Anti-Gun Strategy: Guns as a Public Health Debate

**hog45** · May 8th, 2014, 01:23 PM

The anti-gin activists periodically move from one crusade to another in their non-stop zeal to disarm everyone. The new angle is public health. I am posting this thread simply to inform you if you aren't paying attention, and to discuss responses to it.

It is hard to say exactly when and where this started, but based on some google-fu it seems to be related to Obama's nomination of Vivek Murthy as Surgeon General last November. Murthy has very little experience in medicine but is very loud about hating guns. Whether he ever gets the nomination or not does not really matter. What matters is that he is part of a changing tide in the attempt to disarm Americans. He is a leading figure in this effort whether he gets nominated or not.

They realize that Americans have wised up to their efforts. When Adam Lanza murdered all those kids at Sandy Hook Elementary, Americans armed themselves. We did not turn in our weapons out of fear. We bought more. These shootings used to be the bread and butter of the Antigun crusaders, but they now realize it is a losing argument, so they are moving on to public health.

The new strategy is not completely new, but it is taking a very prominent role in their efforts going forward and I believe it will be the primary argument that is raised over the next year or so. For example, just today the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal have printed articles about guns and public health. Yesterday Huffington wrote a similar piece. It is an intentional and concerted effort. They are shifting and re-framing the debate on purpose, knowing that they lost their previous battles. I think Bloomberg's new group is doing the same thing. They aren't talking about gun violence as much. They are talking about gun safety in "every town." This means they regard guns as a potential hazard to the community. They are a public health concern, rather than an individual right. Guns belong to the town and to the public, so, therefore, we must investigate the affects on public heath. Once again, moving the focus away from individual freedom and towards collectivism.

A few months ago, here on PAFOA, we were discussing Vivek Murthy and I wrote this. It remains my opinion.

Originally Posted by hog45

I am all for research and fact finding, but I am very leery of any attempts to turn the issue into a public health debate. It is not a public health debate. It is a rights debate, and in my opinion, anything that shifts it away from my rights is dangerous.

My right to keep and bear arms is my right, even if the research shows that my carrying a gun causes leprosy, rabies, SARS and has other detrimental health effects. Making the debate into a public health debate means we already lost. The debate is whether I have the right to defend myself with the use of force, or not. If you let them shift it to public health, or anything else, then you automatically lose because you have moved off of your right to bear arms, and onto something else. Anything else is a loss.

I frankly don't care what the health statistics turn out to be. I will defend myself and my family, and, maybe if they are lucky, some gun-hating liberals who are being threatened by someone. My right to keep and carry is my right. It is not dependent on new research that some group publishes. It is an inalienable right.

They are welcome to research it all they want but if they think they can turn an inalienable right into a "healthy lifestyle" debate then they can stick it in my .45

here are links to recent articles pushing this line of argument:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...5a6_story.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-w...b_5146581.html

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/politics...ew-focus.html/

**Pilot321** · May 8th, 2014, 01:58 PM

They constantly change language, and tactics in order to disarm people who legally own guns. Now we are seeing "Gun SAFETY" as the new canard to push more gun control. We are also seeing the public health, and mental health arguments to limit gun ownership. Mental health restrictions meaning anyone that went to marriage counseling can not be trusted with a gun.

Pull back the slim veil, at it is the same people, making the same emotional, and irrational arguments for more restrictions on the law abiding, as a way to get around the Constitution, and take away our natural right which the Constitution only guarantees not to be infringed.

Remember folks we almost lost the Heller decision, and they got to put in "reasonable restrictions", and a judge can make "reasonable" anything he or she wants it to be.

**GeneCC** · May 10th, 2014, 09:15 PM

The anti-gin activists periodically move from one crusade to another in their non-stop zeal to disarm everyone. The new angle is public health. I am posting this thread simply to inform you if you aren't paying attention, and to discuss responses to it.

It is hard to say exactly when and where this started, but based on some google-fu it seems to be related to Obama's nomination of Vivek Murthy as Surgeon General last November. Murthy has very little experience in medicine but is very loud about hating guns. Whether he ever gets the nomination or not does not really matter. What matters is that he is part of a changing tide in the attempt to disarm Americans. He is a leading figure in this effort whether he gets nominated or not.

The "public health angle" goes back to the Clinton Administration. At least.

This is an old trick - the Nazis called Jews "Rats" and "carriers of race contagion".

The film utilizes a montage that juxtaposes these images of ghetto Jews with images of rats to draw an analogy between the migration of Jews from Eastern Europe with the migration of rats. For example, one of the shots shows a pack of rats emerging from a sewer, followed by a shot of a crowd of Jews in a bustling street of the Lodz ghetto. Close-ups of those in the crowd reveal sickly, malformed facial features. The narrator states that, as rats are the vermin of the animal kingdom, Jews are the vermin of the human race and similarly spread disease and corruption. Unlike rats, however, the narrator continues, Jews have the uncanny ability to change their appearance and blend into their "human hosts." A scene depicts four bearded men in traditional religious Jewish clothing, then shows them shaved and in modern business suits, while the narrator explains that only a "trained eye" can distinguish their Jewish features.

"Where rats appear, they bring ruin by destroying mankind's goods and foodstuffs. In this way, they spread disease, plague, leprosy, typhoid fever, cholera, dysentery, and so on. They are cunning, cowardly and cruel and are found mostly in large packs. Among the animals, they represent the rudiment of an insidious, underground destruction - just like the Jews among human beings. "[

http://books.google.com/books?id=rWA...page&q&f=false

In a like vein the Gun Control lobby casts firearms as "vectors of violence". Does that make gun owners "infected"? Will we be disarmed to "cleanse the social body"?

Maybe it's just more Orwellian rubbish?

Gun Control people hide their intentions behind wholesome topics like Motherhood and Children.

Who could be against Moms?

Who could be against Children?

Who could be against Health?

Who could be against guns? Tyrants, Elitists, Nazis..... their busybody followers.

**Old Shooter** · May 13th, 2014, 12:14 AM

Why has no one ever approached Gun laws from a Civil Rights prospective.
People who live in cities with large minority populations are being denied the rights that others living in more rural counties are afforded. Discrimination is the same whoever its applied to.

**scruff** · May 13th, 2014, 12:29 AM

Originally Posted by GeneCC

The "public health angle" goes back to the Clinton Administration. At least.

This is an old trick - the Nazis called Jews "Rats" and "carriers of race contagion".

http://books.google.com/books?id=rWA...page&q&f=false

In a like vein the Gun Control lobby casts firearms as "vectors of violence". Does that make gun owners "infected"? Will we be disarmed to "cleanse the social body"?

Maybe it's just more Orwellian rubbish?

Gun Control people hide their intentions behind wholesome topics like Motherhood and Children.

Who could be against Moms?

Who could be against Children?

Who could be against Health?

Who could be against guns? Tyrants, Elitists, Nazis..... their busybody followers.

Yep, and the latest thing is "gun bullies." Kim Stolfer - gun bully. Guy walking through a Georgia park OC'ing and people freak out and make up a story about what he said - gun bully. Guys OC rifles into a fast food place and people lie & say the staff hid in the walk-in cooler - gun bullies. I'm surprised CeasefirePA hasn't yet posted about us "gun bullies" at the rally on Saturday.

"Gun bullies".... Nobody likes a bully, right?

**GeneCC** · May 14th, 2014, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by scruff

Yep, and the latest thing is "gun bullies." Kim Stolfer - gun bully. Guy walking through a Georgia park OC'ing and people freak out and make up a story about what he said - gun bully. Guys OC rifles into a fast food place and people lie & say the staff hid in the walk-in cooler - gun bullies. I'm surprised CeasefirePA hasn't yet posted about us "gun bullies" at the rally on Saturday.

"Gun bullies".... Nobody likes a bully, right?

Maybe CeasefirePA is afraid using the word "bully" is too close to their state of mind?

**GeneCC** · May 14th, 2014, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by Old Shooter

Why has no one ever approached Gun laws from a Civil Rights prospective.
People who live in cities with large minority populations are being denied the rights that others living in more rural counties are afforded. Discrimination is the same whoever its applied to.

Could also call it "Gun Control Apartheid", "Gun Control Jim Crow" or a lot of other ideas.

**BSH** · May 17th, 2014, 01:33 PM

they lose on public health issue, too, because you can't find examples of gun control laws that caused a reduction in homicide and violent crime rates.

Posted from Pafoa.org App for Android

**Pilot321** · May 17th, 2014, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by BSH

they lose on public health issue, too, because you can't find examples of gun control laws that caused a reduction in homicide and violent crime rates.

Posted from Pafoa.org App for Android

Oh, they will make up phony statistics, based on some skewed data. Then they will again lie, and claim that 91% of Americans want gun safety measures.