Thursday, January 29, 2015

David Codrea: Chicago pol paves way for Surgeon General Murthy to break phony pledge on guns



“[T]he gun lobby’s campaign against Murthy isn’t really about his record, or him at all,” Zoë Carpenter of The Nation told her “progressive” readers last March, meaning Opposite Day warnings should have been in full effect. She was passing along citizen disarmament lobby talking points about why Obama’s nominee for Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, was being opposed by the mean old National Rifle Association.

“[T]he campaign against Murthy is the continuation of a longstanding effort to make discussion of gun violence taboo,” Carpenter offered as the motive, purposely keeping mum about the real reason – to stop using tax plunder to gin up fake “studies” with predetermined conclusions for the express purpose of giving “progressive” politicians phony “health data” to exploit and defraud Americans out of their rights.

But don’t take my word for it – ask Mark Rosenberg of the CDC, who said he wanted to see guns “dirty, deadly and banned,” or Harvard School of Public Health’s Deborah Prothrow-Stith, who opined "My own view on gun control is simple. I hate guns – and cannot imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."

“His positions on guns are hardly radical or even activist,” Carpenter argued, no doubt because she's disappointed they don’t overtly go anywhere near as far as Rosenberg and Stith would take us, and because she’s evidently at least marginally mature enough to know whining “When are we gonna be there?” won’t make an incremental journey to the end goal any shorter. “He has ... expressed support for limited gun safety measures like a ban on assault weapons, mandatory safety training and limits on ammunition.”

You know, “reasonable” stuff. What happens when millions of gun owners reply “Hell no” and salivating citizen disarmament zealots let slip the dogs of war to bend us "ammosexual gun-humpers" to their will is left unstated, but the results would no doubt represent the pinnacle of “progressive common sense,” not to mention be a “progressive public health model” triumph – keeping that Opposite Day truism in mind, of course.

More Here

No comments: