Be a Supporter!

The Nra's Anti-obama Ad

  • 3,827 Views
  • 238 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 29th, 2013 @ 01:44 PM Reply

At 1/29/13 11:48 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Yet you support the NRA's commercial which is pandering to the NRA people whilst supporting overtly anti-American sentiments? Go to China you communist.

The NRA is not pandering. They're bringing up a legitimate point that it's hypocritical for the president to say he needs guns for safety, but no one else does.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 29th, 2013 @ 01:46 PM Reply

At 1/29/13 12:24 PM, Feoric wrote: It's not getting through the House. There's zero chance. It's nothing more than a bargaining chip.

Just like it didn't last time, right?

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 29th, 2013 @ 02:03 PM Reply

At 1/29/13 01:46 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Just like it didn't last time, right?

Yes, actually. I know you're being sarcastic but you're unintentionally right. Remember all those times the bill reached the House floor for a vote to be renewed since it expired in 2004? And remember both George Bush and John Kerry voicing their support for it's renewal on the '04 campaign trail? And public polling showed 77% of people in favor of renewing it in April of 04? Yet it was never renewed?

I've already said this before but I'll repeat it: I will ask Tom or whoever to delete my account if a renewed AWB passes Congress. Anyone willing to match my bet?

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 29th, 2013 @ 02:58 PM Reply

At 1/29/13 01:44 PM, LemonCrush wrote: They're bringing up a legitimate point that it's hypocritical for the president to say he needs guns for safety, but no one else does.

Legitimate my ass. They are doing nothing but raising a very anti-American sentiment in order to scare you into believing something that IS NOT TRUE.

It's called conservative tactics and you've bought it hook line and sinker. They hoped you would abandon all reason and they were right. (at least the NRA as an organization can do SOMETHING right.)

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 29th, 2013 @ 04:30 PM Reply

But that was my point, to ensure the government is in check by its citizens. Our own president refused to acknowledge that fact. That was all I said.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 29th, 2013 @ 05:03 PM Reply

At 1/29/13 02:03 PM, Feoric wrote: Yes, actually. I know you're being sarcastic but you're unintentionally right. Remember all those times the bill reached the House floor for a vote to be renewed since it expired in 2004?

I'm talking the one that happened in the Clinton era ;)

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 29th, 2013 @ 05:05 PM Reply

At 1/29/13 02:58 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Legitimate my ass. They are doing nothing but raising a very anti-American sentiment in order to scare you into believing something that IS NOT TRUE.

No they're fucking not. They're pointing out that Obama wants to ban an inanimate object, yet relies on those same inanimate objects for his own safety.

:They hoped you would abandon all reason and they were right. (at least the NRA as an organization can do SOMETHING right.)

LOL. Democrats do this far more often than Republicans do.

"Look look over here! We used to be the party of racism and segregation...but look, we have a black guy. And we have a woman too! See, we're not racist or sexist. Really."

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 29th, 2013 @ 05:13 PM Reply

At 1/29/13 05:03 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I'm talking the one that happened in the Clinton era ;)

I know. It expired in 2004 and there were numerous attempts to get it renewed when the vast majority of Americans was in favor of doing so. Zero times did it ever get to the House. What makes you think this time it's different?

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 29th, 2013 @ 05:23 PM Reply

At 1/29/13 05:13 PM, Feoric wrote:
At 1/29/13 05:03 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I'm talking the one that happened in the Clinton era ;)
I know. It expired in 2004 and there were numerous attempts to get it renewed when the vast majority of Americans was in favor of doing so. Zero times did it ever get to the House. What makes you think this time it's different?

Things get pushed all the time while America is still interested. Once the public loses interest pushing your agenda either becomes much harder, or much easier.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 29th, 2013 @ 05:39 PM Reply

At 1/29/13 05:23 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Things get pushed all the time while America is still interested. Once the public loses interest pushing your agenda either becomes much harder, or much easier.

We never really lost interest though. Polling in favor of renewing the AWB is still high.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 29th, 2013 @ 08:25 PM Reply

At 1/28/13 11:51 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Not stating the true purpose of the 2nd is douchey.

And that was the NRA's response. The true purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to maintain a militia, I for one hope that the NRA doesn't maintain a militia. But that doesn't change my point, the NRA launches a full on attack ad containing nothing productive to bring to discussion and is just full of personal attacks against Obama and other prominent Democrats, Obama responds by saying "I like shooting" and he gets called an asshole by the NRA for saying that. Does anyone else not see something wrong with that?

At 1/29/13 12:57 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Because he's PANDERING to them (patronizing them) while trying to take their guns.

Oh I get it, he's trying to appeal to people so when he does it it's called pandering, otherwise if he doesn't pander to them he's ignoring their opinion like the tyrant he is. Oh whatever he does he's evil, if he fights a ban against Assault rifles the NRA will try to weaken him, if he goes for it the NRA will try to weaken him, my isn't the choice so obvious.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 29th, 2013 @ 08:34 PM Reply

It should be obvious by now that people are going to see whatever they want to see and think whatever they want to think, no matter how much mental gymnastics they have to go through. This is apparent to everyone except the ones doing just that. Obama is not taking your guns, he's not taking the ability away to defend yourself, yadda yadda, but if you really want to believe all of that is true then it doesn't really matter. This ad makes perfect logical sense to you, because you want it to, not because it actually does.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 29th, 2013 @ 08:38 PM Reply

At 1/29/13 05:39 PM, Feoric wrote:
At 1/29/13 05:23 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Things get pushed all the time while America is still interested. Once the public loses interest pushing your agenda either becomes much harder, or much easier.
We never really lost interest though. Polling in favor of renewing the AWB is still high.

That doesn't have to do with interest though, you don't need to be interested in anything particularly to have an opinion on it when it comes to things like that. And AWB polling just reflects the need for the public to feel better about doing nothing. "Assault Weapons" are classified as such based on looks, not functionality.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 29th, 2013 @ 10:34 PM Reply

At 1/29/13 08:34 PM, Feoric wrote: Obama is not taking your guns, he's not taking the ability away to defend yourself, yadda yadda, but if you really want to believe all of that is true then it doesn't really matter. This ad makes perfect logical sense to you, because you want it to, not because it actually does.

He does however, support limiting the types of available for future people to purchase based off of nothing except for cosmetic looks. Limiting the types of firearms available is limiting your ability to defend yourself. Those spooky AR-15s, made out of all their scary lightweight materials, make it easier for weaker people to handle over heavier counterparts that are functionally the same. Handguns, when you get down it, are inaccurate as fuck compared to other weapons, and, personal opinion here, have harder to manage recoil than rifles.

Telling people that their children should not get protection is a form of hypocrisy. Yeah, his daughters pose more of a risk if something were to happen to them, but that does not mean nobody else's kids are worth protecting. There is a huge difference between saying that his daughters need elevated security and saying that only his daughters should get security.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 30th, 2013 @ 02:26 AM Reply

At 1/29/13 05:13 PM, Feoric wrote: I know. It expired in 2004 and there were numerous attempts to get it renewed when the vast majority of Americans was in favor of doing so. Zero times did it ever get to the House. What makes you think this time it's different?

Same reason it did in 94. Same reason there are gun bans in a lot of major cities (LA, Chicago, DC). Same reason most guns are now illegal in New York State.

Idiocy. And now we have emotional appeal of a school shooting, and an opportunist president who has nothing to go on but emotional appeal, and ends up whining and bitching until he gets his way.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 30th, 2013 @ 02:32 AM Reply

At 1/29/13 08:25 PM, Warforger wrote: Oh I get it, he's trying to appeal to people so when he does it it's called pandering, otherwise if he doesn't pander to them he's ignoring their opinion like the tyrant he is. Oh whatever he does he's evil, if he fights a ban against Assault rifles the NRA will try to weaken him, if he goes for it the NRA will try to weaken him, my isn't the choice so obvious.

Um, no....do you smoke a lot of weed? You seem to have some crazy delusional paranoia going on here?

Here's a tyrant because he kills kids overseas, and steals your money. The AWB just makes him an opportunistic asshole, because he takes advantage of people's emotions (if we don't pass this, millions of seniors will die. If we don't do a bailout, the economy will collapse. If we don't ban "military style" weapons, kids will die). It's disgusting. He can't make a case for most of his causes, because they're retarded, so he scares people into accepting them (if we don't do this, x bad thing will happen)

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 30th, 2013 @ 02:35 AM Reply

Let's blame the other side and then repeat how important it is to work together.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 30th, 2013 @ 05:27 AM Reply

At 1/29/13 08:38 PM, Ceratisa wrote: That doesn't have to do with interest though, you don't need to be interested in anything particularly to have an opinion on it when it comes to things like that. And AWB polling just reflects the need for the public to feel better about doing nothing. "Assault Weapons" are classified as such based on looks, not functionality.

I'm not calling into question the AWB's functionality, I think we all know what it does and I think we're all of the opinion that it's ineffective (including myself). I'm calling into question whether it will be renewed, and I am certain it will not be renewed. Completely ignore the mentality and education of the people being polled for one second. If Bush and Kerry both voiced support for it on the campaign trail while popular opinion was even higher than it is today, why wasn't there any sort of effort at all to get it renewed? Ack! Postering!

At 1/29/13 10:34 PM, RacistBassist wrote: He does however, support limiting the types of available for future people to purchase based off of nothing except for cosmetic looks. Limiting the types of firearms available is limiting your ability to defend yourself. Those spooky AR-15s, made out of all their scary lightweight materials, make it easier for weaker people to handle over heavier counterparts that are functionally the same. Handguns, when you get down it, are inaccurate as fuck compared to other weapons, and, personal opinion here, have harder to manage recoil than rifles.

I'm going to copy and paste a post I previously made because it bears repeating:

This is what's probably going to happen: the Dems will give up any legislation that regulates magazine capacity and the AWB in exchange for more stringent background checks, a confirmed ATF director, and more cash for enforcing existing law. You should be happy Obama made that proposal - the GOP can say that they defended their constituents against ineffective and draconian laws, and instead enacted reasonable proposals; the Democrats can put on a show and convince everyone that they tried to get "hard" gun control legislation on the books (even though it was a bargaining chip from the start), but still managed to get something after compromising with the GOP. It makes everyone happy. Contrary to popular belief, gun owners do in fact take up a non-negligible amount of the Democratic base.

Telling people that their children should not get protection is a form of hypocrisy.

Can you show me the transcript where he said such a thing? Or is it just because teachers can't keep a Beretta in their leggings like a Bond girl?

At 1/30/13 02:26 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Same reason it did in 94. Same reason there are gun bans in a lot of major cities (LA, Chicago, DC). Same reason most guns are now illegal in New York State.

Idiocy. And now we have emotional appeal of a school shooting, and an opportunist president who has nothing to go on but emotional appeal, and ends up whining and bitching until he gets his way.

Uh huh. Let's make a bet, then. If the AWB gets to Congress and passes, I'll have my account deleted. If the AWB doesn't pass Congress (whether it fail in the House or is bargained away during negotiations) you don't have to do anything, the satisfaction of me being right will suffice. Deal?

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 30th, 2013 @ 08:10 AM Reply

At 1/30/13 05:27 AM, Feoric wrote:
hat's probably going to happen: the Dems will give up any legislation that regulates magazine capacity and the AWB in exchange for more stringent background checks,

yes

a confirmed ATF director,

NOPE, pubs won't allow it and no one wants it that position is a fucking career killer and no respectful career man would take that bullet.

and more cash for enforcing existing law.

the current laws just suck up more money. what you think the new ones will?

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 30th, 2013 @ 08:32 AM Reply

At 1/30/13 08:10 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: NOPE, pubs won't allow it and no one wants it that position is a fucking career killer and no respectful career man would take that bullet.

Not so fast.

Since 2006, the Senate has carried the lone responsibility of confirming a director to the ATF. So fuck what the Republicans think about it, basically, because the Democrats control the Senate and the director has to be appointed by the administration. The wonderfully ironic thing about that, which I'm sure you can appreciate, is the fact that the law that made this so was lobbied by the NRA, which Sensenbrenner added to the Patriot Act reauthorization. Surely a man who loves the NRA so much will think that this was a good idea.

the current laws just suck up more money. what you think the new ones will?

Kinda like how there is no money or manpower to enforce 4473 falsifications because the NRA is so good at starving the beast that is the ATF, right?

MrPercie
MrPercie
  • Member since: Apr. 5, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 33
Gamer
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 30th, 2013 @ 12:31 PM Reply

While I ain't supporting the new regulations on high capacity magazines and "assault" weapons, Wider background checks seems to be an ok type of control.

I never bought a gun so I dont know how it exactly works, they just check you over for mental illnesses and your criminal record to see if your fit to own a gun? Seems reasonable enough. Its just whether or not making the background checks more thorough would actually do anything.

They said there was also a gun-show loop hole which you can avoid such backround checks and obtain guns which seems a rather shady business but I havent looked into it.


BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 30th, 2013 @ 12:40 PM Reply

It's impossible to close the gunshow loophole, because you would in effect be banning private sales. This is the gunshow loophole: "Hey, nice gun. How about you meet me in the parking lot behind Red Lobster at 2 AM. I'll give you the cash upfront and we'll bypass all that obnoxious paperwork."

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 30th, 2013 @ 12:53 PM Reply

At 1/30/13 12:40 PM, Feoric wrote: It's impossible to close the gunshow loophole, because you would in effect be banning private sales. This is the gunshow loophole: "Hey, nice gun. How about you meet me in the parking lot behind Red Lobster at 2 AM. I'll give you the cash upfront and we'll bypass all that obnoxious paperwork."

Easy. Make the mere possession of a non/improperly registered firearm a class 4 felony. If there was a mistake in the register it's up to the defendant to prove it, which if the mistake was legitimate, it should be very easy to prove.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 30th, 2013 @ 01:07 PM Reply

At 1/30/13 12:53 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Easy. Make the mere possession of a non/improperly registered firearm a class 4 felony. If there was a mistake in the register it's up to the defendant to prove it, which if the mistake was legitimate, it should be very easy to prove.

Sure, absolutely. This would be more effective if we opened the NFA registry again, but when people say "close the loophole!" the only way that would be accomplished is effectively banning private transactions. This doesn't really do that, but of course I'm not opposed to it.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 30th, 2013 @ 01:13 PM Reply

At 1/30/13 08:32 AM, Feoric wrote: Since 2006, the Senate has carried the lone responsibility of confirming a director to the ATF. So fuck what the Republicans think about it, basically, because the Democrats control the Senate and the director has to be appointed by the administration.

the 53 democrats to 45 republicans isn't much of a difference since the NRA have a few Dem sponsors in the senate. and B. Todd Jones the man who is appointed probably won't be confirmed not with his record and the Fiasco that was Fast and Furious.

Kinda like how there is no money or manpower to enforce 4473 falsifications because the NRA is so good at starving the beast that is the ATF, right?

republican congress has turned the ATF into a incompetent agency. and there has only been one confirmed director in the last 7 years and that was 04-06 otherwise its been nothing but acting directors.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 30th, 2013 @ 01:31 PM Reply

At 1/30/13 01:13 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: the 53 democrats to 45 republicans isn't much of a difference since the NRA have a few Dem sponsors in the senate. and B. Todd Jones the man who is appointed probably won't be confirmed not with his record and the Fiasco that was Fast and Furious.

If nominating a director is part of the negotiation process then there should be no problem at all, since I think that's an important item Obama wants accomplished. You're most likely correct that there will be pro-NRA Democratic defections, but probably not any more than Republican defections. All the Senate needs is a simple majority to get the nomination.

republican congress has turned the ATF into a incompetent agency. and there has only been one confirmed director in the last 7 years and that was 04-06 otherwise its been nothing but acting directors.

I am...surprised you recognize this.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 30th, 2013 @ 01:53 PM Reply

At 1/30/13 01:31 PM, Feoric wrote: If nominating a director is part of the negotiation process then there should be no problem at all, since I think that's an important item Obama wants accomplished. You're most likely correct that there will be pro-NRA Democratic defections, but probably not any more than Republican defections. All the Senate needs is a simple majority to get the nomination.

a 8 senator difference isn't much and the republicans usually block vote on issues especially since the NRA is one of the senate republicans biggest sponsors on reelection campaigns I doubt they will get the majority vote. especially with this guys nomination and his history as acting director, it would be a double edged sword with democrats like the 94 AWB when 1/3 of the dems who voted yes got ousted in their reelection campaigns.

I am...surprised you recognize this.

yeah because the ATF has been one of the biggest tools used by anti-gun legislation

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 30th, 2013 @ 01:54 PM Reply

Sure, absolutely. This would be more effective if we opened the NFA registry again, but when people say "close the loophole!" the only way that would be accomplished is effectively banning private transactions. This doesn't really do that, but of course I'm not opposed to it.

The problem is when the "loophole" is brought up, most do not even understand that it isn't the gunshow itself. It is entirely misleading and it causes people take a side before they even understand.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 30th, 2013 @ 02:13 PM Reply

At 1/29/13 08:34 PM, Feoric wrote: ... Obama is not taking your guns, he's not taking the ability away to defend yourself, yadda yadda, ...

Here's a concern though; while slippery slope arguments are fallacious more often than they are valid...there can be validity to them. In the case of guns, those of us who know guns and look at the stats worry. To me there are two options:

OPTION A: Obama has, after 6 years in Washington, learned how to be a pragmatic governor. Therefore, he sees a way to appease a segment of his party's base and public opinion by reinstating the AWB. It is doing something to look effective...even if the policy will not produce any real result. This will allow him to focus on other policy initiatives, and maybe increase his political capital.

OPTION B: This is a first step. In a time of decreasing violence, in a few years the gun-control lobby can point to contrived data as an argument to go after handguns. Afterall, there are more reasons to have more restrictions on handguns than assault rifles like the AR-15. So there is a logical and causal connection between further policies (which makes the slippery slpe a valid logical argument).

Another worrisome sign to me is his executive order for the CDC to study the issue. Now, to most people this may seem perfectly reasonable but something has bothered me about it until last night.

This is not the correct way to fund this research. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the government agency that disseminates money to researchers to study issues to reach a scientific understanding of something. The NSF would funnel this money to economists, criminologists, and other social scientists who are trained in statistics and social science methodology.

The CDC on the other hand will funnel money to MDs and epidemiologists (who are jacks of all trades) who are accustomed to looking at these things through the lense viruses and microorganisms that are capable of reproduction and transmitted from person to person. A gun is an inanimate object that does not proliferate on its own. The epidemiological studies I have seen thus far dealing with this subject all suffer from fundamental assumptions that are erroneous.

In short; this is a way for a person with a political agenda to directly and significantly create junk-science to support said agenda.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad Jan. 30th, 2013 @ 02:48 PM Reply

At 1/30/13 02:13 PM, TheMason wrote: The CDC on the other hand will funnel money to MDs and epidemiologists (who are jacks of all trades) who are accustomed to looking at these things through the lense viruses and microorganisms that are capable of reproduction and transmitted from person to person. A gun is an inanimate object that does not proliferate on its own. The epidemiological studies I have seen thus far dealing with this subject all suffer from fundamental assumptions that are erroneous.

In short; this is a way for a person with a political agenda to directly and significantly create junk-science to support said agenda.

This is the MO for democrats, as we saw with man-made global warming.

Considering we have a democrat who is also insanely corporatist, especially in big pharma, you do have a point.