Anyone go for a Physical lately, and get asked to take "the survey". Gun Control

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, I wondered how good ole RX would handle the article. Seems it debunked his entire stand yet he is now denying what he "meant".
Yeah, I figured as much from him.
What do you mean? This is what I said back in post 105:
Sure, they may push anti-gun policies with the full force of their influence, as long as it doesn't detract from their influence over things related to doctors wages.

How much force is that? What other social issues has the AMA successfully lobbied into law? Right now the AMA's primary focus is on Type 2 Diabetes, Heart Disease and the Opiod Epidemic. All of which US doctors helped cause.

Be angry all you want, but the AMA is not a generally powerful organization outside of medicine. They aren't any more able to stop gun ownership than the Boy Scouts are able to stop homosexuality.
And back in #39
I don't know if it is such a good idea that gun owners tend to try and conceal that fact. There is a big difference between the kinds of policies gun owners can expect when they are thought to be 20% of the population vs. 60%.

I have maintained over and over that it doesn't matter if the AMA or CDC is biased, because the most effective weapon against the creation of negative studies is the truth about who gun owners are, and how common we are.

The arguments against that view range from your "registry" theory to more people repeating what I already agreed with - that the AMA is not on our side. But those aren't arguments against my point or suggestions of what actions would be better.
 
I have maintained over and over that it doesn't matter if the AMA or CDC is biased, because the most effective weapon against the creation of negative studies is the truth about who gun owners are, and how common we are.
Yes, and as we all know, the "Affordable"(sic) Care Act mandated that everyone purchase a firearm and be subjected to the NRA's "propaganda" at a gun store or firing range...
 
Yes, and as we all know, the "Affordable"(sic) Care Act mandated that everyone purchase a firearm and be subjected to the NRA's "propaganda" at a gun store or firing range...
This is the kind of post that gets you ignored.
 
This is the kind of post that gets you ignored.
Actually, it's the kind of post that gets you arguing with yourself.

The simple fact is that the AMA is pushing its anti-gun propaganda to a CAPTIVE audience of MILLIONS. Something which neither the NRA nor GOA have either the resources or the forcible intervention of the state to accomplish.

But once again, to believe that they'd do anything untoward with any information they collect, you'd have to believe that the IRS would illegally persecute individuals and groups for their political beliefs...
 
There are no adult Americans that are captives, unable to think for themselves.
Have you told that to Bernie Madoff? He's a [subsequent to due process] captive?

Have you told that to the members of any number of cults, like the Westboro Baptist "Church", Heaven's Gate and MOVE?

Yet again, you argue [impotently] against observed reality by denying that MILLIONS of "adult Americans" know nothing more about firearms, self-defense and related law than what they saw the night before on "Law & Order", AND that they trust whatever their doctor tells them, even about subjects ENTIRELY outside of their area of competence. But I'm SURE there's NO opportunity for mischief there, no sirree...

You keep making vast, insupportable generalizations and people keep calling you on it. Then when you deny saying what you clearly said, people call you on THAT. Makes you mad, doesn't it?
 
I don't think that American's are nothing more than robots programmed by propaganda. I feel sorry for you if that's what you think this country is.
 
"If the CDC can convince the American people through science to stop shooting each other...."
The medical activists like Christoffel and O'Carroll were not working to stop people from shooting each other, but advocating to "get rid of the guns" because "guns are a virus" and "owning firearms cases deaths".
Activists like David M. Kennedy, the director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, work on policies designed to stop people from killing each other and focus on violence, not just gun violence or even guns, but on high-risk people and places as determined by 20 years of Justice Dept. research.
We must target actors with motive to do violence, and deny them opportunity to do violence. Targeting means is just symbolic voodoo criminology, since most people who own guns or "easy-open" knives, etc. are not violent people.
Blind faith in medical saviors? Remember the Virginia Racial Integrity Act and the Tuskegee Syphilis Project? I am skeptical.
 
Here are the full texts of CDC AR12 and AR13. What is barred is not data gathering, empirical research, scientific method. What is barred is AR12 lobbying of any sort and AR13 lobbying for gun control in case the message in AR12 did not sink in.
Additional Requirement - 12: Lobbying Restrictions (June 2012)
Applicants should be aware that award recipients are prohibited from using CDC/HHS funds to engage in any lobbying activity. Specifically, no part of the federal award shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant recipient, sub-recipient, or agent acting for such recipient or sub-recipient, related to any activity designed to influence the enactment of legislation, appropriations, regulation, administrative action, or Executive order proposed or pending before the Congress or any state government, state legislature or local legislature or legislative body.
Restrictions on lobbying activities described above also specifically apply to lobbying related to any proposed, pending, or future Federal, state, or local tax increase, or any proposed, pending, or future requirement or restriction on any legal consumer product, including its sale or marketing, including but not limited to the advocacy or promotion of gun control.
This prohibition includes grass roots lobbying efforts by award recipients that are directed at inducing members of the public to contact their elected representatives to urge support of, or opposition to, proposed or pending legislation, appropriations, regulations, administrative actions, or Executive Orders (hereinafter referred to collectively as “legislation and other orders”). Further prohibited grass roots lobbying communications by award recipients using federal funds could also encompass any effort to influence legislation through an attempt to affect the opinions of the general public or any segment of the population if the communications refer to specific legislation and/or other orders, directly express a view on such legislation or other orders, and encourage the audience to take action with respect to the matter.
In accordance with applicable law, direct lobbying communications by award recipients are also prohibited. Direct lobbying includes any attempt to influence legislative or other similar deliberations at all levels of government through communications that directly express a view on proposed or pending legislation and other orders and which are directed to members, staff, or other employees of a legislative body or to government officials or employees who participate in the formulation of legislation or other orders.
Lobbying prohibitions also extend to include CDC/HHS grants and cooperative agreements that, in whole or in part, involve conferences. Federal funds cannot be used directly or indirectly to encourage participants in such conferences to impermissibly lobby.
However, these prohibitions are not intended to prohibit all interaction with the legislative or executive branches of governments, or to prohibit educational efforts pertaining to public health that are within the scope of the CDC award. For state, local, and other governmental grantees, certain activities falling within the normal and recognized executive-legislative relationships or participation by an agency or officer of a state, local, or tribal government in policymaking and administrative processes within the executive branch of that government are permissible. There are circumstances for such grantees, in the course of such a normal and recognized executive-legislative relationship, when it is permissible to provide information to the legislative branch in order to foster implementation of prevention strategies to promote public health. However, such communications cannot directly urge the decision makers to act with respect to specific legislation or expressly solicit members of the public to contact the decision makers to urge such action.
Many non-profit grantees, in order to retain their tax-exempt status, have long operated under settled definitions of “lobbying” and “influencing legislation.” These definitions are a useful benchmark for all non-government grantees, regardless of tax status. Under these definitions, grantees are permitted to (1) prepare and disseminate certain nonpartisan analysis, study, or research reports; (2) engage in examinations and discussions of broad social, economic, and similar problems in reports and at conferences; and (3) provide technical advice or assistance upon a written request by a legislative body or committee.
Award recipients should also note that using CDC/HHS funds to develop and/or disseminate materials that exhibit all three of the following characteristics are prohibited: (1) refer to specific legislation or other order; (2) reflect a point of view on that legislation or other order; and (3) contain an overt call to action.
It remains permissible for CDC/HHS grantees to use CDC funds to engage in activities to enhance prevention; collect and analyze data; publish and disseminate results of research and surveillance data; implement prevention strategies; conduct community outreach services; foster coalition building and consensus on public health initiatives; provide leadership and training, and foster safe and healthful environments.
Note also that under the provisions of 31 U.S.C. Section 1352, recipients (and their sub-tier contractors and/or funded parties) are prohibited from using appropriated Federal funds to lobby in connection with the award, extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of the funding mechanism under which monetary assistance was received. In accordance with applicable regulations and law, certain covered entities must give assurances that they will not engage in prohibited activities.
CDC cautions recipients of CDC funds to be careful not to give the appearance that CDC funds are being used to carry out activities in a manner that is prohibited under Federal law. Recipients of CDC funds should give close attention to isolating and separating the appropriate use of CDC funds from non-CDC funds.
Use of federal funds inconsistent with these lobbying restrictions could result in disallowance of the cost of the activity or action found not to be in compliance as well as potentially other enforcement actions as outlined in applicable grants regulations.
------------------------------------------
Additional Requirement - 13: Prohibition on Use of CDC Funds for Certain Gun Control Activities
The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act specifies that: "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."
Anti-Lobbying Act requirements prohibit lobbying Congress with appropriated Federal monies. Specifically, this Act prohibits the use of Federal funds for direct or indirect communications intended or designed to influence a member of Congress with regard to specific Federal legislation. This prohibition includes the funding and assistance of public grassroots campaigns intended or designed to influence members of Congress with regard to specific legislation or appropriation by Congress.
In addition to the restrictions in the Anti-Lobbying Act, CDC interprets the language in the CDC's Appropriations Act to mean that CDC's funds may not be spent on political action or other activities designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.
 
Two points.
American Medical Association (AMA) is a professional association of physicians like the American Bar Association (ABA) is a professional association of attorneys.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is a U.S. Government public health agency, executive branch under the Department of Health and Human Services, much like the Department of Justice (DoJ) is a U.S. Government law enforcement department.
 
A few decades back the American Bar Association came under the control of a few large firms and elements that did not represent or speak for many, if not most, practicing attorneys. It projected the image that it did represent those interests, even though it became a shell of its former self as we fled. I suspect a similar process occurs with the AMA and many other national organizations. This mission creep also affects the CDC, as powerful interests attempt to control it to achieve desired results.

It does no good to rail against these developments. Just be aware of them and don't be taken in by them or their campaigns. And please don't burn bridges, as we need each other over the long haul.
 
Yeah. Flippant, glib, frivolous, tongue-in-cheek, ironic, joking, playful, mischieveous.

Obtuse isn't flippant or glib. Why you would choose to promote an anti-civil rights agenda on this forum is somewhat baffling but you do have your first amendment rights, including the right to use them in opposition to our second amendment rights. I will reiterate however Senator Moynihan's very apt phrase that applies to you: "You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts". Your positions are as untenable as they are bizarre. You are obsfuscatory and deflective. That doesn't make you clever or ironic.
 
Obtuse isn't flippant or glib. Why you would choose to promote an anti-civil rights agenda on this forum is somewhat baffling but you do have your first amendment rights, including the right to use them in opposition to our second amendment rights. I will reiterate however Senator Moynihan's very apt phrase that applies to you: "You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts". Your positions are as untenable as they are bizarre. You are obsfuscatory and deflective. That doesn't make you clever or ironic.
The only part that was facetious was the "convince Americans to stop shooting each other part", which was a jab at doctors or any other group trying to change people's most destructive failings by giving them calm advice.

As for the rest of it, what is it you think that I have promoted by pointing out that those gathering statistics aren't going to stop gathering them just because gun owners lie or refuse to answer? What positive outcome do you expect when "trusted" sources from the scientific establishment report to the government that no one they can find owns a gun?

You seem to be confusing participation in a survey that affects gun owners with approval of that survey. But a survey is no different than voting. Did you vote this November?

I don't think you actually know what you're objecting to, you just know that you object.
 
Last edited:
Another thread becomes more about arguing over one member than debating a point. There are some good points in here on both sides. Some presented well, and some not so clearly. It would be a great exercise if each party would go back to page one and start reading and see if they can figure out the first point where somebody ignored a simple fact or opinion in order to argue a more extreme position, attributed motive where there was none, or couldn't see past the heat in someone's reflexive responses to recognize that their point was valid.

As somebody else said, this is a textbook study in how NOT to have a conversation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top