Gun Grabbers Opening Up a New Front - Firearms and 'Public Health'

[buckeye8]

Link to Aticle - Wayne LaPierre: Junk Science Drives Administration's Gun Policies

LaPierre's monthly NRA magazine article was very important. He described the most recent anti-gun executive orders signed by President Obama, including an order to (in violation of Federal law) begin the process of researching firearms ownership through the Centers of Disease Control (CDC).

As many have long predicted, the "public health" frontier is beginning to open up as the primary mode through which gun control policies will be pursued. I think Sandy Hook and its aftermath was the turning point at which the gun-grabbers have given up on the legislative path to gun control. They have 'pivoted', and have begun a new long game, which is to utilize the increasingly socialized health care system as the rhetorical, and eventually regulatory, path to gun control.

It all begins with "data" which supports the premise that firearms are a social "pathogen", much like tobacco, which on public health grounds must be regulated. From the article:

Under the heading, “Firearms-Related Violence as a Public Health Issue,” the report demands that “a public health approach should be incorporated into the strategies used to prevent future harm and injuries. Violence, including firearm related violence, has been shown to be contagious. Recognizing this, the academic community has suggested that research examine violence much like is done for contagious diseases.”

Clearly, the plan is to legitimize a body of anti-gun "research" and use that data as the basis for regulatory/legislative action. This is the same general path that the anti-tobacco campaign successfully followed decades ago.

This is serious, and it is imperative that we pay attention to the "research" that the CDC does and fight their lies and distortions from the onset.

Kudos to LaPierre for writing an important article. We have a tendency to focus a lot of energy on legislative battles that we are likely to win anyways. It looks like we're going to have to focus some energy on paying attention to what the CDC is up to as well.

 

[herrwalther]

The argument that firearms go against "public health" is not exactly new. Just another topic in their BS wheel about anything firearm related. Public health is right up their about "common sense" or "dead children" arguments. They are used to polarize those people on the fence to their side. The latest victory for anti-2A supporters using the Public Health mantra is banning lead ammunition for hunting in California so you can be sure they are going to try this trick again.

 

[Midwest]

New Jersey for years used the excuse "Public Health, Safety and Welfare" in order to restrict or ban something.

 

[P5 Guy]

IIRC, C. W. 'Bill' Young when he was the chair of the Finance Comity stopped the funding to the CDC for gun research.

 

[buckeye8]

The argument that firearms go against "public health" is not exactly new.

I said that. What is important is that they are taking tangible steps toward that end.

 

[Torian]

Good read! Stuff like this is why we've been conditioned over the years not to budge an inch on 2nd amendment issues. Motives just can't be trusted anymore...

 

[SuperNaut]

This is a classic tactic borne out of The Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School theories and tactics form one of the pillars of Communitarian social theories, social engineering, and central planning.

Discovering who in our government self-identify as Communitarians will be an eye opening bit of research. Recognizing the purveyors and the implementation of these tactics may change how you view our representatives in both parties, our 2A rights, as well as the rest of the remnants of our Bill of Rights.

 

[Lex Luthier]

The phrase "public health" will be the next buzz phrase. I heard a friend say it last week and knew right away he was parroting. Not to worry, this one will burn out and be replaced.

 

[bainter1212]

Well, if they can frame the debate as a "public health" issue, it may affect your wallet.

If the insurance industry decides that firearms ownership is a public health risk, you may see your health insurance premiums rise ( "pre-existing condition" ).

Homeowners insurance costs could rise. What about small business liability insurance?

There are all sorts of ways the private sector can punish you for perfectly legal activities.

Ever told your life insurance rep that you are a smoker?? You can almost feel your wallet get lighter.

 

[GAF]

I suppose the FDA will get to regulate guns ?

 

[GambJoe]

Guns are now being called "Americas Sickness" in progressive circles. Guns aside any type of self defense against someone trying to do bodily harm is now considered a mental illness to them. I'll be the first to admit sometimes it's hard for authorities to sort things out after the fact but since when being the mugged became a greater offence than being the mugger?

 

[SilentStalker]

This is just downright ludicrous. I am getting tired of fighting this crap. It seems like it is impossible to win this fight. As someone already mentioned there are all kinds of ways to punish you for doing a perfectly legit thing, so much so that b y the time they are done you won't want any part of the legal activity. This is their new strategy and over time it will work. These people are sick in the head. It has been proven that bad things can happen to someone even when guns are outlawed...i.e. the London attack on that poor soldier where they hacked him up with a meat cleaver in broad daylight and not one dang person did anything. I guess according to progressives this is perfectly fine behavior. The nonsense is getting old. Now what are we going to do about it. Most will do nothing. Its pretty evident that writing you congress critters or anything legislatively is not going to stop them as they don't seem to follow the rule of law. How do you combat that?

 

[buckeye8]

It seems like it is impossible to win this fight.

We've been winning it for a long time now. What you're having a hard time accepting is that the fight never ends.

I'd rather not have to pay attention to these things either, but that is not an option.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

 

[buckeye8]

Well, if they can frame the debate as a "public health" issue, it may affect your wallet.

If the insurance industry decides that firearms ownership is a public health risk, you may see your health insurance premiums rise ( "pre-existing condition" ).

Exactly right.

Step One: Establish the data through the CDC.

Step Two: PR campaign to convince people that firearms pose an increased health risk, based on the data from step one.

Step Three: Additional costs for the "privilege" of owning firearms. These will be in the form of higher premiums for gun owners (as opposed to the "sin tax" method used with cigarettes), but the purpose will be the same: to reduce the number of people who do it.

From there, god knows where it goes. Best to watch the CDC closely and not let Step One get off the ground.

 

[aka108]

We have 15 to 21 year old black "children" killing each other almost every week in Floridas Capital City. These are classified as children but most a gang bangers. Children they are not.

 

[W L Johnson]

It seems like it is impossible to win this fight.

That's because every time we win the argument they change the argument.

 

[22-rimfire]

I have not been to the ACA website, but I don't doubt that the honest information that you provide will be used against you. All they have to do is modify the questions. Lied? No coverage, perhaps a crime. Smoke? Chew tabacco? Own guns? Exercise regularly? How much do you weigh? Age? How tall are you? Essentially questions to develop a weight profile and firearms would be a "at risk profile".

 

[G27RR]

We've been winning it for a long time now. What you're having a hard time accepting is that the fight never ends.

I'd rather not have to pay attention to these things either, but that is not an option.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Exactly. Especially the last line.

 

[SilentStalker]

See, I disagree! I don't feel like we are winning at all. In fact, if we were we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I feel like we are falling behind and are just a small step from losing it all. It's done incrementally and it seems to me that most fall for it that way. I will admit that in some states we seem to finally be going the right direction but not many and a lot of them are slipping backwards instead if forwards. Would you say that guns are more accepted today than they were 30 years ago? I sure wouldn't, so I fail to see how we are winning in the slightest. If we were suppressors would not even be an NFA item and the ATF would not have told me that some forms are now at a 32 months waiting period!!!! Yep, you read that correctly. Is it really that far behind or are they playing games because they can?

 

[buckeye8]

SilentStalker:

I understand your dispair. But understand that we have come a long way in many areas. Concealed-carry has swept the nation. Black rifles are now normal and don't make most people uncomfortable (there was a time that even most gun owners didn't feel 'quite right' about them). State legislatures have swung hard in the pro-gun direction in every part of the country except for the coasts (even Illinois has made progress). There are more firearm and accessory choices than anyone could have imagined even 10 years ago.

Owning guns is not better than it was 50 years ago, but it is absolutely better than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Ask the folks around here what it was like to own guns in the 1990s. Suppressors were the least of our worries back then.

There are problems, as Colorado and New York demonstrated this year. The coasts may be beyond hope at this point. But by and large, I'll take 2013's gun laws and gun culture over 1993's any day.

The biggest problem we have, of course, is at the Federal level of government. Too many gun owners refuse to accept that many politicians really are after their guns. Too many gun owners take politicians at their word during campaign season when it comes to guns, when common sense (and the NRA ratings book) should make it obvious that they are lying.

The gun issue simply must become a full-on litmus test for national politicians from both the South and the Midwest/Mountain states. Too often, we elect politicians who are either 1) anti-gun and hiding it until they get to Washington, or 2) ambivalent about guns and willing to trade 2nd Amendment issues for things they consider more important.

Mitt Romney is a perfect example. Listen to his debate against Obama in the 2012 Town Hall debate. He could care less about guns. He doesn't love them, doesn't hate them, doesn't think about them, obviously knows next to nothing about them. He wouldn't have been the one to start a campaign against us... but he wouldn't have stopped one either. If a Sandy-Hook had happened on Romney's watch, he'd have called for 'common sense gun control' just like the others.

And I'm not picking on Romney. He is not the exception, he is the rule (in both parties). In Washington, a few on the right feel strongly about guns, and a few on the left feel strongly about guns. The vast majority, however, consider it a side-issue, and will horse-trade your gun rights away if it becomes politically convenient. It is our responsibility to start doing at the national level what we've done quite successfully at the state level for the past two decades, which is elect principled pro-2nd Amendment people to public office.

Don't dispair, we really are winning. But we're only winning because gun owners have spent 20 years standing up for themselves, donating money to pro-gun organizations, and fighting misinformation among the general public. If we were to relent, the tide may well turn against us again. As I said before, our freedom comes with this price. As soon as we decide it is not worth our time, we will lose it.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

^^^^

What buckeye8 said.

Lots of things about gun laws suck. However, they don't suck NEARLY so bad as they did in the 70's and 80's.

We HAVE gained a LOT of ground...and we're STILL gaining ground. But that means that the opposition will be fighting the battle as hard as they can to stifle this.

But we're a loooooong way from having lost, or loosing in the near future.

Keep the faith and keep up the battle.

 

[Ryanxia]

...our freedom comes with this price. As soon as we decide it is not worth our time, we will lose it.

+1

This 'public health' spin isn't new as has been said but like every tactic of the antis it needs to be watched and scrutinized.