Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Omnibus Bill coming up may fund Junk science studies that "prove" guns are bad
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="abajaj11" data-source="post: 2828827" data-attributes="member: 3553"><p><u>So why is allowing funding for government run studies so bad, when private folk with big money (like B berg) are funding such junk already?</u></p><p><u></u></p><p>The <strong>key</strong> for the anti-2Aers is to get the <strong>Center for Disease Control</strong> to fund some junk studies...then these "findings" can be incorporated into Obama Care..For example they can find that "<strong>improper storage" of guns results in one death too many, and is a health hazard worthy of inspection</strong>. So if you have guns, they can <strong>schedule annual inspections in your home</strong>. Only fair and reasonable, right, because "we now know that guns are not harmless and can be a hazard to innocent people just by lying there" or some such gobbledygook. </p><p></p><p>They <strong>can make it a felony to lie on the medical info form you fill out if you have guns or not, since guns will be "proven" to cause harm to others</strong>. </p><p>They can do all sorts of things once they have some CDC funded studies. </p><p><strong>Bloomberg is an interested party, the CDC is supposed to be "disinterested" and scientific. </strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p>Making policy and legislation based on bloomberg funded studies may seem fishy, but <strong>what "reasonable person" can argue with our hallowed CDC</strong>? </p><p>Hence it is <strong><em>necessary to BLOCK this insidious removal of language holding the government funded studies in check. </em></strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="abajaj11, post: 2828827, member: 3553"] [U]So why is allowing funding for government run studies so bad, when private folk with big money (like B berg) are funding such junk already? [/U] The [B]key[/B] for the anti-2Aers is to get the [B]Center for Disease Control[/B] to fund some junk studies...then these "findings" can be incorporated into Obama Care..For example they can find that "[B]improper storage" of guns results in one death too many, and is a health hazard worthy of inspection[/B]. So if you have guns, they can [B]schedule annual inspections in your home[/B]. Only fair and reasonable, right, because "we now know that guns are not harmless and can be a hazard to innocent people just by lying there" or some such gobbledygook. They [B]can make it a felony to lie on the medical info form you fill out if you have guns or not, since guns will be "proven" to cause harm to others[/B]. They can do all sorts of things once they have some CDC funded studies. [B]Bloomberg is an interested party, the CDC is supposed to be "disinterested" and scientific. [/B] Making policy and legislation based on bloomberg funded studies may seem fishy, but [B]what "reasonable person" can argue with our hallowed CDC[/B]? Hence it is [B][I]necessary to BLOCK this insidious removal of language holding the government funded studies in check. [/I][/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Omnibus Bill coming up may fund Junk science studies that "prove" guns are bad
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
