meanwhile: the argument that Federal gun restrictions are justified by public health benefits is dangerous and needs careful formulating - it would be some reassurance to many if the louder advocates of gun control appeared more aware of that.
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Agreed. I was disagreeing with this - "It is possible for us to conduct firearm-related research ..." It was not; it was made clear that any such research would be cut from the CDC budget.
  12. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    That quote was from a CDC spokeswoman, Courtney Lenard.(as clearly stated)
    If you have an issue with that, then your issue is with her.

    good luck with that
    meanwhile redirecting the funds to study brain injuries has led to studies into problems with professional football players with repeated concussions-----------much like boxers(punch drunk)
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2018
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The funds were cut. They were not available to be redirected.
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    "Congress earmarked $2.6 million from the CDC's budget, the exact amount that had previously been allocated to the agency for firearms research the previous year, for traumatic brain injury-related research."
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That is Congress, not the CDC, allocating new money, not redirecting previously allocated money.
  16. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    However, being as it was "the exact amount that had previously been allocated to the agency for firearms research the previous year,..."
    "redirecting" seemed an obvious conclusion.
    Perhaps, not?
  17. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    As re the bill of rights:
    George Mason was a boyhood hero.

    In Europe at that time, with the rise of nationalism, the religion of the king/ruler was de facto the religion of the citizenry.
    We have constitutionally guaranteed freedoms because of people like George Mason who would not tolerate the tendency to tyranny of the federalist-------------god bless him.
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    We are presently awaiting promulgation of SB 6298; Governor Inslee slated the domestic and intimate violence firearms safety bill for signing this afternoon, among many others as the clock ticks on the stack left by the legislature, which declared Sine Die on 8 March.

    Thank you, Senator Dhingra.

    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  19. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    does taking it back to 1993 not constitute ex postfacto?
  20. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    9/11 is the only exterior terrorist attack on the usa soverign ground ?
    all others including mass shootings have been usa domestic terrorism ?

    maybe the NRA have paid for studys and found out that the biggest threat to the USA way of life is their own people ?
    maybe that data is soo scary they do not wish to publish it.
  21. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    out of curiosity...
    i wonder how many documented times the police have where they have stopped a person & found them carrying a gun legally while that person has a conviction for sexual assault or domestic violence or corruption of a minor ?
    i doubt the current administration want to spend the money on loading that data into the system.
    it would make interesting reading.
    my guess is that most people who commit gun crime whom also have convictions for sexual assault or domestic violence(including violent crimes against children) probably do not comit crimes with legally obtained firearms to an extent that would deem the tens of millions spent on making a new law and then underfunding resulting in it not being policed...
    very useles and a big fat lie to pretend to be doing something.

    any port in a storm i guess
    however.. surely the issue is not soo much in illegality of guns but more soo reducing the amount of guns in circulation in the reach of members of the public.

    ... playing with millions of dollars of public money to deny it being used to save the lifes of children in hospital...
    to pay rich fat politicians to sit around and play narsiccist
    does not reduce the access to guns.
    simply by reducing the total number of guns accessable to the public will reduce the ability of gun crime.
    it is smple math.
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2018
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Which you were unwary enough to draw.
    The propaganda involved is of the highest quality.
    The bill: http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/Senate Passed Legislature/6298.PL.pd
    That provision will land in court, prediction. It seems unlikely it will survive, or be cheap to defend, for obvious reasons, even with the provision for reinstatement after 3 or 5 years of good behavior subsequent to conviction available - odd inclusion, altogether.
  23. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Why, specifically, would it constitute ex post facto?

Share This Page