Posted on 10/22/2009 5:56:57 PM PDT by Kaslin
Gun Rights: A decade after Congress forbade the CDC from studying the health consequences of gun ownership, the National Institutes of Health has started funding such research. Will reform pry the guns from our cold, sick hands?
More than a decade ago Congress, seeing it as a backdoor assault on the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms, voted to cut funding for firearms research by the Centers for Disease Control. Such research was viewed as one-sided and based on flawed assumptions that all gun use was bad, even that which saved lives and deterred crime.
The National Institutes of Health seemed to have picked up the baton by funding similar studies of gun violence as a public health issue.
"It's almost as if someone's been looking for a way to get this study done ever since the Centers for Disease Control was banned from doing it 10 years ago," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, of one of the NIH studies. "But it doesn't make any more sense now than it did then."
In response to inquiries about the studies, NIH spokesman Don Ralbovsky said: "Gun-related violence is a public health problem — it diverts considerable health care resources away from other problems and, therefore, is of interest to NIH."
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
YO, WHITE HOUSE, CONGRESS ...
We FReepers have a Slightly different definition of GUN CONTROL...
our definition is .. GUN CONTROL - HITTING OUR TARGET.
Your little laws don’t apply to us: we’re the American left.
$5 / round “tax”
Mandated “insurance” at $1 million PER WEAPON
Tracking for tax purposes
Taxing for debt payment purposes
Insurance to pay for what is left over.
It's more for the money to keep the power than it is for the power to keep the money.
Affirmative, and not just from this one item.
Doctors incomes will fall while their debt remains high, and they will have no friends at all.
They think juries screw them now, just wait.
“When your doctor becomes a Federal Officer you will have committed a felony.”
Yes, and don’t think they won’t pull something like that. They’re just waiting to be able to criminilize everything you do.
ping
Well...
Let’s consider all alternatives....
Ok,,,
well..
Got nuthin...
Thanks.
All BS. The anti gunners are disappointed now that they see gun sales going through the roof, the public attitude becoming much more favorable to firearms. The squeal of the dying pig.
The anti gun organisations are losing thier financial support as well, with only a handful of politicians from welfare districts and a few idiots like Bloomberg still frothing at the mouth for more “gun control”
If it ever did come to confiscation of private firearms in this nation, the firearms themselves would be secondary to the fact that at that point in time ALL of your freedoms would be gone.
Remember, when it’s time to bury ‘em, it’ll be time to dig ‘em up!
This has a very long history. And because we conservatives never quite learned the lesson of the subversive CDC agenda way back when, treating guns as a public health issue has been waiting on the back burner for just such a day as this. Read the following, and then see MY PROFILE PAGE for more. See especially, “The Hidden Agenda Behind HIV”. It might not seem related at first, but if you take the time to read it, you will see that the CDC is about as a subversive goverment agency as they come:
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.
The Centers for Disease Control has had three major programs through which it can make diseases appear infectious and make everyone step in line to agree. One is that in the early 1950s they formed a special unit, an elite, semi-secret unit, that is now almost fully secret, called the Epidemic Intelligence Service, or EIS. New graduates of medical schools, or biological graduate schools, or perhaps dental schools, or a few other things, public health departments, are recruited upon graduation to take a several-week course, and then dispatched on two-year active assignment, paid by the CDC, in various local and state health departments to become the eyes and ears of the CDC—an invisible intelligence network that watches for the tiniest clusters of disease, and, when the CDC deems appropriate, turns them into national emergencies. We saw this kind of cynical manipulation in the 1957 Asian flu epidemic. We saw it in the 1960s with clusters of leukemia, which they tried to make appear infectious. We saw that with the swine flu epidemic that never materialized, in 1976, and with the Legionnaire’s epidemic that same year. And we’ve seen it more recently with Lyme disease, with Hantavirus pneumonia, and just one thing after another.
Even after those two years, every member of the EIS becomes part of a permanent reserve officer corps for the CDC that could be called up in case of national emergency or time of war, to serve as officers of their respective ranks, with actual emergency powers. Today many of these people, by sitting in foundations, major companies, the new media, Surgeon General’s office, and other key positions politically, act as silent advocates for the CDC, echoing the CDC’s viewpoint whenever it needs support. So of course that’s a very influential network, and I might add that as of about one year ago, because of too many outside requests for the membership directory of the EIS, the CDC has recently suppressed the availability of this directory. They no longer want people knowing what the membership is.
RETHINKING: Some of these members hold high media positions.
ELLISON: That’s right. Just as an example, the head medical writer for the New York Times, Larry Altman, is a graduate from the 1960s of the EIS.
The other program that the CDC has is called a partnership program. Basically they give grants to private organizations—even creating private organizations in some cases—supposedly to spread education, meaning the CDC party line. But in effect by spreading around this money the CDC creates and buys influence with organizations that do not appear to be connected to the CDC, at least officially. So for example, the CDC has thrown this money around to medical groups such as the American Red Cross, to hemophilia organizations, to gay rights and AIDS activist groups.
RETHINKING: And this is all carefully documented in your book?
ELLISON: That’s right. In fact we list a number of the organizations that are funded, and I looked at some of those in my last RETHINKING AIDS article. There are enormous lists, and I’m only just beginning to uncover many of the organizations that are funded under this partnership program with what they call community-based organizations. See, the idea is—the CDC puts it in slightly different language. They say, well, these organizations can reach their constituencies more effectively than we can. That’s code language, of course, for saying that it’s more believable when it seems to come from private organizations without a conflict of interest.
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/raellison.htm
When your doctor starts asking if you have guns, and there hasn’t been a full fledged civil war, then you’ll deserve what you get.My “line in the sand “ comes way before that time.
Nice tagline!...see my last from around 15 years ago.
—bflr—
King Leonides said it best...
In response to inquiries about the studies, NIH spokesman Don Ralbovsky said: "Gun-related violence is a public health problem -- it diverts considerable health care resources away from other problems and, therefore, is of interest to NIH."
I think they said on Queer Eye, AIDS starts with an intense pounding in your A$$.
Unfortunately it is very difficult to legally own a gun in MA that isnt registered. They just walk in, say “You own three guns” and bamm,..,..increased insurance.
The things they’ll try to disarm the people are amazing. They never quit!
Once we're all forced into the national health service, I can only presume that refusal to answer or answering untruthfully to intrusive and non-germane questions such as the weapons question will be perjury.
2nd
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.