NRA Urges Senate To Reject Surgeon General Nominee Over Gun Violence Prevention Stance
Source: Think Progress
The National Rifle Association (NRA) sent a letter to Senate leaders on Wednesday evening urging the chamber not to confirm Dr. Vivek Murthy, President Barack Obamas nominee for Surgeon General, over Murthys belief that gun violence presents a major public health threat. The letter was issued on the same day that Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said he would place a hold on Murthys nomination over similar concerns.
Dr. Murthys record of political activism in support of radical gun control measures raises significant concerns about his ability to objectively examine issues pertinent to Americas 100 million firearm owners and the likelihood that he would use the office of the Surgeon General to further his preexisting campaign against gun ownership, wrote NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) executive director Chris Cox in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Given Dr. Murthys lengthy history of hostility towards the right to keep and bear arms, along with his calls for the full weight of the federal governments health apparatus to be used to target lawful gun ownership, there is little reason to believe that he would not work to further a gun control agenda if confirmed as Surgeon General. Simply put, the confirmation of Dr. Murthy is a prescription for disaster for Americas gun owners.
The NRA specifically criticizes Muthys stance that doctors should ask patients about gun ownership and discuss gun safety procedures, his belief that more federal funding should be allocated towards gun violence research, and his support for a host of legislative gun violence prevention measures such as universal background checks and an assault weapons ban.
Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/02/27/3337931/vivek-murthy-nra-guns-public-health/#
villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Alcohol kills more people.
Guns are just tools.
I'm a responsible assault rifle owner.
etc.
villager
(26,001 posts)...or it isn't worth saying!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Pretty disappointing too.
villager
(26,001 posts)Given the breath-taking rarity of that among the pro-gun folk, I applaud you!
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The NRA did not fare well, IIRC.
Support here for the NRA is pretty sparse. There was an old guard of such people at one point, but it seems their accounts are mostly inactive.
villager
(26,001 posts)...recycled here with a rather stomach-churning frequency.
Perhaps now "pro gun" officials need to hear from you putatively "new breed" of gun owners?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There are something on the order of 100 million gun owners in the US. The NRA only has 4 million members.
People like Ted Nugent are part of the reason for that.
villager
(26,001 posts)If there are more "sane" gun owners, after all, get our "elected" officials more of scared of you, than of the vicious minority..
(Of course, we haven't mentioned the industry dollars flowing into the NRA, since they are, actually, a business lobby. A toxic one. But still...)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Another reason to despise the NRA. And you can see it in their advertising, trolling for donations/members. Even after Heller and MacDonald, they actually ratcheted up the hyperbole in their mailings about how gun owners rights were under threat more than ever and blardey blah.
Personally I think they do more damage these days, than they ever helped. And they flip out about stupid no-brainer shit that we ought to do, like requiring people to report guns stolen within a certain timeframe of becoming aware of the theft. Durr. Why wouldn't you want to do so? All they do is re-frame it and claim that it would get people arrested for not reporting it within a timeframe after the theft, before they became aware of it if they were, say, travelling. Disingenuous to the max.
There's actually a lot of criticism for the NRA in gun-owner circles, believe me.
Hayduke Bomgarte
(1,965 posts)Why in the world would we ever want a Surgeon General who acknowledges public health threats or,God forbid, expresses any concern over them.
Why... That's just communism.
Benghazi!
Guess I better use the thing
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)dealing with the national epidemic of gun violence.
Sounds like a good pick.
billh58
(6,635 posts)absolutists are all aquiver at their hero's charge to defend their precious guns from scrutiny by science and common sense. According to the right-wing gun lobby, it is their God-given right (as spelled out in the Constitution) to be armed to the teeth, and to kill anyone who looks "threatening."
At a Celebration of Guns meeting last evening, Billy Bob Sixpack said, "God said that doctors should do no harm, and that includes guns." He received a standing ovation, and a new AR-15.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I tell the NRA to pound sand.
This is clearly a public safety issue. Keeping guns away from kids is just as important as keeping prescription drugs away from them, and in no way threatens my rights. Recognizing the inherent lethality of a firearm as a suicide implement, and what might be done to prevent suicidal people from obtaining one, is also, a valid public health issue, and not a threat to my rights.
I hope they lose this fight, because from what I know of him, Murthy is a good candidate. My favorite since Joycelyn Elders.
Paladin
(28,283 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,411 posts)The Wizard
(12,556 posts)when they realize minorities can own more than three fifths of a gun.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Though, it was probably just Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
swilton
(5,069 posts)Now is the time to take the 'I welcome their hatred' approach.