President orders funds to study gun violence

K

KyJim

New member
Since the 1990s Congress has barred federal funding to the CDC to study gun violence because of that agency's agenda on gun control. NPR reports that President Obama signed an executive order last year authorizing funding for the CDC to study gun violence. The CDC is offering more than $7 million in grants to states to collect more data. A stated goal of the CDC is to collect information on what it thinks is under-reported instances of gunshot trauma.

Story at: http://www.npr.org/2014/09/28/352036040/to-counter-gun-violence-researchers-seek-deeper-data

I had not heard of this executive order before today and have to wonder how he could release funds if blocked by Congress -- but maybe that's due to so many spending resolutions instead of a true budget.

I'm also obviously concerned about the CDC's compilation and use of such data. We've seen them and the gun grabbers use this sort of information to support gun control in the past.

Your thoughts?
 
If I recall correctly, the President signed away more than 3 billion dollars with his executive orders. It went almost completely unnoticed as everybody checked out mentally once they didn't hear "Obama bans guns with executive orders" (which he doesn't have the power to do).

I posted about this on FB at the time. The Middle Class Champion signed away billions of dollars for nothing, and nobody on either side blinked or cared.
 
I had not heard of this executive order before today and have to wonder how he could release funds if blocked by Congress
Click to expand...
That's because it was an executive action, not an executive order. If you don't know the difference, don't feel bad: nobody knows what the heck an executive action is supposed to be.

Short history: in 1993, Arthur Kellerman published a study in which he claimed that people who kept guns in the home were vastly more likely to be victims of gun violence. The study was funded by the CDC, and it ended up being widely discredited, but not before being used as a piece of political fodder for the gun-control lobby. This wasn't the first time.

You'll still hear the media using the "you're X times as likely" meme to this day.

In 1996, Jay Dickey introduced an amendment to an appropriations bill to prevent the earmarking of funds to the CDC for the purposes of promoting gun control. They were not prohibited from doing the research; they just weren't going to get paid to make it into politics.

Since they couldn't separate the two, they stopped most of the research.

That said, there's been a ton of "research" done privately, most of it politically biased from inception. Garen Wintemute, the interview subject for the article, has been on the Joyce Foundation/Brady Campaign payroll for as long as I can remember.

The funny thing is, the CDC has already done some research, and the results were likely an unpleasant surprise to gun-control advocates.
 
Not to thread hi-jack, but part of the CDC mission, is actually listed in the often shortened name "Center for Disease Control and Prevention"; the prevention aspect often being applied to "social diseases" such as suicide, alcoholism, and under this new fangled Executive Action thingie from the the President, gun violence.

If it makes you feel any better, my big sister is a micro-biologist for the "hard science" side of the campus, and says she and her colleagues have little to no use for those doing the assorted 'social studies'; her term.
 
Well, I guess I'm still confused how the Executive Branch can spend money on something specifically prohibited by Congress -- assuming the ban is technically in place. Perhaps it is not since we seem to run on spending resolutions and debt ceiling hikes.

Tom -- nice article. I've bookmarked it.
 
Maybe its just my way of thinking, and please say so if theres something wrong with it, but if someone is being paid by the fed to do "research on gun violence" then whats happening in essence is theyre getting paid to conclude through their "studies" whatever theyre being told to say. In other words, Obama just bought the cdc in order to get his parties agenda backed up by doctors so that laws can get passed.
 
There's perhaps nothing worse than a government with an agenda.

"Gun violence" is nothing more (or less) than "violence" using a gun as the tool. For those who are intent on committing violence, any tool will do. If we ban guns, they'll use knives (China). If we ban guns and knives they'll use axes. If we ban guns and knives AND axes, they'll use ... something else.

The worst school massacre in the United States was committed in the 1920s (I think -- might have been the 30s), and it wasn't committed with guns or nives or axes. It was committed with dynamite. A nutcase blew up half a school. The body count would have been twice as bad, except that the charge he had placed under the other wing of the school didn't detonate.

There was a school massacre in Germany (again, I think) in which the assailant used a home-made flame thrower.

We should not be studying "gun violence." We should be studying "violence."
 
I'm still confused how the Executive Branch can spend money on something specifically prohibited by Congress
Click to expand...

There is a difference between Congress prohibiting something and Congress just not funding something. And even an actual prohibition about funding may only apply to CONGRESS funding the thing, or not.

The Executive branch can "fund" things it want, simply by moving some of the money Congress gives it, from one pocket to another.

IF the Executive want new money for something , they have to go to Congress to get it. BUT, if they use money they already have, for a new purpose, it gets MUCH murkier. Congress may, or may not have any say in that matter. The devil is in the details. The administration has a lot of leeway, and MAY be perfectly within the letter of the law. Again, it depends on the specifics.

Remember the Iran-Contra scandal? Essentially, the Administration wanted to give money to the Contra's. Congress would not approve money for that. The Administration sold some material (aircraft spare parts, IIRC) to Iran, and then gave that money to the Contra's. Congress was really ticked off, hearings were held. Certain people paid a price for flaunting the will of Congress, but only after the deal was long done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top