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

@Leadfoot,

Until that legislation is defeated in congress, it remains the law of this land.

@Leadfoot,

If youd have read my posts, I said that HELLER was an "originalist" view and became the culminating even of the politicization of the NRA and its "host species" the GOP.
Just because the USSC says its law, DOES NOT MEAN ITS RIGHT.

So let me get this right. You are dead set against the CDC /NIH from once again gathering data about gun deaths in the US?

How about the restoration of the firearms license requirement to gun show and "incidental large gun merchants" that Clinton signed away, you disagree with that too?
But youre ok with Cabelas or Bass Pro or Walmart continuing to need gun sales licenses?

You a major stock holder of Cerberus? or SW? or just a guy who will buy any of this NRA propoganda?

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Just because the USSC says its law, DOES NOT MEAN ITS RIGHT.

Funny, you had such reverence for the K vs Dover lower court decision but don't hesitate to spit on this one from the Supreme Court.

I think I see a pattern here :-)

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Until that legislation is defeated in congress, it remains the law of this land.

Apparently you don't know what it takes to amend the Constitution. Why am I not surprised?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

I just stated the facts. I'm not interested in how congress works on this subject - or any subject.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Obviously because they are worried that it might be an argument for gun control that they do not support. Like most people (including the overwhelming majority of people right here on the other side of the debate) they typically seek information that reinforces their views and shun information that does not.

It is human nature to seek and see validation of one's beliefs in data.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

I suppose that you are in support of Roe v Wade? Or Edwards v Aguillard?

Slavery USED to be the law that was upheld by the USSC. Did the USSC decisions make it right?

Kitzmiller v Dover was a region 3 Fed DISTRICT court. The defendants in the case were able to appeal the Jones decision up to the USSC .(apparently they talk big but acted wooped)>

1 Reply

I am pretty pro-choice. My nose doesn't need to be in other people's business.

By the same token though, I'd appreciate if others kept their noses from my business. I like guns and I like shooting guns and I like reading about guns and I like looking at guns. I don't want to ever feel as though I am a criminal by doing any of those things. I choose to live under the draconian NYS gun laws. I have the freedom to move. Vermont is real close and they have a far more lenient look at firearm ownership.

The federal government is supposed to operate under the rules of the US Constitution. That document says they cannot infringe on my rights to keep and bear arms. They includes the President.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

So that you can violate MY civil rights with a gun?

When the Democrats seize all your guns, I will not be the one doing it.

I'll be the one fighting to prevent the Democrats from doing it.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Just because the USSC says its law, DOES NOT MEAN ITS RIGHT.

Upholding civil rights is ALWAYS right.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Obviously because they are worried that it might be an argument for gun control that they do not support. Like most people (including the overwhelming majority of people right here on the other side of the debate) they typically seek information that reinforces their views and shun information that does not.

It is human nature to seek and see validation of one's beliefs in data.

We actually are immune to data that harms our position (were such data to exist). The Constitution protects our freedom regardless of what data indicates.

However, it got tiresome having these organizations pump out fraudulent claims, so we put a stop to it.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Slavery USED to be the law that was upheld by the USSC. Did the USSC decisions make it right?

A bit of a difference between slavery and freedom.

Only one amendment to the Constitution has ever reduced freedom.

It was also the only amendment to the Constitution to ever be repealed.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

POINT?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

We actually are immune to data that harms our position (were such data to exist). The Constitution protects our freedom regardless of what data indicates.

I mean... it's a choice. Not some special higher ground your position has. Anyone can be "immune" if they simply decide they value x above all else.

Quote:

However, it got tiresome having these organizations pump out fraudulent claims, so we put a stop to it.

Funny you say that, I think both sides of this debate often pump out ridiculous arguments. My main interest in the debate is actually the god awful level it operates at more than one position or another (I'm not very emotionally invested in either side).

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

fearing CDC and NIH data on gun deaths is paranoia based on political agendas alone. It was mostly CDC that developed the software to track the outbreaks and do the epidemiological data crunching on the Liberian Ebola epidemic last year.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

It's not a scientific approach to take but I don't think it's paranoia so much as run of the mill partisanship. I think the majority on the other side is about as dogmatic in their approach and very few approach the issue impartially.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Only one amendment to the Constitution has ever reduced freedom

Maybe I was too curt, but youre off target.

One amendment repealed its precursor. HOWEVER, we were talking about The SUPREME COURT

Remember

"The Constitution only says what the supreme court says it says"
Mencken

The Constitution really SAYS nothing re EVolution or Money as SPeech. Heller is a stretch. There is no amendment that says the word slavery until it abolished slavery . Slavery was upheld by the USSC.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

I mean... it's a choice. Not some special higher ground your position has. Anyone can be "immune" if they simply decide they value x above all else.

Our immunity comes with the force of the US Constitution.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Remember
"The Constitution only says what the supreme court says it says"
Mencken

This quote is incorrect. The Constitution means what the Framers intended it to mean.

farmerman wrote:

Heller is a stretch.

Not really. Heller upholds a right that is quite clearly covered by the Constitution.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

So let me get this right. You are dead set against the CDC /NIH from once again gathering data about gun deaths in the US?

That's a hard one to answer. Depends on the quality and/or bias in it. Many of the studies by gun control advocates are so twisted that it makes me wary. For example, many of them ignore that suicides constitute a significant portion of gun deaths and add them in as justification for more gun laws. That doesn't seem valid.

It also creeps me out when I go for a physical and my doctor asks me about my gun habits. Other than that, I'm not terribly interested in the NIH angle. The Constitutional issue was what lured me into commenting.

Don't know If I have any gun maker stocks unless they are in one of the mutual funds. I'm not heavy in stocks at the moment.

I will gracefully bow out and let the NRA & gun control folks continue on.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know