Nov 272012

Wasting no time after the election to rev up the mainstream media gun control machinery, CNN features a Wednesday op-ed for more gun control. Once again it comes from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (the CNN omits the apparently embarrassing Bloomberg tag), written by Daniel W. Webster, ScD, MPH. Webster is Professor of Health Policy and Management at the school and has long helped run the anti-gun advocacy research shop there. Note that his expertise lies not in military experience, civilian firearm training, or any other field that would remotely qualify him to speak with authority on guns.

The editors slip in an unobtrusive link (at least it doesn’t appear to be part of Webster’s article) in the middle of the article, “5 things gun owners want you to know.” This links a sidebar with perspectives from multiple gun owners, giving some appearance of balance to this story. But you have to look for it.

The main piece has an imbedded video of Mark Kelly, husband of the critically injured U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, giving a propaganda talk pressuring Congress to “act” to prevent tragedies like the one that befell his wife. He is gently coaxed on by his interviewer and facilitator, the anti-gun rights Brit Piers Morgan. Kelly is reported in the piece to speak on behalf of his wife in denouncing the NRA and America’s 80 million gun owners as somehow responsible for Gifford’s victimization. One can excuse the congresswoman from responsibility for this outrageous accusation, given the severity of her injuries. But her husband has no excuse for blaming a vast number of good Americans for the murderous actions of a lone madman.

Mark Kelly, assisted by highly partisan CNN, becomes the latest in a procession of bloody shirt-waving victims and their families trying to blame gun owners for their personal tragedies. And they are facilitated by an ever-anti-gun media and elite progressive institutions like Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who see themselves as the expert arbiters of who should own guns and who should not.

 Posted by at 5:22 pm
Nov 092012

The American Medical Association (AMA) filed an amicus curiae brief (linked here) in the Wollschlaeger case this week supporting a challenge to Florida’s Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act (Docs vs. Glocks law). We’ve been following this case. DRGO’s position is laid out in the CCJ-DRGO amicus brief filed in late September.

The AMA brief continues the same flawed and misleading reasoning the opponents of the Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act have put forth from the beginning. It studiously omits any reference to the obvious—pediatricians ask patients about guns as a not-so-subtle method of anti-gun politicking. The AMA condescendingly dismisses patients’ objections to this practice as “having their [patients’] political sensitivities upset.” But doctors abusing the doctor-patient relationship to prejudice patients against gun ownership are committing a blatant ethical boundary violation. The people of Florida have every right to regulate doctors’ speech when it crosses the line into unethical conduct.

Here are the other medical organizations that signed on to the brief. Are you a member of any of these organizations? Do they speak for you? If not, they need to hear from you.

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

American Academy of Family Physicians

American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons

American Academy of Pediatrics

American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology

American College of Preventive Medicine
American College of Surgeons

American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology

American Psychiatric Association.

Nov 092012

The election is done and the future for gun owners has become clearer. Whatever our political leanings in other matters, we can be certain that the reelection of President Obama means gun owners should be concerned.

It’s not all doom and gloom for gun owners. The dominant issue in the presidential and congressional campaigns was the economy. Very few if any candidates dared to challenge the current American consensus that gun ownership is a right. Gun control is still a losing proposition in the national political arena.

But the federal government has three branches, and in effect only one of them—the legislative— is subject to direct control by us, the people. President Obama indicated in the debates that he wants to reinstate the “assault weapons” ban and to go after handguns too. He is not likely to mount direct assaults against gun owners through legislation. The attacks will come from the vast and obtuse administrative bureaucracy mostly under his control—BATFE, EPA, and other regulatory agencies. Remember too that Obama is likely to appoint at least one Supreme Court justice and numerous federal judges during his second term. We already know that the two justices he has appointed are anti-gun rights to the core, and one more appointment like them will put the Second Amendment in jeopardy again.

He is likely to find support from his friends in the medical and public health establishment. In fact, it’s already happened, as we reported a few weeks ago.

Over the next few years gun owners should keep an eye toward the executive and judicial branches of federal government for such attacks as:

1) increased import regulations on firearms

2) increased taxes and fees on firearms and ammunition; regulation of online ammunition purchases

3) appointment of federal judges and Supreme Court justices who will work to erode gun owners’ rights

4) renewed advocacy “research” and policy statements from public health agencies, medical organizations,  and academic departments supporting Obama’s anti-gun rights agenda

Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership will continue to monitor and expose this last category of attack on gun owners. Help us by becoming a member if you haven’t already. Let’s keep the faith. Remember that public opinion is on our side. And as Lincoln told us,

“…public sentiment [i.e., opinion] is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. Consequently he who moulds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed.”—First debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858

 Posted by at 12:12 am
Nov 012012

“Miguel Faria, MD, a neurosurgeon and Emeritus Editor of The Journal of The American Physicians and Surgeons, formerly the Medical Sentinel, and Associate Editor in Chief of Surgical Neurology International and its World Affairs Section, has written a two-part editorial on “America, Guns, and Freedom.”  [this is the first of the two parts.] These essays address a very important topic to physicians everywhere, relate to the often distorted media reports advocating the disarming of citizens, and the costs of health care of guns in the hands of citizens.” (excerpt from this linked editorial).

Dr. Faria and Dr. Tim Wheeler were two of four witnesses who testified before the House Appropriations committee back in 1996 about misuses of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) grant money to advance gun control. Congress subsequently defunded the CDC’s biased gun research, and the prohibition continues to this day.

 Posted by at 5:31 pm