Well, the fact that Snoofy and Lamp can only argue the semantics of my words and not the meaning tells me all I need to know about their ability to defend the ridiculousness of the CDC being anywhere near gun control.
1. Lamp you say: "@#150 ... A sensible person would limit its reach to diseases ...
Your comment seems to self-define your opinion as that of a sensible person.
Got anything to back that up?" If you look at Snoofy's 148 you see he pulled that chestnut out first, and I was only play the game he begun. So if you want someone back up being a sensible person, go ask snoof to play your game, and not me.
2. Snoofy, you quote the CDC's mission statement. You keep equating Health and Danger/Not Dying and they are not the same thing. The CDCs mission is to keep us safe from health threats foreign and abroad. They sum their mission up at the end of the first paragraph "CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same." The next paragraph are all supporting arguments, and all re-iterate health... not danger/dying. The only line that adds ambiguity is "health, safety and security threats". You latch onto safety even though the context of the sentence is that of disease. Posting their mission statement isn't the homerun you think it is.
3. You brought the 2nd amendment into this as a diversionary topic because you didn't want to address what the original point of the CDC was, the topic at hand. Then try to use my not biting at the diversion as some means as accepting that we don't need to care about the CDC's original intent, nice way to sidestep the issue but it's just word games.
4. Of course then lamp has to jump on the whole "origin of the 2nd" like it matters at all to this conversation, like he's making a point or something ... Of course the origin of the 2nd matters, but not in the context of this conversation.
5. Snoofy wants to win points that of course the 2nd doesn't say anything about shooting properly... NO KIDDING, that was exactly my point. It's well established that the wording of the 2nd amendment is hotly debated, If people were so inclined they could use that to get "free ----- from the government", or start to new gov't agencies to further gun ownership, etc.. by misapplying the meaning. You'd be right to be skeptical of the formation of that department. You exemplify my point by taking the word safety in the CDC charter, use it out of the context of the sentence it is in, and then conclude that the CDC is an authority in anything that is dangerous and could cause death conflating Health with not dying.
Bill Burr says it best when describing arguing with a woman... if they're right they argue the point, but if they're wrong they go rogue and bring up random other points. It's the same here. You can't argue the point so you've gone rogue.
Thanks for tacitly admitting I was right.
And the parties are the same... the far left can't help but repel the moderate majority and neither can the far right.