The NRA has figured out what ...

Tell me about it.
He asks for examples of unjust enforcement, is provided with those examples, and then claims he cannot see them.
What is one to do with a person like that?

 

And yet I've provided you with three instances.
If you don't agree that those cases represent unjust enforcement of the rules,
then make your case, but don't just play dumb unless that's what you want people to think of you.

Oh and dodges noted, but I'll ask again anyway.
For the third time, do you agree that more research is needed in the area of gun death and what can be done about it?
Or do you believe this issue is not important enough to warrant public research? And if you don't think its an important issue, why not?

-Meta

 

Please explain why you think that those were not cases of unjust enforcement.
And again do you agree that more research is needed in the area of gun death?
Or do you believe this issue is not important enough to warrant public research? And if you don't think its an important issue, why not?
I would think that these should all be fairly simple questions to answer,...so I wonder why it is that you seem so intent on not answering them?
Could it be that you simply don't want to expose yourself as being in favor of ignorance?

-Meta

 

I already explained quite clearly in these two posts:
http://www.politicalforum.com/291586-nra-has-figured-out-what-post1062388762.html#post1062388762
http://www.politicalforum.com/291586-nra-has-figured-out-what-post1062392168.html#post1062392168
exactly why I felt that those cases are each an instance of unjust enforcement of the rules.
Again, to sum it up, our politicians defund, threaten to defund, and place exclusive and sometimes redundant sanctions/restrictions on agencies,
again, not because these agencies participate in political advocacy, but again, simply because they fund and or conduct
studies that do not line up with the NRA's talking points/the bottom lines of the gun manufactures.

If you want me to explain it in any more detail than that,
you are first going to have to explain why it is that you disagree with my view and reasoning
for why these are all examples of unjust enforcement of the rules.

And while you're at it, you can also explain why it is that you don't want to answer these questions:
For the fifth time, do you agree that more research is needed in the area of gun death?
Or do you believe this issue is not important enough to warrant public research? If you don't think its an important issue, why not?
Was I correct in my supposition that the reason you wont answer is because you hold a view that is extreme and do not want to be exposed as being pro-ignorance?

 

You don't have to worry about me, I'm never going to vote for any of these clowns.
Though that's still pretty good advice and you make a good point, we really do need to look at and trace who it is that our "representatives" are representing,
and identify those congress-people who represent groups which hold views which are antithetical to our own.
In the case of the the NRA, most such congress people all belong to a single party, though not exclusively so,
so yes, it is important, regardless of party, that we keep an eye out, pay attention to, and keep track of what they say. (and what they don't say)

-Meta

 

Aye! I always find that the most important questions to ask are the ones they tend to want to answer the least...
If we can get answers out of them though, perhaps it will be an opportunity for us to move this country forward.

-Meta

 

Again, that law is a redundant reiteration of a law that was already in existence before the study? Did you not read that part?

I explained the unjust enforcement in the post itself, the links were merely to back up the claims I made within the post.
Again, if you don't agree that those are cases of unjust enforcement, then explain why it is you feel that way.
Why do you feel that the three instances I posted are not all examples of unjust enforcement?

If you don't answer why it is that you feel what I've posted doesn't fit your criteria for unjust enforcement,
then I do not know how it is I am going to explain it to you in any more detail.

Oh, and before I answer any more of your questions, I'm going to need you to at least make an attempt at answering mine;
Do you agree that more research is needed in the area of gun death?
Or do you believe this issue is not important enough to warrant public research? If you don't think its an important issue, why not?

-Meta

 

Your simply saying it doesn't change anything. If you want people to understand your views, then you have to include some reasoning.

I've explained to you again and again that when the CDC/NIH get and or are threatened with defundment and termination
and when the ATF get told they can't release info, not because these agencies are engaging in political advocacy,
or because the public deems their research unimportant, but instead because the NRA and the gun-manufactures don't like the implications of their findings,
then that is unjust enforcement of the rules. Rules, that I might point out again, predate the studies in question, and rules that predate the targeted sanctions which have no purpose other than to scare agencies of which they are directed at into submission.

Again, the defundment and targeted sanctioning of these agencies for such arbitrary reasons is in my view, clearly unjust enforcement of the rules.
If you are not willing to explain why it is you disagree with that, then I'm afraid this conversation is not going to go anywhere.
(perhaps that's exactly what you want though, seeing as how you appear to be pro-ignorance and all...)

I'll ask again. I believe this is the seventh time...
Do you agree that more research is needed in the area of gun death?
Or do you believe this issue is not important enough to warrant public research? If you don't think its an important issue, why not?

-Meta

 

Like I said, I'm not going to answer any more of your questions until you answer mine.
But I will say again that when congress defunds or places exclusive restrictions on agencies in response to a set of research findings,
while claiming advocacy, if the research was not actually advocacy, then that is unjust enforcement of the rules.

And again, I've given you three cases, and explained why I think they each represent unjust enforcement of the rules.
What don't you understand about that? If you aren't willing to explain why you disagree, why you think congress defunding and placing sanctions on these agencies is not unjust enforcement of the rules, then I have no idea what else it is you want me to give you.

BTW, you mentioned that I've been asking a lot of questions? Well I haven't been.
I've been asking the same set of questions over and over again.
Reason being because you have repeatedly refused to answer them.
And its not as if they are off-topic, or some tangent, to the contrary,
they are at the root of the larger issue involving gun research.
Do you agree that more research is needed in the area of gun death?
Or do you believe this issue is not important enough to warrant public research? If you don't think its an important issue, why not?

-Meta

 

Amen, and can you believe that there are fools around here who actually believe that every average Joe citizen should be able to own and use even things like machine guns, rpgs, grenades, and armed tanks/helicopters etc. with no government restrictions, some who even go so far as to say that citizens should be allowed to own anything and everything our military has, and that felons etc. should not have gun restrictions placed on them when they are released? Think about that for a moment. You have to wonder what these people are smoking.

They say things like, "well there is a potential for me to use that rpg or rocket launcher to protect my life".
To which I often ask, "Why not simply settle for something less destructive, something with less potential to destroy masses of human lives but that still gets the job done, why not settle for a shotgun, like everybody else?" But I guess it doesn't get through...

All I know is that I like you am never going to accept such insanity.

-Meta