18
   

WHY DO SOME OPPOSE ANALYSES OF GUN DEATH DATA BY NIH??

 
 
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2016 04:34 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Quote:
I wonder if the 9/11 hijackers also thought that people who valued freedom had mental health problems.

Yeh, opening fire with a 357 or a 45 on those jet planes would have brought em down.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2016 04:48 pm
@JPB,
Big deal! Thanks to him and people like him we have no idea how many people die by guns a year. It gives the NRA a sexual climax. All those people dying and no one caring while the NRA's bosses stack up billions.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2016 04:55 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Free people have the right to carry guns when they go about in public. People who lack freedom, don't.


The problem with this statement is that you would, if you could, legislate that everyone MUST carry a gun whether they want too or not. So much for freedom from a conservatives point of view.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2016 05:21 pm
@RABEL222,
Clinton revoked gun dealers licenses from people who didnt do significant enough business. Obama is restoring the requirement.
Fed Firearms requires a license by gun dealers, or those who have a business selling guns.

BAckground checks will make some positive difference

The NIH issue, Ive said as much as I want. Oralloy seems to feel that govt agencies are all suspect (I paraphrase but thats what I got from his statement about "bogus data")
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2016 10:58 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
And noone is "abridging" that right.

When the Democratic Party tells law abiding people that they are not allowed to have guns, that is very much a violation of their rights.


farmerman wrote:
Im a big-time gun owner. I carry on my job when Im up in the woods among the bears and coyotes. I see nothing except a few political malcontents and paranoid delusionists.

This doesn't make it OK for the Democratic Party to go around violating everyone's rights.


farmerman wrote:
You can have the last word,
Ill just tlk around you unless you start being insulting

Talking around facts will not make them any less true.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2016 10:59 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Clinton revoked gun dealers licenses from people who didnt do significant enough business. Obama is restoring the requirement.
Fed Firearms requires a license by gun dealers, or those who have a business selling guns.

Looks like an attempt to drive people out of business. Requiring that someone have a license in order to buy and sell guns and then refusing to let them have a license will only drive their sales underground.


farmerman wrote:
BAckground checks will make some positive difference

Violating people's civil rights is NEVER positive.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2016 11:01 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
oralloy wrote:
I wonder if the 9/11 hijackers also thought that people who valued freedom had mental health problems.

Yeh, opening fire with a 357 or a 45 on those jet planes would have brought em down.

I'm unsure what this has to do with the terrorists' opposition to freedom, but it is very unlikely to be true, unless someone made a really unlucky shot.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2016 11:28 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

The NIH was relieved of its past responsibilities for collecting and analyzing gun death data in the US during the GWB II regime. Why do rabid gun owners want to fight the return of this authority??


The NRA has long arms and deep pockets, despite representing a tiny fraction of the population. It sure as hell is not the result of common sense or careful reasoning. I think the CDC should collect such data independently, too, even though death by gunshot may not technically be a disease.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2016 01:54 pm
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

Don't ask! I will never understand why anyone is so hung up on the 2nd Amendment. I don't want to even go down this road of hollow, but it never ceases to amaze me, how the biggest proponents of the 2nd amendment are the same ones whose mental health is severely challenged. That's the scary part, like playing Russian Roulette with an entire nation - never knowing when the bullet hits.


I do not care for guns, except for declared wars by legitimate nations. However, as an urbanite I try to understand the viewpoint of those rural folks that live on the side of a road, and know that there are sociopathic individuals that might just come to their house for purposes other than bringing gifts.

With that in mind, I also try to understand that as a nation we are very diverse, and many demographics just don't trust other demographics. Plus, alcohol is the drug of choice for most Americans. Those two realities makes for possible paranoia, or at least a nostalgia for the earliest days in America where all people that mattered were basically one demographic within one religion.

But, I do believe the U.S. will muddle through, at least those that have acquired the wisdom (aka, street smarts to avoid dangerous situations).
CalamityJane
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2016 07:56 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
That's not very nice. Why are you freedom haters always so mean spirited? Sheesh!


So, let me get this right: pressing for gun control, i.e. background check and liability insurance on gun ownership makes me a freedom hater , but denying women free birth control makes us a free country! Oh logic where are thou?
CalamityJane
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2016 08:07 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie, you may be onto something regarding the alcohol - there is no other way to explain the utter idiocy of some of these people here.

Gun control doesn't necessarily mean you cannot own them. What is needed is a thorough homeland security like scrutinizing gun control that involves background check, NSA tapes, fico scores, liability insurances - the whole works!! No one is better than the US government to keep tap on people, why not put these skills to better use for the welfare of our beloved citizens?

If Jack **** has gone through all this and needs a gun to grow some balls,
let him have it!
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2016 08:11 pm
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:
So, let me get this right: pressing for gun control, i.e. background check and liability insurance on gun ownership makes me a freedom hater,

Yes. Violating people's civil rights is appalling.


CalamityJane wrote:
but denying women free birth control makes us a free country!

No. Letting people exercise their right to carry guns when they go about in public makes us a free country.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2016 08:13 pm
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:
Gun control doesn't necessarily mean you cannot own them.

That is exactly what it means. The entire thing is an evil plot to prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their civil rights.
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2016 08:41 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

CalamityJane wrote:
Gun control doesn't necessarily mean you cannot own them.

That is exactly what it means. The entire thing is an evil plot to prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their civil rights.


I control my dog's diet. That's because I intend to starve him to death.
CalamityJane
 
  2  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2016 08:46 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

CalamityJane wrote:
Gun control doesn't necessarily mean you cannot own them.

That is exactly what it means. The entire thing is an evil plot to prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their civil rights.


Yes, you probably wouldn't get a gun under a new gun control law. You are a) mentally incompetent ; b) couldn't hold up to a background check , c) probably have low fico scores and d) no balls.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2016 09:42 pm
@CalamityJane,
It never fails that people who oppose civil rights are mean-spirited and nasty.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 6 Jan, 2016 09:43 pm
@edgarblythe,
No one is fooled. We all know that the goal is to violate the Second Amendment in every way possible.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 01:36 am
@CalamityJane,
Its Ollies opinion. The same opinion a post would have.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  5  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 02:50 am
@oralloy,
The constitution does not protect your right to carry guns whenever you go about in public. Those are statutory rights, and vary from state to state. The constitution protects your right to keep and bear arms, as a member of a well-regulated militia. That means Congress and the states have the right to regulate firearms. The fraudulent claims which are most common in the firearms debate in this country come from the gun nuts.

Your logic is skewed, too. If, as you claim, the second amendment "trumps all," then there is no reason to oppose NIH collection and analysis of gun death data. Thinking is hard.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2016 05:43 am
@Setanta,
I think Oralloy is in total denial on the common sense of your point. I am convinced that his definition of gun rights is to be armed against a rogue government.
So, basically, he ignores the rest of the Constitution (which is a governmental "tool kit"), in favor of one "freedom" that repudiates all the rest.

Oy Gvelt, I think he needs a Dr Ruth.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/27/2021 at 08:16:35