The Dickey Amendment & Gun Violence in America

Hossfly

ZIONUT
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
42,174
Reaction score
13,165
Points
2,290
Location
Ft Worth,TX


What gives a agency that uses federal tax dollars the right to promote an political agenda?

Isn't that illegal?

*****SMILE*****


:)
Q. What makes you think that the CDC would use tax money to study gun violence in America and reach a conclusion based on a political agenda

A. Only if you believe that the outcome of a study would prove the massive cost of blood and treasure gun violence costs to our country.

Q. Why did the NRA introduce this amendment?
.....that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."
 

MisterBeale

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
25,585
Reaction score
6,584
Points
280
Good.

What ever it takes to protect us from out of control government and corporations.
A hack that is willfully ignorant, no surprise here.
Nope, I am NOT willfully ignorant.

I KNOW what billionaire MICHAEL BLOOMBERG is all about.

Are YOU one of his minions too?

Everytown for Gun Safety - Wikipedia
What is Bloomberg all about?
Did you even read the link?

The whole issue is basically funded and pushed by him.

Everytown for Gun Safety is largely financed by Michael Bloomberg,[9] who also founded the group.[10]
Everytown for Gun Safety - Wikipedia

The real reason Michael Bloomberg cares about guns
OPINION: The real reason Michael Bloomberg cares about guns

"Despite its notoriety, the NRA spends only about $20 million a year, and relies heavily on the grassroots enthusiasm of its members. Bloomberg, on the other hand, shrugged at the idea of throwing in an experimental $50 million “as if he were describing the tip he left on a restaurant check.”

<snip>

". . . .If Bloomberg wanted to spend some pocket change to undermine any other constitutional right, liberals would quickly complain about how the nation’s elites use their money to over influence policy and consolidate power away from the broader citizenry. The billionaire Koch brothers, who fund numerous conservative and libertarian causes, have become archetypes of this phenomenon, to the benefit of Obama-aligned outrage sites such as Salon and ThinkProgress. But when it comes to the Second Amendment, liberals don’t see a question of freedom or liberty, even when a billionaire tries to buy it away.

What really irks Bloomberg about the right to bear arms isn’t the red herrings we throw around in the gun rights debate, such as hunting or self-defense. Rather, he hates its foundation in popular sovereignty. It’s easy to forget that when the Bill of Rights was being drafted, the founding fathers took for granted that the United States would not field an army during peacetime. With the enumerated rights to association and the press — as well as arms — they attempted to place the tools of 18th century revolution (and thus American sovereignty) permanently in the hands of the enfranchised public. Militias weren’t supposed to be local armies, they were supposed to be the Army. As Rep. Samuel Nasson wrote to Rep. George Thatcher in 1789, “Spare me on the subject of Standing armeys in a time of Peace they allway was first or last the downfall of all free Governments it was by their help Caesar made proud Rome Own a Tyrant and a Traytor for a Master.”


"I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh-biggest army in the world."


Michael Bloomberg
Former mayor of New York City


Bloomberg has never had a problem with standing armies; in 2011 he even bragged to an audience at MIT, “I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world.” The NYPD is the largest, best-equipped municipal police force in the country, and its influence extends far beyond American territorial borders. It operates in 11 foreign cities and runs its own foreign policy and intelligence network. Bloomberg personally boasted that the NYPD has the capacity to shoot down passenger planes. It’s clear from his record that it’s not the “gun” part of “gun control” Bloomberg is interested in.

Whose guns?

There’s no doubt America needs to curb gun use and possession. The question is, whose guns? There are 34,500 members of the NYPD, and in 2012 they fatally shot 16 people. That gives Bloomberg’s army a rate of over 46 shooting deaths per 100,000, killing people at a clip that dwarfs any civilian level in the country. To put it in perspective, Chicago — an American city known for gun violence — hit its peak murder rate of 34 per 100,000 in 1992. American law enforcement is increasingly militarized — as Radley Balko reports in his book “Rise of the Warrior Cop”: “Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment — from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers — American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield.” And this army takes a lot of prisoners: While gun violence has markedly declined following heightened crime in the ’90s, incarceration rates haven’t returned to earth, nearly quintupling since the early ’70s, making Americans the most imprisoned people in the world.. . . "

Stop being a servant for the master. This isn't about saving lives, it is about taking freedom away. The STATE will still unreasonably kill people, and it won't be held to account. . . even less so.
 
OP
Wry Catcher

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Good.

What ever it takes to protect us from out of control government and corporations.
A hack that is willfully ignorant, no surprise here.
Nope, I am NOT willfully ignorant.

I KNOW what billionaire MICHAEL BLOOMBERG is all about.

Are YOU one of his minions too?

Everytown for Gun Safety - Wikipedia
What is Bloomberg all about?
Did you even read the link?

The whole issue is basically funded and pushed by him.

Everytown for Gun Safety is largely financed by Michael Bloomberg,[9] who also founded the group.[10]
Everytown for Gun Safety - Wikipedia

The real reason Michael Bloomberg cares about guns
OPINION: The real reason Michael Bloomberg cares about guns

"Despite its notoriety, the NRA spends only about $20 million a year, and relies heavily on the grassroots enthusiasm of its members. Bloomberg, on the other hand, shrugged at the idea of throwing in an experimental $50 million “as if he were describing the tip he left on a restaurant check.”

<snip>

". . . .If Bloomberg wanted to spend some pocket change to undermine any other constitutional right, liberals would quickly complain about how the nation’s elites use their money to over influence policy and consolidate power away from the broader citizenry. The billionaire Koch brothers, who fund numerous conservative and libertarian causes, have become archetypes of this phenomenon, to the benefit of Obama-aligned outrage sites such as Salon and ThinkProgress. But when it comes to the Second Amendment, liberals don’t see a question of freedom or liberty, even when a billionaire tries to buy it away.

What really irks Bloomberg about the right to bear arms isn’t the red herrings we throw around in the gun rights debate, such as hunting or self-defense. Rather, he hates its foundation in popular sovereignty. It’s easy to forget that when the Bill of Rights was being drafted, the founding fathers took for granted that the United States would not field an army during peacetime. With the enumerated rights to association and the press — as well as arms — they attempted to place the tools of 18th century revolution (and thus American sovereignty) permanently in the hands of the enfranchised public. Militias weren’t supposed to be local armies, they were supposed to be the Army. As Rep. Samuel Nasson wrote to Rep. George Thatcher in 1789, “Spare me on the subject of Standing armeys in a time of Peace they allway was first or last the downfall of all free Governments it was by their help Caesar made proud Rome Own a Tyrant and a Traytor for a Master.”


"I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh-biggest army in the world."


Michael Bloomberg
Former mayor of New York City


Bloomberg has never had a problem with standing armies; in 2011 he even bragged to an audience at MIT, “I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world.” The NYPD is the largest, best-equipped municipal police force in the country, and its influence extends far beyond American territorial borders. It operates in 11 foreign cities and runs its own foreign policy and intelligence network. Bloomberg personally boasted that the NYPD has the capacity to shoot down passenger planes. It’s clear from his record that it’s not the “gun” part of “gun control” Bloomberg is interested in.

Whose guns?

There’s no doubt America needs to curb gun use and possession. The question is, whose guns? There are 34,500 members of the NYPD, and in 2012 they fatally shot 16 people. That gives Bloomberg’s army a rate of over 46 shooting deaths per 100,000, killing people at a clip that dwarfs any civilian level in the country. To put it in perspective, Chicago — an American city known for gun violence — hit its peak murder rate of 34 per 100,000 in 1992. American law enforcement is increasingly militarized — as Radley Balko reports in his book “Rise of the Warrior Cop”: “Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment — from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers — American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield.” And this army takes a lot of prisoners: While gun violence has markedly declined following heightened crime in the ’90s, incarceration rates haven’t returned to earth, nearly quintupling since the early ’70s, making Americans the most imprisoned people in the world.. . . "

Stop being a servant for the master. This isn't about saving lives, it is about taking freedom away. The STATE will still unreasonably kill people, and it won't be held to account. . . even less so.
My take away, paranoid schizophrenia^^^ is afoot. Those who suffer from this mental illness are not all actors like the Unabomber or McVeigh, but they build there own reality, and find people and things to blame & punish them by word or deed.
 
OP
Wry Catcher

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area


What gives a agency that uses federal tax dollars the right to promote an political agenda?

Isn't that illegal?

*****SMILE*****


:)
Q. What makes you think that the CDC would use tax money to study gun violence in America and reach a conclusion based on a political agenda

A. Only if you believe that the outcome of a study would prove the massive cost of blood and treasure gun violence costs to our country.

Q. Why did the NRA introduce this amendment?
.....that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."
That is true, and that is why the facts can be buried by people like trump, to blame the mentally ill for mass murders, and pretend guns don't kill people.

Mental illness isn’t a major risk factor for gun violence, but here’s what is
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
7,721
Reaction score
1,441
Points
195
In United States politics, the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

The amendment was lobbied for by the NRA. The amendment is named after its author Jay Dickey, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas.[2] Many commentators have described this amendment as a "ban" on gun violence research by the CDC.[3]

The amendment was introduced after lobbying by the National Rifle Association in response to the perceived bias in a 1993 study by Arthur Kellermann that found that guns in the home were associated with an increased risk of homicide in the home, as well as other CDC funded studies and efforts.[2][4] In response to this amendment being adopted, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution condemning it.[2] In December 2015, multiple medical organizations, including Doctors for America, the American College of Preventive Medicine, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, called on Congress to repeal the amendment.[4] That same month, the American Association for the Advancement of Science also called for an end to this amendment.[5]

Following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, President Barack Obama directed the CDC and other federal agencies to "conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it."[11] The CDC responded by funding a research project[12] and conducting their own study in 2015.[13] That month, a spokeswoman for the agency, Courtney Lenard, told the Washington Post that "it is possible for us to conduct firearm-related research within the context of our efforts to address youth violence, domestic violence, sexual violence, and suicide. But our resources are very limited."[4]


Selected paragraphs from the link here:

Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia

Clearly, the NRA and those who profit from gun and ammunition sales don't want the public to know the costs of gun violence in America, not only in blood, but in costs to the agencies which respond to shootings.

Where in the Dickey amendment does it say the CDC is prohibited fron doing research on gun violence and publishing the results?

Nowhere that's where. All the Dickey Amendment does is prohibit the CDC from spending money allocated to it by Congress to engage in political activism which is not part of the CDC's mandate
 
OP
Wry Catcher

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
In United States politics, the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

The amendment was lobbied for by the NRA. The amendment is named after its author Jay Dickey, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas.[2] Many commentators have described this amendment as a "ban" on gun violence research by the CDC.[3]

The amendment was introduced after lobbying by the National Rifle Association in response to the perceived bias in a 1993 study by Arthur Kellermann that found that guns in the home were associated with an increased risk of homicide in the home, as well as other CDC funded studies and efforts.[2][4] In response to this amendment being adopted, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution condemning it.[2] In December 2015, multiple medical organizations, including Doctors for America, the American College of Preventive Medicine, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, called on Congress to repeal the amendment.[4] That same month, the American Association for the Advancement of Science also called for an end to this amendment.[5]

Following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, President Barack Obama directed the CDC and other federal agencies to "conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it."[11] The CDC responded by funding a research project[12] and conducting their own study in 2015.[13] That month, a spokeswoman for the agency, Courtney Lenard, told the Washington Post that "it is possible for us to conduct firearm-related research within the context of our efforts to address youth violence, domestic violence, sexual violence, and suicide. But our resources are very limited."[4]


Selected paragraphs from the link here:

Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia

Clearly, the NRA and those who profit from gun and ammunition sales don't want the public to know the costs of gun violence in America, not only in blood, but in costs to the agencies which respond to shootings.

Where in the Dickey amendment does it say the CDC is prohibited fron doing research on gun violence and publishing the results?

Nowhere that's where. All the Dickey Amendment does is prohibit the CDC from spending money allocated to it by Congress to engage in political activism which is not part of the CDC's mandate
Read the link, they have taken away the money to do this research for one reason only: TO PROTECT THE PROFITS FOR THE GUN INDUSTRY.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
7,721
Reaction score
1,441
Points
195
In United States politics, the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

The amendment was lobbied for by the NRA. The amendment is named after its author Jay Dickey, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas.[2] Many commentators have described this amendment as a "ban" on gun violence research by the CDC.[3]

The amendment was introduced after lobbying by the National Rifle Association in response to the perceived bias in a 1993 study by Arthur Kellermann that found that guns in the home were associated with an increased risk of homicide in the home, as well as other CDC funded studies and efforts.[2][4] In response to this amendment being adopted, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution condemning it.[2] In December 2015, multiple medical organizations, including Doctors for America, the American College of Preventive Medicine, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, called on Congress to repeal the amendment.[4] That same month, the American Association for the Advancement of Science also called for an end to this amendment.[5]

Following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, President Barack Obama directed the CDC and other federal agencies to "conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it."[11] The CDC responded by funding a research project[12] and conducting their own study in 2015.[13] That month, a spokeswoman for the agency, Courtney Lenard, told the Washington Post that "it is possible for us to conduct firearm-related research within the context of our efforts to address youth violence, domestic violence, sexual violence, and suicide. But our resources are very limited."[4]


Selected paragraphs from the link here:

Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia

Clearly, the NRA and those who profit from gun and ammunition sales don't want the public to know the costs of gun violence in America, not only in blood, but in costs to the agencies which respond to shootings.

Where in the Dickey amendment does it say the CDC is prohibited fron doing research on gun violence and publishing the results?

Nowhere that's where. All the Dickey Amendment does is prohibit the CDC from spending money allocated to it by Congress to engage in political activism which is not part of the CDC's mandate
Read the link, they have taken away the money to do this research for one reason only: TO PROTECT THE PROFITS FOR THE GUN INDUSTRY.
And that is not because Dickey prohibited the research.

That's because we have a bunch of gutless hacks in Congress

Saying the CDC cannot use money allocated to it for political activism is in no way outlandish
 
Last edited:
OP
Wry Catcher

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
In United States politics, the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

The amendment was lobbied for by the NRA. The amendment is named after its author Jay Dickey, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas.[2] Many commentators have described this amendment as a "ban" on gun violence research by the CDC.[3]

The amendment was introduced after lobbying by the National Rifle Association in response to the perceived bias in a 1993 study by Arthur Kellermann that found that guns in the home were associated with an increased risk of homicide in the home, as well as other CDC funded studies and efforts.[2][4] In response to this amendment being adopted, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution condemning it.[2] In December 2015, multiple medical organizations, including Doctors for America, the American College of Preventive Medicine, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, called on Congress to repeal the amendment.[4] That same month, the American Association for the Advancement of Science also called for an end to this amendment.[5]

Following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, President Barack Obama directed the CDC and other federal agencies to "conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it."[11] The CDC responded by funding a research project[12] and conducting their own study in 2015.[13] That month, a spokeswoman for the agency, Courtney Lenard, told the Washington Post that "it is possible for us to conduct firearm-related research within the context of our efforts to address youth violence, domestic violence, sexual violence, and suicide. But our resources are very limited."[4]


Selected paragraphs from the link here:

Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia

Clearly, the NRA and those who profit from gun and ammunition sales don't want the public to know the costs of gun violence in America, not only in blood, but in costs to the agencies which respond to shootings.

Where in the Dickey amendment does it say the CDC is prohibited fron doing research on gun violence and publishing the results?

Nowhere that's where. All the Dickey Amendment does is prohibit the CDC from spending money allocated to it by Congress to engage in political activism which is not part of the CDC's mandate
Read the link, they have taken away the money to do this research for one reason only: TO PROTECT THE PROFITS FOR THE GUN INDUSTRY.
And that is not because Dickey prohibited the research.

That's because we have a bunch of gutless hacks in Congress

Saying the CDC cannot use money allocated to it for political activism is in no way outlandish
HYPOCRISY ^^^! This ^^^ is exactly what the Congress has done to Planned Parenthood!
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
7,721
Reaction score
1,441
Points
195
In United States politics, the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

The amendment was lobbied for by the NRA. The amendment is named after its author Jay Dickey, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas.[2] Many commentators have described this amendment as a "ban" on gun violence research by the CDC.[3]

The amendment was introduced after lobbying by the National Rifle Association in response to the perceived bias in a 1993 study by Arthur Kellermann that found that guns in the home were associated with an increased risk of homicide in the home, as well as other CDC funded studies and efforts.[2][4] In response to this amendment being adopted, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution condemning it.[2] In December 2015, multiple medical organizations, including Doctors for America, the American College of Preventive Medicine, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, called on Congress to repeal the amendment.[4] That same month, the American Association for the Advancement of Science also called for an end to this amendment.[5]

Following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, President Barack Obama directed the CDC and other federal agencies to "conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it."[11] The CDC responded by funding a research project[12] and conducting their own study in 2015.[13] That month, a spokeswoman for the agency, Courtney Lenard, told the Washington Post that "it is possible for us to conduct firearm-related research within the context of our efforts to address youth violence, domestic violence, sexual violence, and suicide. But our resources are very limited."[4]


Selected paragraphs from the link here:

Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia

Clearly, the NRA and those who profit from gun and ammunition sales don't want the public to know the costs of gun violence in America, not only in blood, but in costs to the agencies which respond to shootings.

Where in the Dickey amendment does it say the CDC is prohibited fron doing research on gun violence and publishing the results?

Nowhere that's where. All the Dickey Amendment does is prohibit the CDC from spending money allocated to it by Congress to engage in political activism which is not part of the CDC's mandate
Read the link, they have taken away the money to do this research for one reason only: TO PROTECT THE PROFITS FOR THE GUN INDUSTRY.
And that is not because Dickey prohibited the research.

That's because we have a bunch of gutless hacks in Congress

Saying the CDC cannot use money allocated to it for political activism is in no way outlandish
HYPOCRISY ^^^! This ^^^ is exactly what the Congress has done to Planned Parenthood!
Hardly



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

MisterBeale

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
25,585
Reaction score
6,584
Points
280
Good.

What ever it takes to protect us from out of control government and corporations.
A hack that is willfully ignorant, no surprise here.
Nope, I am NOT willfully ignorant.

I KNOW what billionaire MICHAEL BLOOMBERG is all about.

Are YOU one of his minions too?

Everytown for Gun Safety - Wikipedia
What is Bloomberg all about?
Did you even read the link?

The whole issue is basically funded and pushed by him.

Everytown for Gun Safety is largely financed by Michael Bloomberg,[9] who also founded the group.[10]
Everytown for Gun Safety - Wikipedia

The real reason Michael Bloomberg cares about guns
OPINION: The real reason Michael Bloomberg cares about guns

"Despite its notoriety, the NRA spends only about $20 million a year, and relies heavily on the grassroots enthusiasm of its members. Bloomberg, on the other hand, shrugged at the idea of throwing in an experimental $50 million “as if he were describing the tip he left on a restaurant check.”

<snip>

". . . .If Bloomberg wanted to spend some pocket change to undermine any other constitutional right, liberals would quickly complain about how the nation’s elites use their money to over influence policy and consolidate power away from the broader citizenry. The billionaire Koch brothers, who fund numerous conservative and libertarian causes, have become archetypes of this phenomenon, to the benefit of Obama-aligned outrage sites such as Salon and ThinkProgress. But when it comes to the Second Amendment, liberals don’t see a question of freedom or liberty, even when a billionaire tries to buy it away.

What really irks Bloomberg about the right to bear arms isn’t the red herrings we throw around in the gun rights debate, such as hunting or self-defense. Rather, he hates its foundation in popular sovereignty. It’s easy to forget that when the Bill of Rights was being drafted, the founding fathers took for granted that the United States would not field an army during peacetime. With the enumerated rights to association and the press — as well as arms — they attempted to place the tools of 18th century revolution (and thus American sovereignty) permanently in the hands of the enfranchised public. Militias weren’t supposed to be local armies, they were supposed to be the Army. As Rep. Samuel Nasson wrote to Rep. George Thatcher in 1789, “Spare me on the subject of Standing armeys in a time of Peace they allway was first or last the downfall of all free Governments it was by their help Caesar made proud Rome Own a Tyrant and a Traytor for a Master.”


"I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh-biggest army in the world."


Michael Bloomberg
Former mayor of New York City


Bloomberg has never had a problem with standing armies; in 2011 he even bragged to an audience at MIT, “I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world.” The NYPD is the largest, best-equipped municipal police force in the country, and its influence extends far beyond American territorial borders. It operates in 11 foreign cities and runs its own foreign policy and intelligence network. Bloomberg personally boasted that the NYPD has the capacity to shoot down passenger planes. It’s clear from his record that it’s not the “gun” part of “gun control” Bloomberg is interested in.

Whose guns?

There’s no doubt America needs to curb gun use and possession. The question is, whose guns? There are 34,500 members of the NYPD, and in 2012 they fatally shot 16 people. That gives Bloomberg’s army a rate of over 46 shooting deaths per 100,000, killing people at a clip that dwarfs any civilian level in the country. To put it in perspective, Chicago — an American city known for gun violence — hit its peak murder rate of 34 per 100,000 in 1992. American law enforcement is increasingly militarized — as Radley Balko reports in his book “Rise of the Warrior Cop”: “Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment — from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers — American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield.” And this army takes a lot of prisoners: While gun violence has markedly declined following heightened crime in the ’90s, incarceration rates haven’t returned to earth, nearly quintupling since the early ’70s, making Americans the most imprisoned people in the world.. . . "

Stop being a servant for the master. This isn't about saving lives, it is about taking freedom away. The STATE will still unreasonably kill people, and it won't be held to account. . . even less so.
My take away, paranoid schizophrenia^^^ is afoot. Those who suffer from this mental illness are not all actors like the Unabomber or McVeigh, but they build there own reality, and find people and things to blame & punish them by word or deed.

I don't know if I would go so far as to call Michael Bloomberg a paranoid schizophrenic. I think he is just power hungry.

. . . but?

I am glad you are finally coming around. :113:


First we work on the over militarization of the police, and the lawmakers and bureaucracy making everything illegal and throwing the citizenry in jail for exercising their civil rights and liberties?

. . . and THEN, and only then, once our people are free once again, we'll see if there really is still a problem, eh? :71:


 
OP
Wry Catcher

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
A hack that is willfully ignorant, no surprise here.
Nope, I am NOT willfully ignorant.

I KNOW what billionaire MICHAEL BLOOMBERG is all about.

Are YOU one of his minions too?

Everytown for Gun Safety - Wikipedia
What is Bloomberg all about?
Did you even read the link?

The whole issue is basically funded and pushed by him.

Everytown for Gun Safety is largely financed by Michael Bloomberg,[9] who also founded the group.[10]
Everytown for Gun Safety - Wikipedia

The real reason Michael Bloomberg cares about guns
OPINION: The real reason Michael Bloomberg cares about guns

"Despite its notoriety, the NRA spends only about $20 million a year, and relies heavily on the grassroots enthusiasm of its members. Bloomberg, on the other hand, shrugged at the idea of throwing in an experimental $50 million “as if he were describing the tip he left on a restaurant check.”

<snip>

". . . .If Bloomberg wanted to spend some pocket change to undermine any other constitutional right, liberals would quickly complain about how the nation’s elites use their money to over influence policy and consolidate power away from the broader citizenry. The billionaire Koch brothers, who fund numerous conservative and libertarian causes, have become archetypes of this phenomenon, to the benefit of Obama-aligned outrage sites such as Salon and ThinkProgress. But when it comes to the Second Amendment, liberals don’t see a question of freedom or liberty, even when a billionaire tries to buy it away.

What really irks Bloomberg about the right to bear arms isn’t the red herrings we throw around in the gun rights debate, such as hunting or self-defense. Rather, he hates its foundation in popular sovereignty. It’s easy to forget that when the Bill of Rights was being drafted, the founding fathers took for granted that the United States would not field an army during peacetime. With the enumerated rights to association and the press — as well as arms — they attempted to place the tools of 18th century revolution (and thus American sovereignty) permanently in the hands of the enfranchised public. Militias weren’t supposed to be local armies, they were supposed to be the Army. As Rep. Samuel Nasson wrote to Rep. George Thatcher in 1789, “Spare me on the subject of Standing armeys in a time of Peace they allway was first or last the downfall of all free Governments it was by their help Caesar made proud Rome Own a Tyrant and a Traytor for a Master.”


"I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh-biggest army in the world."


Michael Bloomberg
Former mayor of New York City


Bloomberg has never had a problem with standing armies; in 2011 he even bragged to an audience at MIT, “I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world.” The NYPD is the largest, best-equipped municipal police force in the country, and its influence extends far beyond American territorial borders. It operates in 11 foreign cities and runs its own foreign policy and intelligence network. Bloomberg personally boasted that the NYPD has the capacity to shoot down passenger planes. It’s clear from his record that it’s not the “gun” part of “gun control” Bloomberg is interested in.

Whose guns?

There’s no doubt America needs to curb gun use and possession. The question is, whose guns? There are 34,500 members of the NYPD, and in 2012 they fatally shot 16 people. That gives Bloomberg’s army a rate of over 46 shooting deaths per 100,000, killing people at a clip that dwarfs any civilian level in the country. To put it in perspective, Chicago — an American city known for gun violence — hit its peak murder rate of 34 per 100,000 in 1992. American law enforcement is increasingly militarized — as Radley Balko reports in his book “Rise of the Warrior Cop”: “Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment — from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers — American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield.” And this army takes a lot of prisoners: While gun violence has markedly declined following heightened crime in the ’90s, incarceration rates haven’t returned to earth, nearly quintupling since the early ’70s, making Americans the most imprisoned people in the world.. . . "

Stop being a servant for the master. This isn't about saving lives, it is about taking freedom away. The STATE will still unreasonably kill people, and it won't be held to account. . . even less so.
My take away, paranoid schizophrenia^^^ is afoot. Those who suffer from this mental illness are not all actors like the Unabomber or McVeigh, but they build there own reality, and find people and things to blame & punish them by word or deed.

I don't know if I would go so far as to call Michael Bloomberg a paranoid schizophrenic. I think he is just power hungry.

. . . but?

I am glad you are finally coming around. :113:


First we work on the over militarization of the police, and the lawmakers and bureaucracy making everything illegal and throwing the citizenry in jail for exercising their civil rights and liberties?

. . . and THEN, and only then, once our people are free once again, we'll see if there really is still a problem, eh? :71:


You've made a transition, from an insipid hack to a comedian. Your sarcasm is completely ridiculous and you know it. Mockery has it's place, but only when the rhetoric has a footing.

Your's does not. It seems you too lack the education and intelligence to write an expository post, making you one more of the hoi polloi attenders of trump's rally's, in person or not.
 

Leo123

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
9,147
Reaction score
2,589
Points
290
In United States politics, the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

The amendment was lobbied for by the NRA. The amendment is named after its author Jay Dickey, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas.[2] Many commentators have described this amendment as a "ban" on gun violence research by the CDC.[3]

The amendment was introduced after lobbying by the National Rifle Association in response to the perceived bias in a 1993 study by Arthur Kellermann that found that guns in the home were associated with an increased risk of homicide in the home, as well as other CDC funded studies and efforts.[2][4] In response to this amendment being adopted, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution condemning it.[2] In December 2015, multiple medical organizations, including Doctors for America, the American College of Preventive Medicine, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, called on Congress to repeal the amendment.[4] That same month, the American Association for the Advancement of Science also called for an end to this amendment.[5]

Following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, President Barack Obama directed the CDC and other federal agencies to "conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it."[11] The CDC responded by funding a research project[12] and conducting their own study in 2015.[13] That month, a spokeswoman for the agency, Courtney Lenard, told the Washington Post that "it is possible for us to conduct firearm-related research within the context of our efforts to address youth violence, domestic violence, sexual violence, and suicide. But our resources are very limited."[4]


Selected paragraphs from the link here:

Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia

Clearly, the NRA and those who profit from gun and ammunition sales don't want the public to know the costs of gun violence in America, not only in blood, but in costs to the agencies which respond to shootings.
Guns aren't violent, people are.
 
OP
Wry Catcher

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
In United States politics, the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

The amendment was lobbied for by the NRA. The amendment is named after its author Jay Dickey, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas.[2] Many commentators have described this amendment as a "ban" on gun violence research by the CDC.[3]

The amendment was introduced after lobbying by the National Rifle Association in response to the perceived bias in a 1993 study by Arthur Kellermann that found that guns in the home were associated with an increased risk of homicide in the home, as well as other CDC funded studies and efforts.[2][4] In response to this amendment being adopted, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution condemning it.[2] In December 2015, multiple medical organizations, including Doctors for America, the American College of Preventive Medicine, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, called on Congress to repeal the amendment.[4] That same month, the American Association for the Advancement of Science also called for an end to this amendment.[5]

Following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, President Barack Obama directed the CDC and other federal agencies to "conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it."[11] The CDC responded by funding a research project[12] and conducting their own study in 2015.[13] That month, a spokeswoman for the agency, Courtney Lenard, told the Washington Post that "it is possible for us to conduct firearm-related research within the context of our efforts to address youth violence, domestic violence, sexual violence, and suicide. But our resources are very limited."[4]


Selected paragraphs from the link here:

Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia

Clearly, the NRA and those who profit from gun and ammunition sales don't want the public to know the costs of gun violence in America, not only in blood, but in costs to the agencies which respond to shootings.
Guns aren't violent, people are.
Answer honestly, if you can: When someone is armed will they do things because they are armed, that they wouldn't do if they were unarmed?
 
OP
Wry Catcher

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Good.

What ever it takes to protect us from out of control government and corporations.
A hack that is willfully ignorant, no surprise here.
You should stop posting nothing but insults. I already reported one of your posts.
Gee, I'm shocked. I've been reporting every vile and vulgar post by your RW Collegues for weeks. I expect that what goes around comes around, as I have informed the mods, I don't like bullies.

If my insult was beyond the scope of the rules, I will take my punishment without resentment. If because I called someone like you ignorant, my defense will the truth, and as most non ignorant people know, the truth will be an effective defense.
 
Last edited:

Leo123

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
9,147
Reaction score
2,589
Points
290
Answer honestly, if you can: When someone is armed will they do things because they are armed, that they wouldn't do if they were unarmed?
Your answer lies with the shooter at Wal Mart. If the people at Wal Mart (or anywhere else) were not disarmed, that perp would not have chosen to go there and shoot up the place. Guns don't have the power to mentally change people. That perp was a rotter in the first place. I realize that is the direct opposite of what you are trying to claim.

The "if he just had no access to a gun" argument is faulty because guns are ubiquitous and always will be legal or illegal. A perp will ALWAYS get a gun because a criminal or someone with criminal intent doesn't give a shit about the law.
 

Leo123

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
9,147
Reaction score
2,589
Points
290
Answer honestly, if you can: When someone is armed will they do things because they are armed, that they wouldn't do if they were unarmed?
Yes, they would walk out of a Wal Mart instead of being carried out.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
54,550
Reaction score
12,273
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
In United States politics, the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

The amendment was lobbied for by the NRA. The amendment is named after its author Jay Dickey, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas.[2] Many commentators have described this amendment as a "ban" on gun violence research by the CDC.[3]

The amendment was introduced after lobbying by the National Rifle Association in response to the perceived bias in a 1993 study by Arthur Kellermann that found that guns in the home were associated with an increased risk of homicide in the home, as well as other CDC funded studies and efforts.[2][4] In response to this amendment being adopted, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution condemning it.[2] In December 2015, multiple medical organizations, including Doctors for America, the American College of Preventive Medicine, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, called on Congress to repeal the amendment.[4] That same month, the American Association for the Advancement of Science also called for an end to this amendment.[5]

Following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, President Barack Obama directed the CDC and other federal agencies to "conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it."[11] The CDC responded by funding a research project[12] and conducting their own study in 2015.[13] That month, a spokeswoman for the agency, Courtney Lenard, told the Washington Post that "it is possible for us to conduct firearm-related research within the context of our efforts to address youth violence, domestic violence, sexual violence, and suicide. But our resources are very limited."[4]


Selected paragraphs from the link here:

Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia

Clearly, the NRA and those who profit from gun and ammunition sales don't want the public to know the costs of gun violence in America, not only in blood, but in costs to the agencies which respond to shootings.
The Dickey Amendment, of course, illustrates the idiocy of most conservatives, and their inability to engage in critical thinking – in that they actually believe research concerning the costs and consequences of gun crime and violence will result in 'more gun laws.'

Or it illustrates just how dishonest and reprehensible most conservatives are, and how they fear facts and the truth, opposing “research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it,” research that will in no manner result in more firearm regulatory measures.
 
OP
Wry Catcher

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Answer honestly, if you can: When someone is armed will they do things because they are armed, that they wouldn't do if they were unarmed?
Your answer lies with the shooter at Wal Mart. If the people at Wal Mart (or anywhere else) were not disarmed, that perp would not have chosen to go there and shoot up the place. Guns don't have the power to mentally change people. That perp was a rotter in the first place. I realize that is the direct opposite of what you are trying to claim.

The "if he just had no access to a gun" argument is faulty because guns are ubiquitous and always will be legal or illegal. A perp will ALWAYS get a gun because a criminal or someone with criminal intent doesn't give a shit about the law.
You can't know what the shooter thought, unless you think like these monsters (which may not be out of the question).

A gun in possession does impact how someone thinks, I know since I spent some time in IA and terminated probatonary officers whose behavior was reckless. And they had been trained in the Academy and on the range.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top