GOP Congressman clueless about Surgeon General

[Ziggurat]

How does that square with 'one man one vote'

Easy: each person is still getting one vote.

What's the mechanism by which these lobbyists influence polititians? Why do you think that those that shout loudest (and spend most money) should be more listened to by the legislature than those who don't shout as loud because they can't afford a megaphone?

The anti-gun folks do plenty of shouting, and they have plenty of money. While your question might be interesting in the abstract, it's not really relevant to the topic of this thread.

The NRA is beating the anti-gun folks not because they have more money or shout louder, but because their position is more popular. It's really that simple.

 

[WildCat]

Why isn't epidemiology a reasonable way to study such things? Of course gathering any information on shootings at all is politically untenable. Why do you think there is no way of knowing how many people the police kill, let alone what percentage of them is unarmed.

Data is the enemy.

Why is the SG the best place to collect data? Isn't the FBI the more logical choice?

And why do you think epidemiology would be useful for this? Do you think murder is caused by a virus or something that is spread from person to person?

 

[WildCat]

As far as I know there is no vaccine or "something" that can cure lung cancer or lead poisoning either.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/initiatives/tobacco/ Guess that Surgeon Generals overstep their purview from time to time.

Then again, perhaps the safety and health of American citizens is part of the Surgeon General's purview.

People aren't intentionally giving others cancer and lead poisoning. Do you think people don't understand that if they shoot someone with a gun they could die?

 

[WildCat]

How many loonies head up Bloomberg's groups or the Brady Campaign?

Bloomberg's group is headed by one loon who thinks everyone should be disarmed unless they're rich or politically connected. The groups he funds largely through his personal funds have a tiny fraction of the members the NRA does, and in fact Bloomberg has to pay people to show up at his rallies. They even had to bus people in from out of state for a recent demonstration at a gun shop near Chicago.

Brady has far fewer members than even Bloomberg's astroturf groups.

How many cabinet positions have they lobbied to hold up?

To hold up a cabinet position you'd need both influence and a President who doesn't support your views. They are thin on the former and lacking on the latter.

 

[WildCat]

Am I the only one confused here? What is the link between Ebola and private gun ownership?

Yes, you are very confused. No one has claimed any such link, you're the first person to bring it up.

Have the NRA been taken over by conspiritards fearful of FEMA death camps or something?

Wut?

Are you seriously throwing in your support behind the NRA?

I support those who protect 2nd Amendment rights and oppose those who rely on logical fallacies to erode them.


And you are on record as supporting gun bans, yes? Amazing how everyone keeps saying "no one wants to take your guns" when examples abound.

 

[WildCat]

The anti-gun folks do plenty of shouting, and they have plenty of money. While your question might be interesting in the abstract, it's not really relevant to the topic of this thread.

The NRA is beating the anti-gun folks not because they have more money or shout louder, but because their position is more popular. It's really that simple.

Yep. Anti-gun groups, primarily Bloomberg, outspent the pro-gun groups 6-1 in the Colorado recall elections and still 2 Senators who voted for magazine bans were recalled.

 

[Mudcat]

Yes, you are very confused. No one has claimed any such link, you're the first person to bring it up.

I bring it up because I don't have the faintest clue on why the NRA are involving themselves on this particular issue at all.

Unless maybe they want to install some puppet that will tell people that we don't have a gun problem so that gun owners can keep on pretending in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I support those who protect 2nd Amendment rights and oppose those who rely on logical fallacies to erode them.

It's a pity that you're clueless about what the second admendment actually means and what it was originally intended for. And also who needs logical and emotional fallacies when facts are so easily available despite the NRA's best efforts to suppress them?

And you are on record as supporting gun bans, yes?

Not initially, no. Originally I believed private gun ownership should be restricted to people licensed, insured, and registered to do so. It's the gun owners who convinced me that guns need to baned since they're so dead against reasonable gun control.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[daenku32]

I swear NRA is responsible more deaths than the entire tobacco lobby.

 

[3point14]

Easy: each person is still getting one vote.



The anti-gun folks do plenty of shouting, and they have plenty of money. While your question might be interesting in the abstract, it's not really relevant to the topic of this thread.

The NRA is beating the anti-gun folks not because they have more money or shout louder, but because their position is more popular. It's really that simple.

Oh, I'm not saying it's biased either way, I think it's bad for either side of any given debatee to have undue influence in the corridors of power solely due to spending power. That means that policy falls on the side of the richest and every time and would lead to a deeply unequal and stratified society. Oh, hang on...

 

[Ziggurat]

I swear NRA is responsible more deaths than the entire tobacco lobby.

I'm sure you've got compelling evidence to support this position.

Don't worry, I can wait.

 

[DavidJames]

I swear NRA is responsible more deaths than the entire tobacco lobby.

Change the word deaths to murders and you're spot on.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh, I'm not saying it's biased either way, I think it's bad for either side of any given debatee to have undue influence in the corridors of power solely due to spending power.

You don't get it. The NRA's influence isn't solely or even primarily due to spending power. It's primarily due to the fact that their position is popular. Politicians are scared of the NRA because the NRA can marshal votes, because so many people agree with the NRA.

That means that policy falls on the side of the richest and every time and would lead to a deeply unequal and stratified society.

Bloomberg isn't on the side of the richest?

Go on, pull the other one.

 

[Mudcat]

You don't get it. The NRA's influence isn't solely or even primarily due to spending power. It's primarily due to the fact that their position is popular.

Argumentum ad populem.

 

[3point14]

You don't get it. The NRA's influence isn't solely or even primarily due to spending power. It's primarily due to the fact that their position is popular. Politicians are scared of the NRA because the NRA can marshal votes, because so many people agree with the NRA.

I think that's inaccurate, or, at least, not provable.


the NRA could be as popular as it likes but if it didn't have any money no-one in Washington would listen to a word they say. It requires both money and support to be able to lobby government. If one has oodles of support but no money then one has no influence with the elected. However, if one has very little support but oodles of money one can flood the corridors of power with lobbyists because lobbyists costs money.

Look at it this way, two opposing sides of an argument that it is being debated by polititians, both sides have pretty much a 50% of the support. One side has money and the other doesn't. Which is going to be able to afford influence with the powers that be?

 

[marplots]

I swear NRA is responsible more deaths than the entire tobacco lobby.

Please. No swearing in the forum.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think that's inaccurate, or, at least, not provable.


the NRA could be as popular as it likes but if it didn't have any money no-one in Washington would listen to a word they say.

And why do you think that the NRA has as much money as they have?

Again, unlike Bloomberg's group, it's because they're popular.

Look at it this way, two opposing sides of an argument that it is being debated by polititians, both sides have pretty much a 50% of the support. One side has money and the other doesn't. Which is going to be able to afford influence with the powers that be?

Again, not applicable to the current discussion. Bloomberg's group has plenty of money. What they don't have is as much support as the NRA.

 

[WildCat]

Argumentum ad populem.

Which is not a fallacy when talking about elections and democracy.

 

[Ziggurat]

Argumentum ad populem.

Yeah, strange that. It's almost like I want government to reflect the will of the people. I hear there's even a word for it, I think it comes from Greek. There might even be a political party named after it.

 

[eeyore1954]

So the NRA can prevent a democratically elected house from doing stuff by threatening.... What? Withdrawal of funds? What's the whip that the NRA are using?


This isn't even pretending to be democracy anymore, is it?

I would say the whip is votes. So I would think that is more than pretending to be a democracy.

 

[Unabogie]

Universal background checks are extremely popular, but opposed by the NRA.

92% kind of popularity.

Yet they weren't passed because politicians were threatened that the NRA would hit them with attack ads. So the idea that the NRA represents the people is ludicrous.