Category Archives: guns

White House Close to Finalizing Over $100 Billion in Arms Sales to Saudis

White House Close to Finalizing Over $100 Billion in Arms Sales to Saudis

Earlier this month, US officials said the US was seeking to reach “billions” of dollars in arms sales to Saudi Arabia as part of Trump’s visit to Riyadh. With a week left before the visit, officials now say the White House is very close to the deal, and that it will amount to over $100 billion in sales.

Details are still emerging, but the plan is for this to set out a series of growing deals over the next decade that will involve more than $300 billion going to arms dealers, not just to arm the Saudis, but in extra aid to Israel to ensure their “qualitative military edge” over the Saudis.

White House officials said the move would be good for the economy, and insisted that building Saudi Arabia’s already substantial military was “essential” because of regional problems. Saudi Arabia, of course, spends much of its military budget invading Yemen and trying to reinstall former President Hadi in power.

Given Saudi Arabia’s Yemen-centric foreign policy, US sales are likely to be heavily on warplanes and bombs to drop on northern Yemen, as the conflict has lasted far longer than the Saudis anticipated, and there is little sign they are interested iin extricating themselves from the conflict anytime soon.

How much this means Israel will get greatly depends on the sort of weapons the US is giving Saudi Arabia, and particularly if there is anything “new” in the shipments, or just more of the same old stuff. The US commitment to ensuring Israel has an advantage over the rest of the Middle East militarily, while at the same time selling large amounts of arms to the rest of the Middle East, has been icing on the cake for US arms makers, who end up supplying all sides of this arms race.

by Jason Ditz/AntiWar

Posted by The NON-Conformist

Are There Any Solutions to the Gun Violence Problem In the Black Community?

It is not too hard to find a story today about the relationship between the African-American community and guns. Typically, these stories paint a complicated and often inaccurate view of the role guns play in the lives of people of color.

For example, it was recently reported that a 15-year-old African-American boy was shot and killed May 6 by San Diego Police responding to a 911 call. The teenager allegedly pointed a BB gun at the police when they arrived. The police stated that the teenager who was shot made the original 911 call. In a separate report, a drunken gunman opened fire at an apartment pool in San Diego on April 30, targeting and killing African-Americans and a Hispanic. Yet, in another report, Austin police shot and killed a 24-year-old African-American man that is alleged to have fired at the police officers.

It is unclear what is going on here. For the most part, there is simply not enough information to make sense of the realities of the gun violence epidemic in the African-American community, which makes statements – such as Donald Trump’s assertion in his State of the Union address that the “cycle of poverty” is feeding the “cycle of violence” in cities like Chicago – inflammatory and unsustainable. Such statements ignore several key facts, such as the rate of Black victimization being a third today of what it was 20 years ago and that the regions with the most marked difference between Black and white victimization are not the major cities, but areas like Missouri, Indiana and Washington D.C.

“The truth of the matter is that we just don’t know what is behind the gun violence,” Nicholas Johnson, professor of law at the Fordham University’s School of Law, stated. “Every popular theory — from single-parent families to economic disparity to sheer boredom — either has been disproved or does not have enough evidence to support them.”

In light of what is being seen as a public health crisis and a changing reality of the role of guns in the African-American life, the conspiracy of silence that surrounds this issue is stifling. By understanding who is pushing this intentional ignorance and why, we can move forward toward understanding the true role of the gun in the Black community and build meaningful strategies to control its influence.

In 2015, the latest year to have full data released on firearm violence statistics, there were 12,979 gun-caused homicides. Approximately 59 percent (7,615) were African-Americans, with African-American men aged 34 or younger accounting for 39 percent of all of the firearm homicides in the United States. To put this in perspective, the 2015 Black homicide-by-firearm rate of 17.81 per 100,000 individuals is on par with Panama and Brazil’s national rates and would be the ninth-worst if the African-American community was recognized as its own country.

The Violence Policy Center’s analysis of the 2014 national homicide data showed that only 16 percent of all Black homicides are gang-related. Fifty percent of all Black murders arose from an argument that grew out of control and 72 percent involved a shooter that knew the victim.

Despite the high numbers, African-American gun violence is at a 30-year low, as is all violent crime in the United States. Most Americans are, however, unaware of this fact. This is in part due to media coverage of protests regarding police-related fatal shootings of unarmed Black men and children in Ferguson, Charlotte, Cleveland and New York City, and in part due to the oft-repeated and oft-disproven Republican mantra that African-Americans are responsible for the nation’s gun violence.

This was seen during the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump claimed in an ad that 81 percent of white homicide victims were killed by Blacks. (The actual percentage is 15 percent; whites kill other whites 82 percent of the time.) He also tweeted that “inner-city crime is reaching record levels.” (There is no official category in any federal statistics for “inner-city crime” and for cities with populations over 250,000, there have been a sharp decline).

It should be noted, however, that there has been an uptick in the homicide rate in some of the larger cities since 2015, such as Orlando, Cleveland and Nashville. “The increase in crime in inner cities in 2015 was a large one-year increase, but you can see that the long-term trend is way down,” Alan Lizotte, a criminologist at the University at Albany, said to Politifact. “The recent spike would need to continue for a while to reach early-1990s levels.”

The Curious Tale of the Black Community and Gun Ownership

Nationwide, gun purchasing rates are dropping. The inconvenient truth with gun sales is that Democrats in control are very good for the bottom line. A fear of Democrats possibly restricting gun ownership rights tends to drive gun purchases. Under the united Republican government, a lack of ‘fear of missing out’ has dried up gun sales in almost every demographic.

That is, with the exception of African-Americans. The community’s gun-purchasing rate has skyrocketed since the election of Trump, mostly out of fear of an increase in racially motivated attacks and spiteful rhetoric from supporters of the president and the growth in the number of hate groups in the U.S.

Typically, the large number of guns that have entered the Black community have been “weapons of opportunities,” brought in through various third-parties in an extralegal manner. In 2014, for example, only 19 percent of Black households reported owning a gun, compared to 41 percent of non-Hispanic white households.

Legally owning a gun as an African-American wasn’t always an option. Law enforcement once regularly used race as a discriminating factor against issuing gun permits. Martin Luther King Jr., a gun owner, once famously applied for a concealed-carry permit in Alabama after his house was bombed in 1956. Despite being a member of the clergy, not having a criminal record at the time and having a demonstrable need for a firearm due to being threatened daily, the local police still denied his application on the basis of race.

Legally owning a gun does not protect the gun owner from the prejudices of those uncomfortable with an armed African-American, as well, as was the case with Philando Castile. Castile was a licensed gun owner who declared clearly that he had a lawful gun in his possession before being shot because of the gun.

This, however, undermines the reality that there is a growing subsection of African-Americans that have bought guns legally for their own protection, for sport or for the sheer sake of gun possession.

This subsection has grown rapidly since the election of Trump. Per CNN, for example, the National African-American Gun Association reported adding 9,000 members to its roster between Election Day 2016 and February 2017, up from 4,285 members added over the same period a year prior.

This growth reflects an unsettling fact that has been underreported: The rate of white-on-black killings is growing faster than the rate of black-on-white killings. A concern for personal safety has seen a spike in Black gun purchases, especially among African-American women, who makes up the largest percentage of the NAAGA’s newest members.

“Because of the climate in the White House … people in the African-American community and other communities are concerned about their safety,” Michael Cargill, a central Texas gun shop owner, told CNN. “I’m seeing people who want to learn how to shoot and then have us help shop for the right gun.”

“It’s something that I haven’t seen in years past.”

Monetizing Pain

The notion that there are guns in the African-American community is not a problem. The problem lies in who in the African-American community has the guns.

“Not every Black person is killing. The truth is, gun ownership is rare in the Black community, despite increases since the election of Trump,” Nicolas Johnson of Fordham’s School of Law adds. “As with any demographic group, there is a subset of the Black community that is antisocial. It may be financial frustrations or social stigmatization or mental illness or simply boredom, but something is driving these individuals to use their guns on each other. The trick is taking those guns away from them.”

In statistics showing recent spikes in Black homicides, those spikes have been driven by increases in street violence. Non-gang-related violence in these cities, similar to violent crime rates nationwide, has been on the decline.

A large component of the proliferation of illegal guns on the streets is the lack of effective control of gun trafficking. According to “Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis” by Daniel Webster and Jon Vernick, only 11 percent of the participants of the 2004 Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities indicated that the guns recovered by the police for their criminal offense were purchased legally by the retailer from a licensed gun dealer. Sixty-seven percent of offenders indicated that their guns came from a friend or family member or from a street/black-market supplier.

In a large part, the proliferation of guns in this African-American community can be tracked to differences between local and state gun control regulations and trafficking between lenient and strictly regulated states. The proliferation of junk guns or cheap guns that can be secured easily by traffickers and sold at premium prices in restricted areas also play a role.

“Laws requiring private gun owners to promptly report theft or loss of firearms to police are intended to increase private gun seller accountability and provide law enforcement with a tool to combat illegal straw purchases when such purchasers accept no responsibility for the gun being in the hands of a prohibited person with dubious claims of unreported gun theft,” “Gun Violence in America” reads. “Having this measure of accountability significantly reduced interstate gun trafficking, as did bans of junk guns.”

Without effective gun control, weapons cannot be kept out of the hands of those that should never have access to guns. Worse, the quick availability of non-traceable weaponry offers a false solution at times of heightened passions where scarcity may lead to less-fatal solutions.

The Problem with Perceptions

The problem in this lies in the fact that maintaining the status quo tends to be more profitable. In regards to the gun situation in the African-American community, creating false equivalencies not only increase gun sales from those scared of the specter of Black violence but also creates a false narrative for those seeking to cultivate power based on fear.

“Donald Trump campaigned partly on the notion that our cities, at least some cities like Chicago and Baltimore, were out of control with gun violence and that he would be a law-and-order president who could staunch the violence,” noted Daniel Webster, author of “Gun Violence in America” and director of the John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy & Research. “Jeff Sessions was a close adviser to the campaign and selected to be Attorney General. Now that Trump is president and Sessions is his AG, one would think that high rates of gun violence in cities, if they do not decline under their tenure, will hurt them politically. “

“So, high rates of gun violence in cities, just like terrorist threats, helped with Trump’s political message as an outsider and change agent who wants to shake up the system. But now, Trump and Sessions have pressure to reduce gun violence in cities.”

The monetization of gun violence for political and monetary gains has created a blight on the health and prosperity of an entire people. Unless the effects of this are understood and recognized, the possibility of finding valid remedies may be just a dream.

“America has an intentional injury problem with firearm violence. It is a medical epidemic by any measure,” Georges C. Benjamin, executive director of the APHA, adds. “Clearly, the more fear we have, the more guns get bought and the gun dealers benefit from that. But, frankly, the whole community loses. Economic development, education and health are all negatively impacted by gun violence.

“We can invest in multi-sectorial solutions. Groups, such as Cease Fire in Chicago, have a methodology that focuses on violence as an infectious disease. This has been highly successful in reducing violence and it affects gun deaths,” he continued. “That, coupled with cracking down on bad-apple drug dealers, universal background checks and closing the gun show loophole, would help reduce the number of guns in the wrong hands without negatively impacting the second amendment.

“I think in a difficult environment like the one we are in we need to push even harder.”

By Frederick Reese/AtlantaBlackStar

Posted by The NON-Conformist

The Resurgence of ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws and What It Could Mean for Black Citizens

The criminalization of Black people and the use of white vigilantism as a weapon of violence against us are by no means a new concept in America. After all, violence and the very palpable threat of death have followed Black people for 400 years in the land of the free.  However, in recent years, part of that legacy of anti-Black violence had assumed a new name: Stand Your Ground.

Beginning in Florida in 2005, through the efforts of conservative lawmakers, the National Rifle Association and the American Legislative Exchange Council, states across the country enacted Stand Your Ground laws. The legislation allows armed people to use deadly force, invoking self-defense as a justification for killing someone they believe poses an imminent threat. Often, these laws justify the murder of Black people by whites. Between 2012 and 2016, Stand Your Ground bills have failed in state legislatures. But now, in GOP-controlled states, these laws — likely motivated by racism — are making a comeback. Black lawmakers, who represent 10 percent of state legislators, are fighting the resurgence of these laws born from segregation fear and ignorance, as The Trace reported.

While U.S. law traditionally followed the “castle doctrine” — which says the home is one’s castle and allows a person to defend his or her home through deadly force without legal consequences — this new breed of legislation has enabled the use of deadly force outside of the home or anywhere, whether or not the alleged perpetrator is armed. Within the context of racial justice, Stand Your Ground has proven highly problematic in a nation that views Black people as a threat to public safety, and where white people have relished the opportunity to deputize themselves in the policing and taking of Black lives.

Stand Your Ground was implicated in a number of high-profile cases involving the racialized killing of Black teenage victims. Two of these incidents took place in Florida in 2012, including the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, and the fatal shooting of Jordan Davis over loud music by a white man named Michael Dunn at a Jacksonville gas station. Studies have shown that these laws have made it easier for whites people to kill Black people with impunity.  According to a 2012 study from the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center, whites who kill Blacks in Stand Your Ground states are far more likely to be found justified than in jurisdictions without the law — 354 percent more likely as opposed to 250 percent. A 2015 study in Social Science & Medicine revealed the extent of racial bias in Florida’s Stand Your Ground statute. According to the report, the race of the victim predicted whether the defendant was convicted, with a jury conviction twice as likely in cases involving white victims vs. non-white victims.

In addition, Stand Your Ground statutes, also known as “shoot first” laws, have resulted in more bloodshed. For example, according to a 2012 Texas A&M University study, instances of murder and non-negligent manslaughter increased by 8 percent in states with Stand Your Ground laws, translating into 600 more homicides per year.

A study last year from the American Medical Association found that Florida experienced a 24.4-percent increase in homicides and a 31.6-percent increase in gun-related homicides from 2005–after implementing Stand Your Ground– and 2014.

Black people have not benefited from a law that was not meant for them. The case of Marissa Alexander was a salient example. “Stand Your Ground” was not available to Alexander, who ultimately spent three years in prison and two years under home confinement in a plea deal for firing a warning shot to ward off her abusive husband. She was initially sentenced to up to 20 years in prison.

More than 20 states have implemented Stand Your Ground laws. Following four years of legislative inactivity — during which time the Black Lives Matter movement came into being and, with it, heightened awareness of racial justice issues — Republican-controlled state houses are once again enacting these laws, as The Trace reported. Black Democratic lawmakers are on the front lines of the resistance against the laws, but they are witnessing their waning power in many states, including rural districts. Missouri was the first to make this move, followed by Iowa just recently. Florida, the first Stand Your Ground state, is poised to pass an even more stringent law according to the Tampa Bay Times. The Florida House of Representatives voted for a revised and approved Senate bill that favors shooters, shifting the burden of proof in pre-trial hearings to prosecutors, who must now prove that someone invoking Stand Your Ground should not be immune from prosecution. The NRA supported the bill, while state prosecutors, gun control advocates and the entire Democratic caucus opposed the measure. Marissa Alexander testified in support of changes to the law, while Lucia McBath, the mother of Jordan Davis, expressed her opposition to the measure.

“One shot and a 12-minute verdict got me 20 years,” Alexander said in February before a state Senate committee, as the Florida Times-Union reported. “In my own home. Concealed weapon license. White-collar worker. I had just given birth to an 8-month-old, 4-pound, 12-ounce premature baby.”

“You’re going to have an inordinate number of cases now that are going to be brought forth to be tried,” said McBath, as reported by “More people are going to try to use ‘Stand Your Ground’ as their lawful defense for shooting first and asking questions later.”

By David Love

Posted by The NON-Conformist

One Year Later: Memorial Service Scheduled To Honor San Bernardino Shooting Massacre Victims

Image: CBS Los Angeles
Friday marked the one-year anniversary of a terrorist attack that claimed the lives of 14 people and wounded nearly two dozen others at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino.

Shortly before 11 a.m., survivors, loved ones and colleagues gathered in front of Building 3, the site of the attack, for a moment of healing and reflection.

“One year after the devastating and tragic terrorist attack in San Bernardino, we remember those who lost their lives and the loved ones they left behind,” Attorney General Kamala D. Harris said in a written statement. “We extend our support to those who were wounded and are working every day to rebuild their lives.”

More from CBS Los Angeles

Posted by Libergirl

Colin Kaepernick Is Righter Than You Know: The National Anthem Is a Celebration of Slavery

BEFORE A PRESEASON GAME on Friday, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick refused to stand for the playing of “The Star-Spangled Banner.” When he explained why, he only spoke about the present: “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. … There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”

Twitter then went predictably nuts, with at least one 49ers fan burning Kaepernick’s jersey.

Almost no one seems to be aware that even if the U.S. were a perfect country today, it would be bizarre to expect African-American players to stand for “The Star-Spangled Banner.” Why? Because it literally celebrates the murder of African-Americans.

Few people know this because we only ever sing the first verse. But read the end of the third verse and you’ll see why “The Star-Spangled Banner” is not just a musical atrocity, it’s an intellectual and moral one, too:

No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

“The Star-Spangled Banner,” Americans hazily remember, was written by Francis Scott Key about the Battle of Fort McHenry in Baltimore during the War of 1812. But we don’t ever talk about how the War of 1812 was a war of aggression that began with an attempt by the U.S. to grab Canada from the British Empire.

However, we’d wildly overestimated the strength of the U.S. military. By the time of the Battle of Fort McHenry in 1814, the British had counterattacked and overrun Washington, D.C., setting fire to the White House.

And one of the key tactics behind the British military’s success was its active recruitment of American slaves. As a detailed 2014 article in Harper’s explains, the orders given to the Royal Navy’s Admiral Sir George Cockburn read:

Let the landings you make be more for the protection of the desertion of the Black Population than with a view to any other advantage. … The great point to be attained is the cordial Support of the Black population. With them properly armed & backed with 20,000 British Troops, Mr. Madison will be hurled from his throne.

Whole families found their way to the ships of the British, who accepted everyone and pledged no one would be given back to their “owners.” Adult men were trained to create a regiment called the Colonial Marines, who participated in many of the most important battles, including the August 1814 raid on Washington.

Then on the night of September 13, 1814, the British bombarded Fort McHenry. Key, seeing the fort’s flag the next morning, was inspired to write the lyrics for “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

So when Key penned “No refuge could save the hireling and slave / From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,” he was taking great satisfaction in the death of slaves who’d freed themselves. His perspective may have been affected by the fact he owned several slaves himself.

With that in mind, think again about the next two lines: “And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave / O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

The reality is that there were human beings fighting for freedom with incredible bravery during the War of 1812. However, “The Star-Spangled Banner” glorifies America’s “triumph” over them — and then turns that reality completely upside down, transforming their killers into the courageous freedom fighters.

After the U.S. and the British signed a peace treaty at the end of 1814, the U.S. government demanded the return of American “property,” which by that point numbered about 6,000 people. The British refused. Most of the 6,000 eventually settled in Canada, with some going to Trinidad, where their descendants are still known as “Merikins.”

Furthermore, if those leading the backlash against Kaepernick need more inspiration, they can get it from Francis Scott Key’s later life.

By 1833, Key was a district attorney for Washington, D.C. As described in a book called Snowstorm in August by former Washington Post reporter Jefferson Morley, the police were notorious thieves, frequently stealing free blacks’ possessions with impunity. One night, one of the constables tried to attack a woman who escaped and ran away — until she fell off a bridge across the Potomac and drowned.

“There is neither mercy nor justice for colored people in this district,” an abolitionist paper wrote. “No fuss or stir was made about it. She was got out of the river, and was buried, and there the matter ended.”

Key was furious and indicted the newspaper for intending “to injure, oppress, aggrieve & vilify the good name, fame, credit & reputation of the Magistrates & constables of Washington County.”

You can decide for yourself whether there’s some connection between what happened 200 years ago and what Colin Kaepernick is angry about today. Maybe it’s all ancient, meaningless history. Or maybe it’s not, and Kaepernick is right, and we really need a new national anthem.

By Jon Schwarz

Posted by The NON-Conformist

‘US ongoing problem – it can’t control its weapons in Mideast’

US weapons ending up in the hands of terrorists and current happenings in Washington DC and the Middle East are reminiscent of the Afghan Mujahideen, said international lawyer and former CIA officer Jack Rice.
American and Jordanian officials testified to the New York Times and Al Jazeera that weapons sent to Jordan by the CIA and Saudi Arabia for Syrian rebels have been repeatedly stolen and sold on the black market. According to the recent report, the CIA-Saudi shipment, under the “arm and train program”, included Kalashnikov rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades (RPG).

RT: There have been plenty of previous reports of US weapons ending up in the hands of terrorists. How serious is this latest claim?

Jack Rice: It doesn’t shock me at all. I can go back decades now, when I think about operations and frankly… what this is reminiscent of – is the Mujahideen. You can take a look at exactly what was going on with the CIA, and the Middle East, and specifically with Afghanistan and the inability to control the weapons once you hand them over to somebody else – this has always been a problem for the US. They continue to do it. And despite knowing that they can’t control them, they seem to do it anyway.

RT: Is it surprising the US is still arming rebel groups, despite the huge risks?

JR: It doesn’t really shock me though. What I’ve found over and over again – is there is a desire in the US that somebody fights ISIS; that somebody fights the Damascus regime, but it shouldn’t be Americans. So the best ways to do that is to hand weapons over to somebody else and say: “It’s your problem. It is your fight. You take care of it, or we’ll drop bombs from the sky, but we don’t want boots on the ground; we would rather drop AK-47s, mortars, and RPGs.” That is a much easier thing to deal with. And if some of them end somewhere else: “Oh well…”

RT: What do you make of the State Department’s refusal to comment on these recent allegations?

JR: That doesn’t shock me either again. It doesn’t shock me the CIA wasn’t responding obviously, because these are covert operations. But the thing is – it assumes the State Department is actually going to tell you honestly what it is actually going on is a foreign policy approach.

I think we have to contemplate exactly what is going on in Washington DC right now. There is something going on fist in glove with the Agency, the Department and the Pentagon – all three of which are working very closely on these operations. So this doesn’t surprise me at all that nobody is willing to talk about it, especially when things go bad. When things go south who do you think is going to stand up and say: “Yeah, it was me, I am the one who screwed up!” No, nobody is going to say anything.

RT: What are the security implications for Jordan? The country was recently hit by a terrorist attack near the Syrian border, in which seven Jordanian soldiers died.

JR: That is a great point. And that is one of the real problems here: there are security implications – again thinking back to Afghanistan – it is the very same problem. Any time you start providing arms to somebody who is your friend – and that is a very clear and, I should say, not clear definition… The problem is it’s very difficult to determine who your friends are and who your enemies are. And sometimes it’s both.

Those things can end up in all sorts of places for the Jordanians right now. Not they could potentially see a whole series of AKs, mortars, and RPGs that were just rolled through Jordan – that is going to come back at the Jordanians themselves. That is a concern. Remember: these were supposed to go into Syria and into Northern Iraq. That doesn’t mean that is where they end up. They can end up in Western Europe; they can end up in Eastern Europe; they can end up in the southern republics; they can end up in Moscow. We really can’t tell, because once you let go of the weapon, it can end up just about anywhere.

From RT

Posted by The NON-Conformist

The NRA has blocked gun violence research for 20 years. Let’s end its stranglehold on science

Image: LA Times

The Orlando massacre reminds us that there’s an enormous amount we don’t know about gun violence — what causes it, what its consequences are for surviving families, how to stop it. You can blame our ignorance on the National Rifle Assn. – and on the federal officials the NRA has intimidated away from this crucial field of public health for 20 years.

It’s widely supposed that Congress enacted a “ban” on federal funding for gun violence research in 1996. That isn’t quite true, says Mark Rosenberg, a gun violence expert who was head of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the time. But the truth is even more demoralizing.

Infuriated by CDC-funded research suggesting that having firearms in the home sharply increased the risks of homicide, the NRA goaded Congress in 1996 into stripping the injury center’s funding for gun violence research – $2.6 million. Congress then passed a measure drafted by then-Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ga.) forbidding the CDC to spend funds “to advocate or promote gun control.” (The NRA initially hoped to eradicate the injury center entirely.)

More from the LA Times

Posted by Libergirl