The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 22, 2017, 10:27 AM   #1
g.willikers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 10,442
New Surgeon General

Vivek H. Murthy, the previous surgeon general appointed by Obama, was the guy who promoted the idea that guns are a medical problem and should be addressed as such.
His replacement, Rear Adm. Sylvia Trent-Adams, has to be an improvement.
Less political agenda and more concern with health issues - real health issues.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ion/100767454/
__________________
Walt Kelly, alias Pogo, sez:
“Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.”
g.willikers is offline  
Old April 22, 2017, 10:47 AM   #2
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
I guess I don't understand the organization of this department. How does a former Army nurse get to be an admiral?

That said, she's a career bureaucrat (or so it seems), so she may or may not be an improvement. She's a temporary fill-in, presumably waiting for President Trump to choose a new Surgeon General.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 22, 2017, 01:47 PM   #3
dahermit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near
Posts: 6,501
Quote:
I guess I don't understand the organization of this department. How does a former Army nurse get to be an admiral?
The nurses start out as Second Lieutenants. When they move up the ranks and assume the duties of overseeing wards, hospital administration, their rank is increased also. For instance when I was a neuropsychiatric technician at Fitzsimons General Hospital (an Army hospital in Aurora, Colorado), in about 1963, a Major Sargent (her last name was "Sargent"), was the head of the ward I worked on. The head of the whole training unit at that hospital was a Colonial Brauner (another woman). Presumably they had both started out as Second Lieutenant nurses. So, they do work their way up in administration just like in civilian hospital systems.
dahermit is offline  
Old April 22, 2017, 03:50 PM   #4
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
I understand how nurses in the military advance through the ranks. After all, Hot Lips was a major. But Admiral is a Navy rank, not Army. And the description of this woman makes it appear that she has spent the majority of her working career in public health, not in the military. So ... how did she get to progress from Army nurse to Admiral?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 22, 2017, 05:12 PM   #5
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,487
Talking to a couple of veterans here, Army and Marine, it seems that flip flopping between services is not uncommon.
Jim Watson is offline  
Old April 22, 2017, 06:02 PM   #6
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
Folks, unless this appointment turns to how this affects law and civil rights, I'm going to close the hospital gown back on this nursing discussion.

So the issue is?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old April 22, 2017, 08:16 PM   #7
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Actually, Murthy's appointment was strongly opposed by the NRA.

Following the Newtown shooting, he tweeted:

Quote:
Tired of politicians playing politics w/guns, putting lives at risk b/c they're scared of NRA. Guns are a health care issue.
The bolded part is a direct echo of the agenda that guys like Garen Wintemute started at Harvard in the 1980's, in which they claimed gun ownership itself was a public health issue.

In the leadup to the Senate vote on the Manchin-Toomey bill, he tweeted this:

Quote:
Signs of progress-we got 20 votes in the senate in favor of gun violence legislation that we wouldn't have had 1 year ago. Have faith
He was also one of the most vocal advocates of "restoring" funding to the CDC for researching gun violence.

Yes, his post is as political as many others. No, I'm not sad to see him go.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 22, 2017, 11:17 PM   #8
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
Actually, Murthy's appointment was strongly opposed by the NRA.

Following the Newtown shooting, he tweeted:

Quote:
Tired of politicians playing politics w/guns, putting lives at risk b/c they're scared of NRA. Guns are a health care issue.
The bolded part is a direct echo of the agenda that guys like Garen Wintemute started at Harvard in the 1980's, in which they claimed gun ownership itself was a public health issue.
Murthy went to Harvard, so it's hardly surprising that he drank the Harvard Kool-Aid.

I don't know how to counter the argument. People who have been brainwashed too often are not susceptible to logic and reason. You can't develop a vaccine against gunshot wounds, and they aren't contagious (at least not in the conventional sense), so I fail to understand how approaching guns from an epidemiological perspective can accomplish anything. And there's still the little matter of the Second Amendment right that people like him don't choose to take into consideration. That's the downside of allowing the camel's nose under the tent flap -- as soon as we acknowledge that the RKBA can be subject to reasonable regulation (meaning restriction, which means infringement), every regulation the antis can dream up will be "reasonable" in their estimation.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 23, 2017, 12:04 AM   #9
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
I don't know how to counter the argument
Because there isn't a good counter for the base assumption, that public health (as determined by doctors and/or the government) overrides our constitutionally protected rights.

NO one (or no one sane, anyway) questions the authority and moral correctness of a quarantine when a deadly transmittable disease is involved.

The problem is that while they have the authority to determine the what, where, and when to take actions in dire emergencies, there's not a lot beyond common sense that keeps them from deciding what is, and isn't something within their authority for action. And what suitable action is.

Define anything as a disease, and that puts it squarely under their authority.

Everything in our environment, literally everything has a potential impact on our health, and we are the public, so therefore, anything they want to choose becomes the public health "crisis" de jour.

"Public Health" concerns are the ultimate umbrella for authoritarian control "for our own good".

All well and good for society when one is dealing with a deadly plague, but unchecked that power can lead all the way to where disagreeing with those in power, about anything, being classified a mental illness, rather than a valid political opinion.

After all, if you're "sick" you're not in your right mind, and therefore they don't need to respect your opinion (about anything) or, your rights, now do they?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old April 23, 2017, 04:14 AM   #10
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,295
Boy does that tie in naturally with mental health and firearms rights, another hot button. I remember at least one or two leftist individuals who have stated, IIRC, that simply wanting to own a firearm is a sign of a mental disorder. So, according to the Left, public safety overrides Constitutional rights, then GUNS are the disease, and bans are the cure.
BTW, you are right again about "disagreements" with the government being labeled as a mental defect - remember all the "mental hospitals" Stalin liked so much? Go down that rabbit hole much deeper and you begin to read "Freedom Is Slavery"...
armoredman is offline  
Old April 23, 2017, 07:29 AM   #11
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
I fail to understand how approaching guns from an epidemiological perspective can accomplish anything.
The approach is entirely political, and that alone should be a red flag to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty.

A rebuttal I've used is simple. As others have pointed out, "gun violence" doesn't qualify as a treatable disease. Even if we were to approach it that way, how do we take seriously the idea that we can treat a disease by only addressing the symptoms while ignoring the root causes?
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 23, 2017, 09:25 AM   #12
DT Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2001
Posts: 956
When you have a political agenda (banning guns) and an ENORMOUS hammer (the CDC, and it's public prestige and ability to mobilize support among the public), you want to make anything you don't like a 'nail.'

Making violence a disease makes it a 'nail', and lets you apply the hammer of the CDC to the issue. Simple politics.


Larry
__________________
He who fights and runs away had better run pretty damn fast.

Government, Anarchy and Chaos
DT Guy is offline  
Old April 23, 2017, 09:39 AM   #13
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
Even if we were to approach it that way, how do we take seriously the idea that we can treat a disease by only addressing the symptoms while ignoring the root causes?
Not even treating the symptoms, just banning the instrument. Like drug abuse ... the war on [some] drugs is such an overwhelming success, why wouldn't we use that as a model for eradicating "gun" violence?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 23, 2017, 12:23 PM   #14
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
an ENORMOUS hammer (the CDC)
It's worth noting that when President Obama pushed the myth the CDC was somehow banned from researching gun violence, Murthy was a big mouthpiece for that.

In fact, nothing stops the CDC from doing whatever research they want. However, if they want to do a study for the purposes of advocacy, it won't be on the taxpayer dime. Murthy's a doctor. I have a hard time believing he didn't know that as well.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 23, 2017, 02:13 PM   #15
Salmoneye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
Quote:
how did she get to progress from Army nurse to Admiral?


United States Public Health Service

Officers of the Corps wear uniforms similar to those of the United States Navy with special PHSCC insignia, and the Corps uses the same commissioned officer ranks as the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Commissioned Officer Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from ensign to admiral, uniformed services pay grades O-1 through O-10 respectively.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Health_Service
Salmoneye is offline  
Old April 23, 2017, 03:29 PM   #16
jdc1244
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 532
Quote:
Vivek H. Murthy, the previous surgeon general appointed by Obama, was the guy who promoted the idea that guns are a medical problem and should be addressed as such.
Wrong, he advocated no such thing:

Quote:
Murthy, 39, is a longtime believer that gun violence is a public-health issue

http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/...cOe?li=AAggbRN
Gun violence, not guns.

Quote:
When you have a political agenda (banning guns)
Also wrong.

Addressing gun violence as a health issue is not to seek to ‘ban’ guns – to argue that it does fails as a strawman fallacy.

The notion that there is a ‘political agenda’ to ‘ban guns’ because they pose a health risk is delusional, ridiculous and devoid of merit.
jdc1244 is offline  
Old April 23, 2017, 06:16 PM   #17
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
jdc1244, as Tom Servo noted, Murthy certainly did use his position to promote gun control. Not the least of which was an open attempt to funnel taxpayer money to gun control groups under the guise of lifting the "ban" on CDC research (when in fact, the CDC was only banned from advocating a political position - one of about 39 similar restrictions on CDC research grants; but the only one that ever makes the news).

The OPs post was a lot closer to the mark than your rebuttal
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 23, 2017, 06:59 PM   #18
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
Gun violence, not guns.
Actually, the former. That tweet I quoted is verbatim. He did in fact refer to guns themselves as a healthcare issue.

Also noteworthy is the fact he was a cofounder and President of Doctors for America, a gun-control group dressed up as a health advocacy organization.

I'm aware that many people go overboard with inflammatory and inaccurate accusations on stuff like this, but Murthy does fit the description.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 24, 2017, 01:43 AM   #19
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
If the stated public health issue is "gun violence" and not guns, but their solution is to restrict/ban guns, HOW is that a difference????
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old April 24, 2017, 06:09 AM   #20
Texas45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2016
Posts: 223
"Gun Violence" LOL a made up media term.
GUN's ARE NOT VIOLENT.
PEOPLE do stupid violent things with them.
Fix the REAL problem.

Glad to see him ousted.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Texas45 is offline  
Old April 24, 2017, 09:12 AM   #21
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
If you look at the history of the gun violence term or meet the folks who push the gun as health problem agenda (I've had at conferences), they are gun banners. They have no use for the argument that law abiding citizens can own guns but we should work on the causes of violence. They simply think the solution is to eliminate private gun ownership except for the ducky-wucky shotgun (if at all).

They developed the term as their initial organizations (such as Ban all Handguns) wasn't working for them.

Never will they say there is a right to own firearms for home defense, self-defense or protection against tyranny. They do not acknowledge what most RKBA advocates see as gun rights.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old April 24, 2017, 11:00 AM   #22
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,604
Quote:
Addressing gun violence as a health issue is not to seek to ‘ban’ guns –
I'll believe that when they start addressing "violence" as an issue, without the guns.

Last edited by natman; April 24, 2017 at 11:39 AM.
natman is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.10775 seconds with 8 queries