ANY mandated behavior with a gun means registration...CDC now doing gun research


PDA






abajaj11
February 7, 2013, 12:14 AM
Thinking they will likely lose the current offensive to disarm America, the anti 2As, along with the anti in chief, are now trying a different tactic.

First, we need to think through how any kind of mandated behaviour with a firearm will lead to firearm registration. For example, if Congress mandates that guns must be stored a certain way....well the only way to monitor if that law is being followed is for the feds to know who owns what.....

Another example, if Congress makes it a crime for failure to report if a gun has been stolen, then again, the only way to monitor that people are reporting is to know who owned that gun in the first place! See: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=701657

In general, any kind of mandated behaviour with a firearms will require registration so the feds can monitor if the behaviour is being done or not.

Until the recent past, the center for disease control (CDC) was banned from doing any gun control related research, because any money given to them by Congress explicitly had this string attached to it: no gun control related research. This is because public money should not be used to fund politically motivated research.

Our anti 2Aer in chief has now decided to direct the CDC to do research related to gun violence... offering the argument that he is not asking them to do gun control related research, but to seek ways to reduce gun violence.
see: http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16532333-obama-plan-eases-freeze-on-cdc-gun-violence-research?lite

The left is offering the argument that this is much like how "cars have become safer "or "pools have become safer" .Of course pools and cars are not gauranteed by the second amendment, and have not been the target of seizures historically after being registered. Gun-owners have been the target eventually, in all cases of registration.

The left is bad mouthing the NRA and GOA for stopping CDC from doing "scientific research that can make us all safer". See: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html

Here is what I think they want. They want studies from established lefty researchers that show that certain gun related activities cause deaths. My guess is they will pick storage. Check this link out to see where this is headed:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/08/11/public-health-experts-reportedly-targeting-gun-violence-as-social-disease/

Their next step will be to push for Congress to pass mandated laws regarding this activity, for example, mandates on how guns should be stored.

This also explains why the lefty news media has been told to start talking about "gun safety" as opposed to "gun control".

I also think they are hoping these studies will come out over the next few years, and at some point, they will get a happy trinity like they had in 2008-2010, with a lefty POTUS, House and Senate.
At that point, they will pass a "common sense storage" law... which will lead to defacto registration, as described above.

This week when I call my senators and congressman, I am planning to discuss his issue with their aides.
We need to block all attempts to bypass Congress's blocks on CDC gun related research. If necessary, Congress should defund CDC till they comply. This is dangerous behaviour that needs to be nipped in the bud now.
:)

If you enjoyed reading about "ANY mandated behavior with a gun means registration...CDC now doing gun research" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
THE DRILL INSTRUCTOR
February 7, 2013, 12:51 AM
I am not an expert on the political leanings of the CDC, but if they are as impartial as they are supposed to be this could be a good thing.

Imagine a report coming out from the CDC in a few years detailing how high gun violence rates are directly related to regions where guns are highly restricted or unavailable legally. Or how regions with high firearms availability (Northern New England for example) have extremely low crime rates.

Such a report would be a true nail in the coffin for the anti-2a movement. Few would challenge the accuracy and legitimacy of a report from the CDC.

We all know that it's true already, the facts speak for themselves for those who simply listen. If we can get an accurate report, it would go far to convince or silence a great deal of the opposition.


However, I do agree on the principle of not wanting politically motivated research done with public funds. But at this point no one up there seems to care about that anymore, so we can only hope to get some benefit from it.

abajaj11
February 7, 2013, 01:30 AM
I am not an expert on the political leanings of the CDC, but if they are as impartial as they are supposed to be this could be a good thing.

Imagine a report coming out from the CDC in a few years detailing how high gun violence rates are directly related to regions where guns are highly restricted or unavailable legally. Or how regions with high firearms availability (Northern New England for example) have extremely low crime rates.

Such a report would be a true nail in the coffin for the anti-2a movement. Few would challenge the accuracy and legitimacy of a report from the CDC.

We all know that it's true already, the facts speak for themselves for those who simply listen. If we can get an accurate report, it would go far to convince or silence a great deal of the opposition.


However, I do agree on the principle of not wanting politically motivated research done with public funds. But at this point no one up there seems to care about that anymore, so we can only hope to get some benefit from it.
I hope you are right re: the impartiality of the research. I don't think the anti-2as would be pushing this if they thought the results would come out against their agenda.

Keep in mind, the medical system is soon going to be run by the government...
check these links out to see the potential direction of these "studies":

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/08/11/public-health-experts-reportedly-targeting-gun-violence-as-social-disease/

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-08-11/guns-public-health/56979706/1

:)

BP44
February 7, 2013, 02:15 AM
By golly, I think you fellas are onto something.

Surprise,surprise... The GOV will dictate what our motions will be. As hard as it is to say I am a federal employee and I can say everyone in my office/most of my work station would like tighter gun laws for civilians.:barf:

I'm most likely five years out from being a civilian and it doesn't sound good to me, you folks better fight or I will simply keep my position until I'm in a forced retire situation, then I'm one of the sheep.....:banghead: ...... Uhhhh I mean you.

AlexanderA
February 7, 2013, 10:22 AM
A "mandate" for something like safe storage of guns is, in reality, nothing more than a "suggestion." That, and it can be used to enhance the civil and criminal liabilities if the gun is misused due to a lack of safe storage. The same goes for "requirements" for liability insurance. These sorts of things can never be airtight, and the people proposing them know it. Coupling safe storage, etc., "mandates" with gun registration would only be relevant if you were designing an "airtight" system, which nobody is foolish enough to try to do.

ezkl2230
February 7, 2013, 11:30 AM
Obama is directing them to do it, but that still requires appropriations from congress. As long as congress continues to deny funding for gun research, they can't do it.

alsaqr
February 7, 2013, 11:42 AM
I am not an expert on the political leanings of the CDC, but if they are as impartial as they are supposed to be this could be a good thing.

CDC has an anti-gun mentality. Theres a reason the US congress went after the CDC for funding anti-gun "studies".

Why would Obama want to waste taxpayer money on this sort of tendentious, prejudice-confirming research? I bet you can figure that out—without a government grant.



http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/16/the-problem-with-the-public-health-resea

RFMan
February 7, 2013, 12:14 PM
Don't forget that, even though a study INDICATES a conclusion, it is unlikely than an agency such as the CDC will POINT OUT that conclusion, especially publicly. Not to mention the media.

Kim
February 7, 2013, 11:01 PM
The CDC did alot of anti-gun propaganda research under Clinton. Alot of the BS statistics you hear today are from BS social science garbage. That is why Congress defunded this in the past. It will be the same thing again.

niner4tango
February 8, 2013, 05:38 PM
Looks like the CDC jumped the gun on this. From a May 2011 report, the 1st 5 pages are gun violence research:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6018.pdf

Snipped editorial comments at the end of the article:
Proposed measures for directly reducing the risk for firearm homicide and firearm suicide have included behavior-oriented approaches such as education regarding the safe storage and handling of guns (6,7), strategies to change the design of firearms to make them safer (8), and legislative efforts to reduce the potential for firearm-related violence (e.g., licensing requirements and waiting periods to reduce the potential consequences of impulsive suicidal behavior)(9). However, most of these direct measures have not been evaluated adequately, making it difficult to know their effectiveness in reducing firearm-related deaths and injuries (10). Progress in preventing firearm violence will require further investigation of the effectiveness of such proposed measures,...

chemistpc5
February 8, 2013, 09:37 PM
an empty magazine in a gun locked up in a gun vault... very safe, useless for self defense right ?

If you enjoyed reading about "ANY mandated behavior with a gun means registration...CDC now doing gun research" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!