Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama takes a shot at guns
Washington Times ^ | October 22, 2009 | Editorial

Posted on 10/21/2009 9:45:31 PM PDT by JohnRLott

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. . . . .

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: agenda; banglist; bho44; bhobanglist; cdc; democrats; guncontrol; guns; obama; rtkba; shallnotbeinfringed; washingtontimes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

1 posted on 10/21/2009 9:45:31 PM PDT by JohnRLott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnRLott

First open gun grab will be the 2nd shot heard around the world.

Obozo had better beware. Actions have consequences.

And probably not the consequences he may think about.


2 posted on 10/21/2009 9:52:06 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnRLott

Read later.


3 posted on 10/21/2009 9:54:14 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnRLott; neverdem

I guess this answers that article about gunowners thinking this admin might take a shot at guns


4 posted on 10/21/2009 9:54:20 PM PDT by GeronL (http://tyrannysentinel.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnRLott

John R Lott

That names sounds vaguely familiar =o)


5 posted on 10/21/2009 9:54:56 PM PDT by GeronL (http://tyrannysentinel.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

someone once said it take alot to get us mad but once mad we have a temper that takes action just ask Japan and Nazi Germany.


6 posted on 10/21/2009 9:56:09 PM PDT by guitarplayer1953 (Romak 7.62X54MM, AK47 7.62X39MM, LARGO 9X23MM, HAPINESS IS A WARM GUN BANG BANG YEA YEA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnRLott
BLOAT!!
7 posted on 10/21/2009 9:57:06 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2 million for Sarah Palin if she runs; What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnRLott

did you see this great article?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2368066/posts


8 posted on 10/21/2009 9:57:12 PM PDT by GeronL (http://tyrannysentinel.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

Will the CDC do a study on the health hazards of gun confiscation?


9 posted on 10/21/2009 9:58:02 PM PDT by TigersEye (Imagine the uproar when people imagine what Rush says?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnRLott
"Gun-control advocates claim that banning the CDC from examining gun control amounts to a gag order on science.

They would be the same poltroons who put a gag order on anyone who disputes their claim that climate change is man made.

10 posted on 10/21/2009 10:00:56 PM PDT by blackbart.223 (I live in Northern Nevada. Reid doesn't represent me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

That study might give them some interesting results.


11 posted on 10/21/2009 10:03:16 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JohnRLott; GODAWGS47; japaneseghost; Stentor; Marty; Fractal Trader; metmom; John Valentine; ...

To the Rethinking AIDS/Rethinking Public Health Ping List.

This was an interview on the CDC and the phony “War on AIDS” that veered into the CDC and gun control. See my profile page for more:

RETHINKING: There is so much more of this on the tapes and in your book. But you told me recently that the CDC is trying to define violence and gun-related crimes as clusters of epidemic disease.

ELLISON: That’s right. Violence of course they are not calling an infectious disease, but they are trying to treat it as a disease with perhaps some kind of environmental cause. They think they can cure violence by two measures primarily. One is gun control; they think if you get rid of the guns, then the gangs of course will stop purchasing their automatic weapons through the underground. And second, that if you fund the gangs and their organizations, their front groups, that are creating riots and violence, that you will then induce them to become peaceful.

RETHINKING: Where did you get that from?

ELLISON: This is from articles published by CDC officers themselves, who are not outlining their strategy for, quote, “how to stop the epidemic of violence.” They believe that because it’s an epidemic or disease that it shouldn’t be punished. You shouldn’t fill up the jails with these people, or death row. Rather you should give them money and take everyone else’s guns.

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/raellison.htm


12 posted on 10/21/2009 10:04:13 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnRLott; shibumi

“they’re researching alcohol sales and their impact on gun violence”

I’ve always said that the BATF was in charge of a weird combination of items.

First it was demonizing guns, then tobacco and now alcohol.

Will the limo libs rise up in rage when their Dom Perignon is taken from their cold, drunk hands?


13 posted on 10/21/2009 10:05:14 PM PDT by Salamander ("Welcome to my nightmare.....I think you're gonna like it")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnRLott

They’ll have reached their conclusions before their “research” and make the data support their “findings”.


14 posted on 10/21/2009 10:07:31 PM PDT by word_warrior_bob (You can now see my amazing doggie and new puppy on my homepage!! Come say hello to Jake & Sonny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Roger Dat!!!...


15 posted on 10/21/2009 10:13:09 PM PDT by 1COUNTER-MORTER-68 (THROWING ANOTHER BULLET-RIDDLED TV IN THE PILE OUT BACK~~~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Salamander
"Will the limo libs rise up in rage when their Dom Perignon is taken from their cold, drunk hands?"

As long as they have enough suckers on the hook they don't belive they will lose any of that.

16 posted on 10/21/2009 10:13:54 PM PDT by blackbart.223 (I live in Northern Nevada. Reid doesn't represent me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

I predict that they would find high mortality rates. Few survivors.


17 posted on 10/21/2009 10:15:05 PM PDT by TigersEye (Imagine the uproar when people imagine what Rush says?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All

PS May I suggest reading the entire link to see how the CDC secretly funds radical front groups and manufactures phony epidemics, such as the “epidemic of violence.”

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/raellison.htm

Again, see my profile page for more. See especially, the Hidden Agenda Behind HIV.


18 posted on 10/21/2009 10:17:14 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

The fact that the CDC believes that puts me at a loss for words.


19 posted on 10/21/2009 10:20:48 PM PDT by DHSMostWanted (I want my country back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
And second, that if you fund the gangs and their organizations, their front groups, that are creating riots and violence, that you will then induce them to become peaceful.

That is so far beyond 'stupid' it is really hard to quantify.

20 posted on 10/21/2009 10:28:20 PM PDT by TigersEye (Imagine the uproar when people imagine what Rush says?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JohnRLott

You are the Disease, I am the Cure.


21 posted on 10/21/2009 10:29:58 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Not just stupid, but subversive...the CDC has become a subversive organization.


22 posted on 10/21/2009 10:34:46 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JohnRLott

Obamao’s arrogance is going to get the best of him when he goes after our guns. You know he wants to, but he and the radical left know it isn’t politically feasible right now.


23 posted on 10/21/2009 10:38:49 PM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953

We have woken a sleeping giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve.

Yamamoto


24 posted on 10/21/2009 10:42:31 PM PDT by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be RE-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Yes, you are right. Just that one thought alone is horribly subversive. What better way to proliferate gangs and riots than to pay them to exist?


25 posted on 10/21/2009 10:46:43 PM PDT by TigersEye (Imagine the uproar when people imagine what Rush says?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JohnRLott; stephenjohnbanker; M. Espinola
'Taking a shot at guns is no big deal. Obama is all wise and powerful. He has unprecedented insight. All bow down to Zero in Chief:

Obama Plans to Negotiate With Raging Wildfire !

26 posted on 10/21/2009 11:07:28 PM PDT by ex-Texan (Ecclesiastes 5:10 - 20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnRLott

He’ll try to ban gun ownership via universal government healthcare.

Eventually you’ll need psych exams to even possibly get one.

They will start banning them based on risks to your health. Lead, potential accidental injury, injuring others, etc.

At the same time making the world safer for criminals and government thugs.


27 posted on 10/21/2009 11:13:08 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
Did you notice how 0ba-Mao tied the health care industry to free speech today? They said that Humana couldn't lobby anymore because a lot of their accounts are through Medicare. You see if you have a government contract the law says you can't lobby.

Now imagine the entire health care industry run by the government and no one within it can lobby for their interests or their clients interests. Neat way to gag businesses that account for 1/16th of our GDP and caters to the needs of almost all Americans.

28 posted on 10/21/2009 11:25:46 PM PDT by TigersEye (Imagine the uproar when people imagine what Rush says?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

They used to call it “Danegeld.”

And whatever they reward, they get more of. But simple cause and effect are apparently beyond these over-educated prigs.


29 posted on 10/21/2009 11:50:13 PM PDT by coydog (Time to feed the pigs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; JohnRLott
I guess this answers that article about gunowners thinking this admin might take a shot at guns

It's not unlike giving grants to their base of global warmists. Passing laws is another matter.

Mr. Lott, are you missing a byline?

30 posted on 10/21/2009 11:51:45 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JohnRLott

bttt


31 posted on 10/22/2009 1:40:13 AM PDT by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnRLott

THREAD BUMP.


32 posted on 10/22/2009 2:58:35 AM PDT by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
You are the Disease, I am the Cure.

I have the "black gun disease"!

33 posted on 10/22/2009 3:03:57 AM PDT by sausageseller (http://coolblue.typepad.com/the_cool_blue_blog/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JohnRLott

seems like they ought to have better things to do with their time and my money.


34 posted on 10/22/2009 3:04:44 AM PDT by RC one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pallis
Obamao’s arrogance is going to get the best of him when he goes after our guns. You know he wants to, but he and the radical left know it isn’t politically feasible right now.

I've posted it before, and here I go again:

Obama is a Lincoln admirer, and I think he wants to go after conservatives the way Lincoln went after the South: provoke, provoke, provoke -- kerblooey! And then declare insurrection with Congress in recess, and put the Army on foot in a civil war of his own devising.

A recent bio of John Quincy Adams suggests that it may have been Adams who thought up the idea of civil war as a way around the Constitution. He, like Lincoln after him, recognized the Gordian knot of achieving Northern industrial and political aims at the expense of the South constitutionally: there was, as Lincoln said in a letter in 1855, just no way to overcome and reorganize the South constitutionally. So the answer was to create extraordinary circumstances that would allow a president of the right disposition to solve all outstanding issues between the North and South once and for all, by use of the war power, to "suppress insurrection".

Remember, Adams was in the House of Representatives until his death in the 1840's .... long enough to meet the young Lincoln. So that may be how the Civil War started, with an idea passed from a grand old man and ex-president to a younger politician with the intellect and character to make the idea real.

So my warning is, Obama will seek an insurrection at some point, in order to be able to command the Army to kill vast numbers of conservatives and disarm and disenfranchise the survivors, as the survivors of the Confederacy were disenfranchised.

35 posted on 10/22/2009 3:11:49 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; wku man; SLB; ..
Same sh!t, different decade...

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

36 posted on 10/22/2009 4:36:27 AM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
Same sh!t, different decade...

Would that we were a nation filled with Noah Websters:
"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

- Noah Webster An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

37 posted on 10/22/2009 5:01:02 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

Except that it won’t work this time around. All the industrial power and all the firearms are in the South/conservative camp this time. And I don’t think he’s smart enough to realize this.


38 posted on 10/22/2009 5:01:35 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JohnRLott
There will soon be nothing left to defend Americans
from Team Obama as they “cracks heads” (ordered by PBS Lehrer),
murder, and eat, Americans protesting Obama’s DNC-led Kenyan coup d’etat.
39 posted on 10/22/2009 5:06:52 AM PDT by Diogenesis ("Those who go below the surface do so at their peril" - Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnRLott
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.

From 2003:

"What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States.” --J. Effing Kerry

Kerry is exactly right. The closest thing there has been to a dictatorial regime in Washington D.C. was started by FDR. It has continued, with minor squiggles in the other direction, during the Reagan and now GWB administrations. The fad of the 30's for state-directed planning and control with its unchecked propensity for abuse of Constitutional rights has continued unabated.

We do need a regime change. We need a re-Constitutionalization of the federal government. It needs to be stripped of all extra-Constitutional, acronymized government agencies. It needs to be headed by people who will tell "constituents":
"Hey, there's something you don't like? Something you want? Something you want others to be forced to do? Something you want others to be forced not to do? Get your state to do it or do it yourselves under the laws of your state. Your life will be what you make of it, not what you try to get us to make of it with the money from the guy down the block.

"You're a governor and want the people of your state to have more welfare benefits? Then tax the citizens and businesses of your own state to pay for it and enjoy the consequences of having welfare hopefuls stream into your state and businesses and productive individuals stream out.

"You're a mayor of a big city and your state government won't give you all the money you want? Then figure out a way to deal with it yourself. Levy an income tax on the residents of the city and watch what happens as a result of your own actions. We won't be there to bail you out. It's live and let die. You've got to politically reap what you politically sow.

"You want to save 20,000 acres you say are home to some endangered toad? Then get off your butts and start collecting the money to buy and maintain the land to promote maximum toad health. Don't expect someone else to do it for you because you bitch loudly enough in the courts about it.

" You want everybody in the entire nation to have health insurance? Then get off your butts and start donating your own money to buy it for them or start raising money by convincing others through moral suasion that they should give. Don't expect someone else to do it for you because you think you can use the power of the federal government to coerce other people into paying for what you think is a good idea. Maybe it is a good idea. But if you can't convince everyone to do it, then do what you can with your own resources. You don't have any right to pay for your good deeds by spoliating the money and property of others. Might doesn't make right and thinking you're right doesn't mean you can dip into the pockets of others to pay for your brilliant ideas.

"As federal officials, we have our work very narrowly and very clearly defined in the Constitution and we're going to stick to that. Anything else is your own lookout."

40 posted on 10/22/2009 5:24:11 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

Something on this subject was mentioned on another thread.
The poster tied it into the MANDATORY OBAMACARE.

Do you smoke?? Your Obamacare premiums are AUTOMATICALLY HIGHER due to the increased chances of becoming sick.

Overweight?? Higher premiums await you under Obamacare due to the increased risk of health related issues such as diabetes and heart disease.

Here’s the kicker!!

After this “study”.....

Own a FIREARM?? Your premiums will be HIGHER due to your chances of becoming killed or injured due to you owning a firearm vs someone who does not.

This study will PROVE IT, and the gun grabbers will run with it, just like the fines under “cap and tax” that are coming with “excess use” of energy, you (AND YOUR FAMILY) as a “gun owner” will be an “increased health risk” and have higher “health premiums” that THEY will determine.

IMHO, it’s gonna be in the “fine print”.

One way to REALLY get it rolling,(divide and conquer) is to charge your “non-gun owning” neighbors a higher premium because they live next to a “gun owner” and are therefore more likely to become a “victim” in this “study” also........

It should be “interesting”.


41 posted on 10/22/2009 5:24:27 AM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: word_warrior_bob

Statistical support will be wrenched out of their studies the same as any group’s agenda will render statistical support to “prove” their point of view as truth, even to the point that opposing viewpoints will be supported by the same research. It’s just a matter of crunching the numbers into “facts”. I’m sure many people are paid well to distort...err...discover that groups with agendas were right all along.


42 posted on 10/22/2009 5:47:36 AM PDT by Blue Collar Christian (><BCC>NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: musicman

This is the WHOLE POINT behind getting control of the medical care system -

to be able to punish behavior which the left doesn’t approve of.


43 posted on 10/22/2009 5:51:08 AM PDT by MrB (The only difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

minor correction, health care is about 1/6 of our GDP. Frregards.


44 posted on 10/22/2009 5:53:02 AM PDT by printhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

Very interesting hypothesis. I have seen pieces of this bounced around before. But not all together. You have prompted me to do some research.


45 posted on 10/22/2009 6:08:53 AM PDT by Ghengis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower; JohnRLott
FMCDH, and Hubby's too.


46 posted on 10/22/2009 6:11:02 AM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Will the CDC do a study on the health hazards of infected Gays with the HIV virus ??


47 posted on 10/22/2009 6:34:59 AM PDT by American Constitutionalist (There is no civility in the way the Communist/Marxist want to destroy the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: musicman
"...Own a FIREARM?? Your premiums will be HIGHER ..."

Well, the thing is I lost all my guns in a tragic boating/biplane accident. I hear those are rife nowadays.

48 posted on 10/22/2009 6:37:06 AM PDT by I Buried My Guns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: JohnRLott
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...

Oh. You mean like gang-bangers and criminals?

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

No surprises here.

49 posted on 10/22/2009 6:41:13 AM PDT by Gritty (One chief guarantee of freedom is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms - Hubert H. Humphrey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

Where he going to get the army? Our army is dominated by conservative leaning people, they won’t do it. Getting 5 million libs to volunteer might be possible, but getting them to carry guns and kill people? I don’t think so.
I really think we, FR, need to focus on the MSM. Force them back to the middle, demand un-biased reporting. That would insure these communists are rendered ineffective in 2010.


50 posted on 10/22/2009 6:46:29 AM PDT by east1234 (It's the borders stupid! My new environmentalist inspired tagline: cut, kill, dig and drill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson