![](http://i667.photobucket.com/albums/vv39/fullersstuff/molonlabe-1.jpg?t=1242834374";)
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 ...
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”.
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.
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.
minor correction, health care is about 1/6 of our GDP. Frregards.
Very interesting hypothesis. I have seen pieces of this bounced around before. But not all together. You have prompted me to do some research.
Will the CDC do a study on the health hazards of infected Gays with the HIV virus ??
Well, the thing is I lost all my guns in a tragic boating/biplane accident. I hear those are rife nowadays.
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.
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.
But what has to be understood is that it won't be that open. It will be disguised as something else, and it will likely involve foreign troops when they make their move. The most likely foreign troops would be Canadians. Canada is far more over-run with "gimmie sumthin for nuthin" leftists than the US is.
Consider that the O’Communists are probably in a quandary on how to take away everyone's guns.
They have two main courses of action to reach their ultimate goal, the National Emergency Confiscation route and the Incremental route.
A).The “All at once”, National emergency, martial law Confiscation route.
The National emergency confiscation route has the advantage of needing only one ‘Crisis’ to implement. There is no need for legislation or compromise, it's just, Hey we're declaring marital law (in response to a terrorist attack or some such) and we're taking your guns, deal with it lowly subjects.
The downside is that this instantly changes 100+ million gun owners from lawful persons to people that need to be ‘suppressed’, a very difficult task indeed.
It will also mean the end of the rule of law, the Constitution and the Country (I won't say ‘as we know it’, because most people realize that's already happened)
B).The incremental, ‘take away our freedoms one step at a time’, route
This has the distinct advantage that it doesn't instantly create 100+ million lawbreakers and doesn't destroy the country right away.
The disadvantage is that we've seen this song and dance before, and not many are going to far for it, especially since they need to get to their ultimate goal in a matter of months instead of the several-year time-frame the gun-grabbers are use to.
The ‘we need to restrict your freedoms in response to this or that Crisis’ routine is going to wear thin pretty fast if they try it every couple of months.
And it's a multi-step process to get their nirvana of controlling all the guns (in the hands of the lawful citizens, of course). They need to start out with some restrictions on purchases of guns and ammunition.
Then moving on to having a paper trail on every lawful gun purchase, followed by registration (with plenty of Taxes and fees thereon, if there's one thing the O’Communists love more than grabbing guns, it's grabbing your hard earned cash).
Followed by, (drumroll) CONFISCATING Everyone's guns.
And remember, expect them to swear up and down that don't want to CONFISCATE your guns at each and every step of the way.(except for the last step, they don't expect us to be THAT stupid)
Given these circumstances, it would seem like they will go for a “Hybrid” approach (they love that word), and begin with Incremental route and then transition to the National Emergency Confiscation route when they've pushed that as far as they can.
What do you think? They want to do this, the question is HOW will they do it?
I cannot see Canada supporting this leftist agenda.
Yes, Canada is socialist in many respects, but they are not openly Marxist/Communist like our current “administration”.
Foreign troops on U.S. soil, fine targets for armed citizens.
Will not happen in my life. Not as long as I draw breath.
Will the CDC do a study on the health hazards of gun grabbing?
There are deep problems with the media, education, religion, and law; all of which bottom out on how individuals process information, and act (or refrain).
The better solution is to focus on the public, and encourage independence and skepticism. "Unbiased reporting" is a media-created myth, and it's used by the media to lure people into not-thinking. No need to think, when the source is trusted. Media cannot be trusted, never could be, and never should be.
The poser messiah is a loser!!
I wonder how well Obama’s plan would work considering the military overwhelmingly leans conservative.
If there is a breakdown in Constitutional government I wonder how many of Obama’s “army” will stand with him.
He better hope he doesn’t get what he wishes for, he may be surprised at who he has on his side.
Problem is too many people get their info from the MSM, if we can’t force the MSM to drop its bias we will get more obama’s down the road.
I agree that "unquestioning getting information from the media" is a problem. My point is that if you ascribe the attribute of "trustworthy" to the media (and that is what you are seeking), the people will not have a need to become critical thinkers, and the people will become (or stay) vulnerable to misleading messages.
The media itself created the false myth of "media objectivity," and it did so as a means of drawing power towards itself.
If the people can't perform critical thinking, they will be enslaved.
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.