Sen. Rand Paul to Block Obama 'political' (anti-gun) Surgeon General Nominee

reply to post by sheepslayer247

Perhaps I missed something, but how does anyone know this nominee has the "intent to use that position to launch an attack on Americans’ right to own a firearm under the guise of a public health and safety campaign"

Because other government agencies have been used to launch attacks on us vis a vis the IRS, and the Department of Injustice.

Past actions are indicative of future behavior.

And that behavior has been on display EPICALLY the last 6 years.

So what if he is anti gun? Are Americans not allowed to have that right or does everyone have to be pro gun? Sounds like the OP hangs out on redneck chat sites OMG Obama didn't pick some white boy as Surgeon General surely the nation will fall apart now.

reply to post by neo96


All true but what could a surgeon general really do?

Buying a new gun off the shelf already comes with reams of "dont point gun at face!" and "every gun is loaded!" booklets and alerts in twenty five different languages.

If we use cigarettes as an example anything the surgeon general could do has already been done and all of it pointless.

Maybe the SG can mandate a warning be engraved on every gun?

Other than making suggestions or putting his stamp of approval on policies for congress to consider or the media to harp on about I dont know how the office can really do anything of substance to affect firearms and firearm ownership.

As far as I can tell it's a relatively useless office whose only purpose is merely to exist so that politicians and the POTUS can use the phrases: "The surgeon general of the United States recommends....." and "according to the surgeon general of the united states....."

They could put an empty bucket in a chair and it'd have the same power.

reply to post by neo96


I can understand that and agree that the admin has a shady record, but Paul made the specific claim that this nominee had the intent to use his position (which has nothing to do with firearms or the 2nd amendment) to further an anti-gun agenda.

That is a big claim and I still wonder how that particular position can be used against the 2nd amendment.

Let's be honest.....is Paul just pulling this out of his backside?

jimmyx
paul said....he is disqualified because of his (the nominee) intent to launch an attack on gun ownership...really?....where is this attack?...Paul Ryan simply makes stuff up, and everyone believes him.

The article is already quoting this doctor as being an attacker of gun rights and implementing gun control into obamacare. Even if he himself didn't say any of it, his current and past affiliations, goals, advocate a political agenda for everything he values.

Do you really think this guy won't be pushing an agenda that differs with the traditional role of Surgeon General? Especially since Obama hand picked him just for the purpose of that agenda?

Has Obama ever appointed one single person who was non partisan, but traditionally has been? You should eat more food with antioxidants, those free "radicals" are clogging up cognitive thinking.. (if you will pardon the pun)

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I can see it now.

The 'new' surgeon general slapping a label on a gun.

Then turns around and 'preaches' the evil of tobacco.

Then turns around in another breath, and expouse the virtue of that 'medicinal' herb.

The surgeon general will echo whatever the admin says.

Just like all his other henchman.

As far as I can tell it's a relatively useless office

Maybe in the past, but we have seen government agencies given more power than they should have.

Examples:

NSA,IRS,DHS,DOJ, and the new kid on the block the SG.

The current administration has gone way beyond what Orwell ever imagined.

reply to post by sheepslayer247

Let's be honest.....is Paul just pulling this out of his backside?

While I don't disagree with Paul trying to use this to his political benefit.

Maybe so.

But there is ample evidence that other agencies have been used to the administrations benefit.

Time the other 'team' wins one.

reply to post by neo96


We still have the right to bear arms. I can fully agree that this admin has tried to encroach on that right, but we still have the right.

So try as they may, we are winning this fight. In my opinion.

sheepslayer247
reply to post by neo96

 

We still have the right to bear arms. I can fully agree that this admin has tried to encroach on that right, but we still have the right.

So try as they may, we are winning this fight. In my opinion.

No we don't.

We have the 'right' to ask government permission to buy one, and if we have lived a perfect life maybe we will have the honor of buying one.

Then we have the right to buy what they say it can look like.

Then we have the right to buy one that fires so many rounds at the pull of a trigger.

Then we have the right to buy a 'clip' FTW that holds X number of rounds.

Then we have the right to wait months to buy a 'silencer' because our neighbors don't like the sound of a gun.

WE HAVE LOST the second amendment.

But that was more than just about the 2nd.

They have violated the 4th,5th,6th,7th,9th,10th amendments,

Gun owners have been made 'accountable' for actions they never have done.

We have never had our day in courts, and they have systematically disarmed the average gun owner.

We are now outgunned by the military, the police, and criminals.

They have epically violated American civil liberties for a false sense of security.

We have laws already on the books there.

It is illegal to harm or murder someone else.

To repeat my earlier comment.

There is no gun law needed.

They sure the hell don't need to be carded to buy one since they cry about that with the 'voter' id law.

We have epically lost our rights.

Even if Rand Paul is taking advantage of this situation for political gain, he would not be doing his job if he didn't do exactly what he is doing in this instance.

If he is using it for political gain, that is secondary and if the democrats start crying fowl (like chickens) or foul over this, it is ad hominem and a diversion of the true issue with this possible appointee..

Him getting political gain in his exposing Obama's attempt at commandeering the Surgeon General post for his (Obama's) political gain is just inevitable if he was going to do his job at vetting a possible appointee..

reply to post by neo96


You make some very good points Neo.

I guess I fail to see how the SG's position can be used against the 2nd amendment and I do not like Paul stating that he knows the "intent" of this man. Maybe he should be talking about Obama's intent with the position.

reply to post by sheepslayer247

I guess I fail to see how the SG's position can be used against the 2nd amendment

The current administrations kick on healthcare.

Making gun ownership a 'mental' health issue.

Is where the SG comes in to play.

reply to post by neo96


So I've been looking into what the surgeon general can actually do. It really is nothing with any tangible value. He can hand out awards, make speeches and policy suggestions.

The one thing that did however stand out as troublesome was this:

The Surgeon General also has many informal duties, such as educating the American public about health issues and advocating healthy lifestyle choices.

Paired with this:

The National Prevention Council, created through the Affordable Care Act, comprises 20 federal departments, agencies and offices and is chaired by the Surgeon General. The National Prevention Council developed the National Prevention Strategy with input from the Prevention Advisory Group, stakeholders, and the public.

Brings us to this:

"What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that's not cool, that it's not acceptable, it's not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes." -AG Holder

So, yeah, I see it. Hiring a bunch of people with the same mindset amplifies the affect of that mindset.

I work with libraries for a living and librarians, especially in research and acquisitions, are supposed to be unbiased and impartial. Well, get a couple of partisans in one library and next thing you know the collection starts to take a noticeable slant. The public now only has access to this biased collection of materials. And now the opinions of the community are changing.

So I see it. Consolidation of opinion affects policy no matter how insignificant the office may be.

BritofTexas
This is just Sour Grapes.

Dr. Vivek Murthy earned his qualification to be known as Doctor.

Rand Paul had to invent his.

Paul's Phony Prefix

I'm not sure what your point is here other than outright lies. Dr. Paul is an eye surgeon, qualified to practice in Kentucky. Were this not so, I don't believe the hospitals in western Kentucky would be allowing him to do free surgery for patients who can't afford the procedures. He performs these free surgeries at hospitals in our area when Congress is in recess.
Stating that his "prefix" (by this I have to assume you mean the prefix of Dr.) is phony is just a lie, pure and simple.

The job of Surgeon General is one that has outlived its usefulness and should be abolished---could be replaced easily with a few medical bots to disseminate the information put out by the office to each state's Surgeon General. But that would mean cutting some of government bureaucracy's powers so we won't see that.

buster2010
Sounds like the OP hangs out on redneck chat sites OMG Obama didn't pick some white boy as Surgeon General surely the nation will fall apart now.

KNOCK IT OFF. I do not. Address the issue - Rand Paul trying to block the nomination because he believes the nomination is politically motivated. And no, it's not 'red neck chat sites' that I saw the comments at. The comments were at some main stream news sites.

jimmyx
paul said....he is disqualified because of his (the nominee) intent to launch an attack on gun ownership...really?....where is this attack?...Paul Ryan simply makes stuff up, and everyone believes him.

Seriously? Not even the right guy!
I award you no stars, and may god have mercy on your soul.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Rand Paul may as well not run for President. There is no way the Democratic party will work with him on anything as President ever after all his obstruction. Rand Paul would be a Lame Duck president on day one. Far worse than Obama ' nightmare of trying to work on anything with this obstructionist tea party ilk in congress.