Since everyone conveniently decided to ignore these studies, I'm going to post them again for the fun of saeeing brainwashed puppets squirm as the true nature of their propaganda puppet masters is exposed:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...-90943419.html
NRA Once Again Embracing Anti-Government Rhetoric
WASHINGTON, April 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Fifteen years ago former National Rifle Association (NRA) member Timothy McVeigh -- motivated by his fear and hatred of the federal government -- bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Today, the NRA and other members of the gun lobby are again embracing and validating anti-government rhetoric according to the new 21-page Violence Policy Center (VPC) study "Lessons Unlearned: The Gun Lobby and the Siren Song of Anti-Government Rhetoric" (
http://www.vpc.org/studies/lessonsunlearned.pdf).
The study offers examples of the NRA's anti-government language, details NRA marketing to Tea Party supporters, and reveals links in nine states between NRA State Election Volunteer Coordinators, the Tea Party movement, and other factions of the "Patriot movement."
The study's release comes four days before the pro-gun "Second Amendment March" in Washington, D.C. The April 19th event, held on the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing and the federal government's siege at Waco that contributed to McVeigh's anti-government anger, has been publicized by the NRA and received financial support from the organization.
The study finds that, echoing the language of the resurgent Patriot movement, the NRA routinely presents the election of Barack Obama as a virtually apocalyptic threat not only to gun ownership, but to the future of the United States itself.
In a December 2009 direct-mail letter echoing the language of both the Tea Party movement and the Oath Keepers, the NRA urges the reader to join an "army whose highest allegiance is not to any individual or any political party but only to the cause of freedom."
In the letter, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre -- who, speaking at the 2009 CPAC convention, told cheering attendees that "our Founding Fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules" -- warns of "...massive armies of anti-gun, anti-freedom radicals marshaling against us for an attack that could make every other battle we've ever fought look like a walk in the park...an attack aimed at completely rewriting our nation's values and the future of our country in ways that you and I won't even recognize."
In the first four months of 2009, the NRA's flagship activist magazine, America's 1st Freedom, profiled key members of the Obama administration, likening them to a "'who's who' of gun-ban advocates."
A January 2009 article entitled "Beware the Rahm" asked, "Will Rahm Emanuel be able to stab a knife into the Constitution and scream that the Second Amendment is 'Dead! Dead! Dead!?'"
A February 2009 NRA profile of Attorney General Eric Holder attacked his record under "the infamous Janet Reno ," the Clinton Administration attorney general who is widely blamed in pro-gun circles for the Waco stand-off.
A March 2009 cover proclaimed, "The Whole World is WatchingHillary Clinton Takes the Reins: Will the new secretary of state defend the U.S. constitution, or will she invite the global gun-ban movement into the corridors of power?"
An April 2009 cover featured Secretary of Education Arne Duncan with the headline: "What would this man teach your kids? Anti-gun extremist Arne Duncan takes over as Secretary of Education."
The organization now also markets NRA clothing products emblazoned with the Gadsden "Don't Tread on Me" flag, which has become the symbol of the Tea Party movement. The description for the NRA Gadsden tee shirt reads: "What goes around comes around. In the late 18th century, oppressed American patriots voiced their defiance of tyranny by exclaiming, 'Don't Tread on Me!' Perhaps it's time once again for Freedom-loving citizens to rally 'round the legendary slogan of the famous Gadsden flag."
The VPC study states that "the NRA incites its members and others, offering words that outside of the purported protective bubble of direct-mail and official publications would be chilling." It cites an August 2008 NRA direct-mail letter warning of the threat posed by a possible Obama administration: "Our Constitution and our system of government guarantee that every American has the opportunity to write his or her name in the history books of tomorrow -- to leave his or her imprint on the fabric of our nation. But in the end, history is always written only by a select few -- the few who sacrifice of themselves to fight for the causes in which they believe."
The study concludes, "Such language offers benediction to the most violent of acts...Based on past history, the overriding concern should be that the NRA's words may, in fact, once again be revealed as violent prophecy."
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_...n_gun_science/
The NRAs war on gun science
As the tragic shooting in Colorado last week has reignited the debate over guns, one key public policy question does gun control save lives? is almost impossible to answer thanks to a dearth of research on the subject. That lack of research is no accident. Its the product of a concerted campaign by the gun lobby and its allies on Capitol Hill to stymie and even explicitly outlaw scientific research into gun violence in what critics charge is an attempt to deceive the public about the dangers of guns.
Over the past two decades, the NRA has not only been able to stop gun control laws, but even debate on the subject. The Centers for Disease Control funds research into the causes of death in the United States, including firearms or at least it used to. In 1996, after various studies funded by the agency found that guns can be dangerous, the gun lobby mobilized to punish the agency. First, Republicans tried to eliminate entirely the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the bureau responsible for the research. When that failed, Rep. Jay Dickey, a Republican from Arkansas, successfully pushed through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDCs budget (the amount it had spent on gun research in the previous year) and outlawed research on gun control with a provision that reads: None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.
David Satcher, the then-director of the CDC, wrote an Op-Ed in the Washington Post in November of 1995 warning that the NRAs shotgun assault on the CDC was dangerous both for public health and for our democracy:
What ought to be of wider concern, is the second argument advanced by the NRA that firearms research funded by the CDC is so biased against gun ownership that all such funding ought to cease. Here is a prescription for inaction on a major cause of death and disability. Here is a charge that not only casts doubt on the ability of scientists to conduct research involving controversial issues but also raises basic questions about the ability, fundamental to any democracy, to have honest, searching public discussions of such issues.
Dickeys clause, which remains in effect today, has had a chilling effect on all scientific research into gun safety, as gun rights advocates view advocacy as any research that notices that guns are dangerous. Stephen Teret, who co-directs the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, told Salon: They sent a message and the message was heard loud and clear. People [at the CDC], then and now, know that if they start going down that road, their budget is going to be vulnerable. And the way public agencies work, they know how this works and theyre not going to stick their necks out.
In January, the New York Times reported that the CDC goes so far as to ask researchers it finances to give it a heads-up anytime they are publishing studies that have anything to do with firearms. The agency, in turn, relays this information to the NRA as a courtesy.
In response to the news, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence sent a letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius expressing concern that the agency was giving the NRA a preferred position and allowed to sway research.
Teret said that hes noticed that the CDC appears to avoid using the word firearms when possible in research on homicide and suicide, using instead euphemisms like the availability of lethal means.
More recently, Republicans have gone after the National Institutes for Health, which has also funded research into the public health issues of guns. Its almost as if someones been looking for a way to get this study done ever since the Centers for Disease Control was banned from doing it 10 years ago, Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, said in 2009 of the NIH.
Youd think that after the CDC had their money revoked, we wouldnt be dealing with this, Erich Pratt, a spokesman for the Gun Owners Association of America, told the Washington Times at the time.
Last year, Rep. Denny Rehberg, a Republican from Montana, added a rider to the current government-funding bill, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012, based on the Dickey language, which targets the NIH. It states that no funds going to the NIH may be used, in whole or part, to advocate or promote gun control. In a press release from March, Rehberg touted the amendment and condemned President Obamas insidious
efforts to subvert the Second Amendment, a reference to a signing statement Obama made pushing back (gently) on the provision.
Daniel Vice of the Brady Center told Salon that the stymieing of research at the CDC is just one part of a broad campaign of secrecy to keep information from the public about how dangerous guns are. He noted that the ATF used to release lots of gun crime data to the public, including a list of problem gun dealers providing firearms to criminals (almost 60 percent of firearms at crime scenes were traced back to just one percent of gun dealers, he said). But beginning in 2003, an amendment introduced by Rep. Todd Tiahrt, a Republican from Kansas, prevents the ATF from releasing all kinds of gun data. Its been added as a rider to every spending bill since.
Dr. Arthur Kellermann, a prominent researcher whose 1993 CDC-funded study became a flashpoint in the debate over government funding of gun research, told Salon that the effects of the campaign against gun research have real consequences. In a nation dedicated to personal freedom and responsibility, it is ironic that policymakers and the public have been denied access to timely and objective research on this issue for 15 years and counting, he said in an email.
Indeed, gun violence is the second leading cause of death for young people after car accidents, but the federal agency responsible for researching ways to stop it has had its hands tied. No other research topic has been singled out in this way. Weve got a huge social problem that causes a very substantial amount of premature mortality and by and large, we have invested scant resources studying it. And the reason is politics, Teret said.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/20...rol_video.html
NRA uses Barack Obamas kids in repugnant and cowardly anti-gun control ad
Are the presidents kids more important than yours? a narrator says in the 35-second television and Internet spot. Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their schools? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but hes just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security.
WASHINGTON- Hours before President Barack Obama was due to unveil proposals on Wednesday to prevent mass shootings like the one in Newtown, Conn., last month, the National Rifle Association released an advertisement that referred to his two school-aged daughters.
Are the presidents kids more important than yours? a narrator says in the 35-second television and Internet spot. Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their schools? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but hes just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security.
Obamas two children, who attend private school in Washington, D.C., receive Secret Service protection.
The White House condemned the ad.
Most Americans agree that a presidents children should not be used as pawns in a political fight. But to go so far as to make the safety of the presidents children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly, White House spokesman Jay Carney said.
Former Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs, speaking earlier on MSNBCs Morning Joe program, said the ad was disgusting on so many levels.
Gun control activists and gun rights advocates have said in recent days that they could find common ground, particularly over the issue of expanding background checks for potential gun owners.
The NRA ads tone, however, and the personal nature of the attacks speaks to the cultural gulf that divides both sides.
The clip, called Stand and Fight, promotes the leading gun lobbys proposal to put armed guards in schools. The idea has been at the centre of the NRAs response to the Dec. 14 shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, in which 20 children and 6 adults were killed.
The ad is airing on the Sportsman Channel, a cable network, but will likely receive a much larger viewership on news stations and through the Internet.
The NRA, which says it has about 4 million members, also announced earlier this week that it would produce a nightly one-hour cable talk show hosted by gun advocate Cam Edwards on the Sportsman Channel.
I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools, Obama said in a recent interview with NBCs Meet the Press. And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem.
In a survey released on Monday, the Pew Research Center found that people favor putting armed guards or police officers in more schools by a two-to-one margin, 64 per cent to 32 per cent.
