The CDC can barely do it’s job with known diseases correctly without delving into politics and making decisions that endanger the American Public….Evidence, letting cases of Ebola in to the US when they should have been treated in place and letting travelers from those regions who had been exposed to Ebola travel to the US, prior to a quarantine in the originating country, and then once here letting them roam the streets and either self quarantine or no quarantine….what a quaint way to protect the public. So when you say they should be putting out guidelines and having Doctors take surveys about guns in the home, I must ask, to what end; it looks like a backdoor data collection on who has a gun for the government. Please do not invoke HIPPA since that detailed information is available to the Federal government through two agencies complements of the TARP legislation and any medical record can also be accessed by any insurance company with a ‘need’. Basically it’s not private anymore. When my Doc asked me, my reply was ‘do I have an iron deficiency, should I buy one?’
If you want to task the CDC with anything related to guns, task them with studying suicides [close to 70% of gun deaths], and the psychology behind taking one’s own life would be worthwhile, the gun part is not the problem, but a merely a presence at the suicide. In that case guns are just one of the vehicles used.
Another thing all the folks who dislike guns fail to factor into the equation is the plus side…crimes and criminals they stop. Civilians kill over 3 times as many violent criminals as the police each year, and civilians stop between 1 & 2 million violent crimes each year without police intervention; both stats complements of the FBI under Holder. Why get the CDC involved with mechanical devices that have capabilities of doing good and bad, at that point it’s a cost benefit analysis, like it or not. Are you willing to take cheap subcompact cars off the road; death and destruction from them is far higher than midsize and luxury cars, cost benefit says no; same goes for guns, because you CANNOT CONTROL BAD GUYS BY LAWS, so you cannot use what they do against law abiding citizens to further your agenda.
Your argument that the 2nd amendment curtails free speech is backwards. If you take a look at history, even recent history; in any country where gun rights have been imposed, speech rights have been also been restricted shortly thereafter . In recent times this has been true in the UK and Australia where speaking out on certain issues against government policies has become law. Of Course we could look at Germany where citizen’s are being told to stay away from Refugee areas if they want to remain safe, in other words the refugees have ore rights than the taxpayers. Want to look at Stalin, Mao, ….. I didn’t think so! Look at Loretta Lynch, do we yet know what was on the 911 calls in Orlando, if you think so, you are in the minority.