Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,470 posts)
32. The fact is as I reported in the quote from the actual law
Sat Feb 17, 2018, 10:26 AM
Feb 2018

In '96 the GOP flexed on the CDC for having participated in "gun-control" advocacy in addition to collecting data. The CDC leadership has chosen the safe and protected path of doing nothing. They're not independent and they're not acting like leaders at all. They just get in line for their congressional handout and do as they're told.

In the 104th Congress the Senate majority of Democrats dropped from 57 to 47 and the House majority of 258 dropped to 204. This occurred as a consequence of the 1994 elections. You are free to think, speak and write as you wish but my conclusion is that the passage of the 1994 AWB contributed to that.

Named for Republican Rep. Jay Dickey of Arkansas, a self-proclaimed "point man for the NRA" on The Hill -- the Dickey amendment does not explicitly ban CDC research on gun violence. But along with the gun control line came a $2.6 million budget cut -- the exact amount that the agency had spent on firearm research the year prior -- and a quiet wariness.

As one doctor put it, "Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear ... but no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out." http://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-government-study-gun-violence/story?id=50300379


So there you have it. Conviction at the CDC for more than 2 decades has run as deep as the wallet. During the 111th Congress with a Democratic Majority in both houses, why this issue did not become important enough to at least enact guidelines for the CDC concerning research on firearm effects is beyond me. Horsetrading is what politics are all about. You give some to get some. Each party has their own set of political priorities. "Gun-control" has been a political loser for Democrats since the federal AWB. We got the Brady law in the '90s with background checks, etc. That was progress. The AWB was absolutely a bridge too far and the party has been paying for it for going on a quarter century. Democratic leadership apparently did not make that CDC research an important enough issue. Maybe there were issues like healthcare that were more precious or more exigent. I'll tell you what I've read, HRC tested the waters once during the campaign on the AWB issue and never again. Politicians know for sure that for the minority party, it's all about elections. From your own party you have allegiance. From the opposition you need certain attractive qualities and a scarcity of reasons for folks to simply vote against you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2018
All 33 seats in Senate Class I will be up for election. 23 of the seats to be contested are presently held by Democrats, and eight by Republicans (three of which are retiring), with two being independents...All 435 voting seats in the United States House of Representatives will be up for election...In November 2017, the rate of Republican congresspeople announcing their impending retirements or resigning their seats was vastly higher than at similar time-points in the Congresses since 2006.
I look at this time, RIGHT NOW as a time to GET DEMOCRATS ELECTED. As much as it may seem disingenuous, focusing on these issues will not swing marginal voters from purple areas your way.

At this point right now that 1996 law is an excuse that Democrats can use to say, "It's the Republican's fault."

Wake up. This is the age of information. A video of athlete burping at lunch can go viral. Make some progress. Get that CDC research defined and set by law. Have an accomplishment. You think the data will point in your direction. Good. Get the data. Get some congress critters in place to pass the law to get the data.

In this time where trump has convinced most every Democrat to simply vote against any Republican, to whom are you trying to appeal for a vote? It is my bet that every Democrat will vote against every Republican. The only pivotal campaign issues will come down to those that swing Republicans to vote against trump and their own party. Auribus teneo lupum. Regardless of what you do, you have the attention of the wolf. From my perspective feeding the wolf that it might relax and sleep while we take the advantage and win elections is the course of wisdom.

If Democrats want more a 22 year old excuse, now is the time. Stop trying to kick the wolf in the balls.
"We need more guns to fix this problem!" - NRA Beartracks Feb 2018 #1
If those kids were armed they'd stop the other kid criminals accidentally shooting them! sharedvalues Feb 2018 #2
I inquire about access to firearms... 3catwoman3 Feb 2018 #3
Our pediatrician told us to ask about guns too. America is insane on guns. sharedvalues Feb 2018 #4
Yes, there are kids being killed and injured by the misuse of guns. ManiacJoe Feb 2018 #5
The problem of too many guns that are not single shot rifles sharedvalues Feb 2018 #6
So, if a kid gets hold of a single shot rifle, and kills their self with it, yagotme Feb 2018 #7
One step at a time, friend. One. Step. At. A. Time. AzureCrest Feb 2018 #8
No. Ban handguns and semi-autos. Like Canada effectively does. sharedvalues Feb 2018 #9
But Canada does not do that. ManiacJoe Feb 2018 #11
As we can see, factual accuracy is not a priority in gun control advocacy friendly_iconoclast Feb 2018 #13
Handguns severally restricted to police, armed guards and remote wildlife areas. Fred Sanders Feb 2018 #27
So if I own guns, I'm complicit in gun deaths. yagotme Feb 2018 #18
Yup. Handgun and semi auto owners are complicit. sharedvalues Feb 2018 #19
Are drug users likewise complicit in cartel violence? friendly_iconoclast Feb 2018 #22
You should go with: guns kill Americans sharedvalues Feb 2018 #24
So, what percentage of my purchase amount goes to the NRA??? yagotme Feb 2018 #44
What percent of your purchase is profit for gun manufacturers? sharedvalues Feb 2018 #50
Which one? yagotme Feb 2018 #53
Yes your money goes to gun companies who give it to the NRA. sharedvalues Feb 2018 #57
Well, if there was such a problem.... ManiacJoe Feb 2018 #10
Am interesting in saving American lives. By banning handguns. Kids lives. sharedvalues Feb 2018 #20
Pretty sure the numbers would not support your plan. ManiacJoe Feb 2018 #21
Fewer guns, fewer deaths sharedvalues Feb 2018 #23
Nor can you stop him by allowing single shot firearms n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2018 #25
True, but there is value in respecting real hunters. sharedvalues Feb 2018 #48
Maybe I'm wrong but you say... discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2018 #52
Hunters can own single shot rifles. sharedvalues Feb 2018 #58
No thanks discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2018 #70
You'd rather have dead kids than give up your killing weapons? Seems un-neighborly sharedvalues Feb 2018 #72
"un-neighborly"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue#Folksy_posturing friendly_iconoclast Feb 2018 #74
Those are your words not mine discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2018 #78
The problem is that fewer guns does not lead to fewer deaths. ManiacJoe Feb 2018 #28
let's see the numbers that prove "fewer guns does not lead to fewer deaths" CreekDog Feb 2018 #38
Well, that is one way to increase your post count. ManiacJoe Feb 2018 #43
this is how you increase your post count: CreekDog Feb 2018 #60
We can prove the opposite krispos42 Feb 2018 #62
you're not answering the question CreekDog Feb 2018 #64
Where would I get data on that? krispos42 Feb 2018 #71
May or may not? Then ban them. Better than the current situation. sharedvalues Feb 2018 #49
this guy didn't destroy his weapon, gejohnston Feb 2018 #67
He did cut the receiver in half later, apparently-but only after people pointed out what you said... friendly_iconoclast Feb 2018 #75
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue#Gross_oversimplification friendly_iconoclast Feb 2018 #77
"Fewer horses, fewer horse thieves." yagotme Feb 2018 #45
(behind illnesses and unintentional injuries like drownings or car crashes). EX500rider Feb 2018 #12
Why start the OP off with a lie? The CDC and government aren't banned from collecting data linuxman Feb 2018 #14
I think you've got the wrong amendment. Straw Man Feb 2018 #15
Yep. That's it. linuxman Feb 2018 #16
FWIW I think DU doesn't respond correctly to links with parentheses. discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2018 #17
I debunk your falsehood in this previous post. GOP and NRA are AFRAID of gun data. sharedvalues Feb 2018 #29
Actually you didn't discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2018 #30
You didn't read the report excerpt I quoted then. sharedvalues Feb 2018 #31
The fact is as I reported in the quote from the actual law discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2018 #32
I am in a purple area. This issue will win for Dems sharedvalues Feb 2018 #33
But one other point sharedvalues Feb 2018 #34
But, what they are pushing for now is another "AWB". yagotme Feb 2018 #46
Simple: ban assault weapons. If you think it's too hard, ban all semiautomatics. A ban with teeth. sharedvalues Feb 2018 #47
Not so simple; what's an "assault weapon"? n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2018 #54
Hey an NRA talking point! Whatabout a barrel stock magazine clip silencer sight stock bolt lever... sharedvalues Feb 2018 #59
It's actually a very valid question krispos42 Feb 2018 #61
America is a country of momentous innovation discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2018 #79
Ritually chanting a slogan like "NRA talking point(s)", or "fake news" *isn't* a counterargument friendly_iconoclast Feb 2018 #68
No thanks, unprecedented, not possible discntnt_irny_srcsm Feb 2018 #69
If you don't know, then ban them all. All semi autos sharedvalues Feb 2018 #73
"(Gun) fetishists"? Once again, Wikipedia has your number: friendly_iconoclast Feb 2018 #76
Do you really realize what you're saying when you say yagotme Feb 2018 #55
Yes. Semiautos: banned. Single-shot hunting rifles: allowed. sharedvalues Feb 2018 #56
So, me saying that some people are evil is an NRA talking point. yagotme Feb 2018 #63
Using the phrase "talking point" reduces a complex discussion to the level of secular Bible-quoting. friendly_iconoclast Feb 2018 #66
"NRA talking points" is the functional equivalent of "fake news": a thought-terminating cliche... friendly_iconoclast Feb 2018 #65
The loons on the right will just say Yeah, & the leading cause is abortion. nt MadDAsHell Feb 2018 #26
"The number is based on data taken from 20122014 for children up to the age of 17" EX500rider Feb 2018 #35
Americans in cities know: kids get caught in crossfire sharedvalues Feb 2018 #36
Calling 17yo's "children" is just dishonest BS to drive up the number. EX500rider Feb 2018 #37
Kids get killed by guns. Are you denying that? sharedvalues Feb 2018 #39
Yes they do which doesn't change calling 17yo's children is obvious BS. EX500rider Feb 2018 #40
Ok cool. sharedvalues Feb 2018 #41
OMG, somebody on DU was reasonable!! thanks! lol EX500rider Feb 2018 #42
Federal funds are not allowed to be used for gun violence research JDC Feb 2018 #51
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Kids and Guns: Shootings ...»Reply #32