DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Is this hypocrisy?
Pages:   ... ...
Showing posts 676 - 700 of 1154, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/17/2013 11:26:55 PM · #676
Originally posted by Melethia:

We have statewide databases of people who own cars.


Which Nazi state is that?
01/17/2013 11:31:17 PM · #677
I am a fan of Scott McNealy's line "You Have Zero Privacy Anyway. Get Over It". It isn't what I would like, but reality is often far from my ideal. We live in a digital fishbowl. When private organizations know what we search on line, and what we buy; not to mention the government's right to spy on us in the name of national security, why are guns so special?

I think the idea of publishing the addresses of gun owners is idiotic, since the point of gun legislation is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, why give them a map of whom to rob to get guns? However having a list of who owns guns that investigators can access and check against lists of people who are not allowed to own guns would be a boon to law enforcement.

Most gun owners I know are on the law and order side of the civil liberties v civil order spectrum. Yet in this one area they do not trust our keepers of the peace. Why when the government knows how much you earn, and what kind of car you drive and every other detail of your life, is keeping your guns a secret so important? Especially when thugs and street criminals hide behind the veil of that secrecy? If we just had a bit more faith that no one was trying take guns from the law abiding, we might be better able to get between criminals and their supply of weaponry.
01/18/2013 01:02:56 AM · #678
Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Melethia:

We have statewide databases of people who own cars.


Which Nazi state is that?

California. If it has a plate, it's registered to an owner. To drive it, you need a plate. Hence, a statewide database. Then when you have a hit and run, and someone gets a plate number, you can at least try to find the owner. Who will, of course, state his car was stolen just hours before the hit and run occurred. And in some cases that is true.
01/18/2013 01:26:07 AM · #679
Well when you buy a firearm legally from a dealer you are required to fill out the federal form 4473. //www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

This info is available to BATFE or any other law enforcement agency upon audit or request. Registration, on the other hand, implies a privilege not a right and there are other negative connotations. I refuse registration.

I would like to point out that through the normal discourse in this thread I have shown that I agree on many points yet I stopped at registration but rather than accept that you all start in on it. The reason I point this out is that this is the "Slippery slope" in action. This is why most law abiding gun owners refuse all notions due to "Give an inch, take a mile".

Message edited by author 2013-01-18 01:39:24.
01/18/2013 02:04:31 AM · #680
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:



This info is available to BATFE or any other law enforcement agency upon audit or request. Registration, on the other hand, implies a privilege not a right and there are other negative connotations. I refuse registration.


Those records are special. Form 4473s are kept on paper. By the dealer. For 20 years. They are prohibited from creating (or allowing to be created) a data base by scanning them or entering the data in to a computer system. So essentially they are impossible for law enforcement to search, unless they went to to from dealer to dealer across the country with no hint where to start, get a request for one particular transaction, wait for it to go through channels, and then look at that one, then move to the next, forever. Audits can occur once a year at most and in practice occur about every 17 years.

It is a fig leaf. And only about 50% of gun transactions have the benefit of that fig leaf.

It is a logical response to the risk that the North Koreans are going to invade the United States and find all the guns like they did in Red Dawn. But other than that fiction, what scenario exists where the benefits of this pathetically weak system (a massive privacy of records meant to keep guns out of the hands of criminals) outweigh the drawbacks (a stunning number of guns in the hands of criminals).

Of course the slippery slope argument can be used at any time, in any argument. It stands in opposition to the possibility of finding an answer that can satisfy the concerns of both sides of an argument. It assumes that a centrist point will never be found and that extremism is the only rational approach to anything you believe in. Make any moderate step toward the middle ground and your opponents will steam roll you. Defending a slippery slope is a pretty lousy approach for a representative democracy.

Message edited by author 2013-01-18 03:00:22.
01/18/2013 02:48:13 AM · #681
Gun is used in a crime. Law Enforcement uses the make, model and serial number to get the info from the manufacture of the distributer who received that firearm. Distributor gives the info on the dealer and the dealer provides the info to law enforcement. They are not just paper some dealers such as Cabella's uses an electronic version of the form I.E. a database (easily queried).

Regarding the stats you are quoting, can you supply reference links?

On your point about the slippery slope argument. I agree that it "is a pretty lousy approach for a representative democracy" but I am not defending it I was just pointing it out. It has been said in this thread it is not an all or nothing proposition but but it feels that it is. What I mean by this is that when it comes to our Individual Rights we all should be defending them staunchly.

Message edited by author 2013-01-18 02:49:05.
01/18/2013 03:35:06 AM · #682
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Gun is used in a crime. Law Enforcement uses the make, model and serial number to get the info from the manufacture of the distributer who received that firearm. Distributor gives the info on the dealer and the dealer provides the info to law enforcement. They are not just paper some dealers such as Cabella's uses an electronic version of the form I.E. a database (easily queried).

Regarding the stats you are quoting, can you supply reference links?


The 50% number is most likely high, 40% is widely estimated, but darned hard to figure out what number of transactions have no paperwork. Any number I can find is a guess since there is no record of sales with no record. Safe to say in most states, if you buy a used gun from anyone who is not a dealer, you will not be filling out forms. I did look for links, there are really nothing but guesses out there.

As far as your first point, yes, after a gun is used in a crime, if the gun is recovered, it can be traced through the manufacturer. But that does nothing to keep the gun out of the hands of the criminal in the first place. Surely there is something we can do that will prevent those crimes rather than just using them in prosecutions after the crime is committed.
01/18/2013 03:45:06 AM · #683
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Safe to say in most states, if you buy a used gun from anyone who is not a dealer, you will not be filling out forms. I did look for links, there are really nothing but guesses out there.


Michigan requires paperwork for private sales of handguns. One copy to the seller, one copy to the buyer (who must retain it if they ever want to sell it in the future), one copy to the local PD/Sheriff and one copy to the State Police. This is even required if the buyer has a CCW permit and has already passed a background check and has their fingerprints on file.
01/18/2013 03:49:42 AM · #684
The NRA used to have compilations of the various state laws regarding transport and sale. Not sure if they still do but certainly would think they would. Of course State Laws can change at any time.
01/18/2013 11:55:31 AM · #685
KGB Major: Do you want to see me?

Colonel Ernesto Bella: Yes... yes. Go to the sporting goods store. From the files obtain forms 4473. These will contain descriptions of weapons, and lists of private ownership.

Red Dawn - 1984

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Well when you buy a firearm legally from a dealer you are required to fill out the federal form 4473. //www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

This info is available to BATFE or any other law enforcement agency upon audit or request. Registration, on the other hand, implies a privilege not a right and there are other negative connotations. I refuse registration.

I would like to point out that through the normal discourse in this thread I have shown that I agree on many points yet I stopped at registration but rather than accept that you all start in on it. The reason I point this out is that this is the "Slippery slope" in action. This is why most law abiding gun owners refuse all notions due to "Give an inch, take a mile".
01/18/2013 01:15:38 PM · #686
Originally posted by kenskid:

KGB Major: Do you want to see me?

Colonel Ernesto Bella: Yes... yes. Go to the sporting goods store. From the files obtain forms 4473. These will contain descriptions of weapons, and lists of private ownership.

Red Dawn - 1984


Never mind...

Message edited by author 2013-01-18 13:36:50.
01/18/2013 01:30:34 PM · #687
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Surely there is something we can do that will prevent those crimes rather than just using them in prosecutions after the crime is committed.


And this is exactly the question. I think the shoring up of the so called "Gun show loophole" and, if they can get the process right, Universal Background checks (Sans registration) mandatory training, Strict enforcement of the laws that are already in place, seem to be things we can do now and would be a great start. But a motivated criminal who is seeking to acquire a firearm will do this regardless of the laws that are on the books. As has been said it is not an easy problem to solve but penalizing law abiding citizens or eroding/restricting OUR 2A right is not the answer.
01/18/2013 01:47:46 PM · #688
What's the big deal with registration -- the Second Amendment refers to a "well-regulated" militia -- surely the State needs to know who has what weapons in order to call up an effective and "well-regulated" milita ...

Interesting that you think it's OK to have a national registry of people someone somewhere has considered to have some (undefined) "mental illness" â even though statistics show that those poeple commit crimes at about the same rate (or less) than those not so diagnosed â while handicapping law enforcement at every turn in attempting to prevent and prosecute gun crimes.

I'd love to know what percentage of gun deaths result from the use of legally-purchased guns, except NRA lobbying has prevented any scientific research or publication of statistics regarding gun violence.
01/18/2013 01:54:37 PM · #689
Originally posted by GeneralE:

What's the big deal with registration -- the Second Amendment refers to a "well-regulated" militia -- surely the State needs to know who has what weapons in order to call up an effective and "well-regulated" milita ...

Interesting that you think it's OK to have a national registry of people someone somewhere has considered to have some (undefined) "mental illness" â even though statistics show that those poeple commit crimes at about the same rate (or less) than those not so diagnosed â while handicapping law enforcement at every turn in attempting to prevent and prosecute gun crimes.

I'd love to know what percentage of gun deaths result from the use of legally-purchased guns, except NRA lobbying has prevented any scientific research or publication of statistics regarding gun violence.


It was restricted only of the CDC and still they can publish some of the data. I will look for that info from the FBI and DOJ resources. Registration implies a "Privilege" and this is a "Right". This is how I feel about it and for me this is non-negotiable. And all though your interpretation relies on the militia portion of the 2A the SCOTUS has confirmed the "Individual Right".

Message edited by author 2013-01-18 13:54:55.
01/18/2013 02:08:21 PM · #690
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Registration implies a "Privilege" and this is a "Right". This is how I feel about it and for me this is non-negotiable. And all though your interpretation relies on the militia portion of the 2A the SCOTUS has confirmed the "Individual Right".

I don't understand this. "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." As long as we're allowed to have 'em, how is telling the government we have 'em an "infringement" of the right to possess?

Let's not forget the "inalienable" rights of "life" and "liberty": yet the courts continue to execute certain criminals, and incarcerate many others. If our right to life and liberty can be curtailed for the good of the state, how do guns stand on a higher plateau than that?
01/18/2013 04:24:21 PM · #691
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Registration implies a "Privilege" and this is a "Right". This is how I feel about it and for me this is non-negotiable. And all though your interpretation relies on the militia portion of the 2A the SCOTUS has confirmed the "Individual Right".

I don't understand this. "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." As long as we're allowed to have 'em, how is telling the government we have 'em an "infringement" of the right to possess?

Let's not forget the "inalienable" rights of "life" and "liberty": yet the courts continue to execute certain criminals, and incarcerate many others. If our right to life and liberty can be curtailed for the good of the state, how do guns stand on a higher plateau than that?


Rights are taken away for those convicted of crimes. They lose their right to liberty and sometimes life (along with their right to keep and bear arms) as part of the penalties for their crimes.

Message edited by author 2013-01-18 16:39:43.
01/18/2013 04:27:56 PM · #692
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Registration implies a "Privilege" and this is a "Right". This is how I feel about it and for me this is non-negotiable. And all though your interpretation relies on the militia portion of the 2A the SCOTUS has confirmed the "Individual Right".

I don't understand this. "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." As long as we're allowed to have 'em, how is telling the government we have 'em an "infringement" of the right to possess?

Let's not forget the "inalienable" rights of "life" and "liberty": yet the courts continue to execute certain criminals, and incarcerate many others. If our right to life and liberty can be curtailed for the good of the state, how do guns stand on a higher plateau than that?


"And the pursuit of happiness" and as a law abiding citizen I will protect these rights.

It not the guns it's our right.
One of the biggest issues I have with registration as it has no impact on criminals or crime. //www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html

And as been stated, the information is available to law enforcement but not to the public. And the biggest reason for me and I only speak for me on this, is that I am a Libertarian and as such I believe staunchly in "Mind your own business" because what I am doing is legal and brings no harm to another.

There is of course the issue of the 270 million guns that are already out there. If a requirement for registration was retro-active that to me smacks of possible confiscation and they would never be registered.

Message edited by author 2013-01-18 16:29:55.
01/18/2013 09:29:08 PM · #693
Good read
01/18/2013 11:51:18 PM · #694
I haven't read any of this discourse. Don't want to. I just want someone to explain to me why some pro-gun people are so extreme and unreasonable? I was trying to have a reasonable conversation with someone on FB (mistake number one, I know) and say people on both sides of the gun debate needed to find common ground and understanding. I sent him a link to a survey that said a large majority of dems and reps alike are for universal registration. Seems reasonable. He shoots back basically that would be like a Christian trying to find common ground with Lucifer, then hit me with a book long tirade about how govt is not to be trusted then of course brings up Hitler and Stalin and people agreeing on slavery and all kinds of non sequiters...

I JUST DON'T GET IT. Why do people need to be so crazy and crass when it comes to guns? Why always with the Hitler crap?
01/19/2013 02:02:46 AM · #695
Originally posted by escapetooz:

I haven't read any of this discourse. Don't want to. I just want someone to explain to me why some pro-gun people are so extreme and unreasonable? I was trying to have a reasonable conversation with someone on FB (mistake number one, I know) and say people on both sides of the gun debate needed to find common ground and understanding. I sent him a link to a survey that said a large majority of dems and reps alike are for universal registration. Seems reasonable. He shoots back basically that would be like a Christian trying to find common ground with Lucifer, then hit me with a book long tirade about how govt is not to be trusted then of course brings up Hitler and Stalin and people agreeing on slavery and all kinds of non sequiters...

I JUST DON'T GET IT. Why do people need to be so crazy and crass when it comes to guns? Why always with the Hitler crap?


I don't get the extreme view either there are many more reasoned positions to take. The sad thing is that they are more vocal and tend to paint us all in that light. Just know that he does not speak for the majority of the responsible firearms owners that are my friends and associates. If you did read this thread you would see that I have not once in my support of OUR 2A right, brought up dictators or any notion of needing to protect myself from our government.

It is truly too bad that this person could not seek common ground and has decided to take it to the extreme.

Message edited by author 2013-01-19 02:14:07.
01/19/2013 02:54:34 AM · #696
This video is definately biased but does have a point.

Citizens against senseless violence video

Exactly how many of you gun control advocates would put a sign in YOUR front yard proclaiming your house as a "gun free" home? Certainly not any of those at the Journal News would - yet until today, they felt "compelled" to publish the names/addresses of gun owners. How can anyone have reasonable dialogue on this topic when companies like the Journal News, Mayor Bloomberg, Governor Cuomo, Senator Diane Finestein, etc blather on with their agenda driven mantra?

A new article on CNN I believe is tauting the formation of new groups to go grassroots to target states where democratic senators are up for reelection to show them they have nothing to worry about when supporting the president's proposals. With the NRA adding members at about 8,000/day, it appears currently that maybe those senators may wnat to evaluate their constituentcy closely. Harry Reids office is presently getting calls 2 to 1 AGAINST the presidents proposals. Doesn't look like Harry is very eager to take up the charge - yet he will blame the house and republicans as the problem. Perhaps not Harry.
01/19/2013 04:23:04 AM · #697
Originally posted by Flash:

How can anyone have reasonable dialogue on this topic when companies like the Journal News, Mayor Bloomberg, Governor Cuomo, Senator Diane Finestein, etc blather on with their agenda driven mantra?


If you list Bloomberg and Feinstein among the extremists, you have a slanted view of the debate.

Feinstein is a former gun owner who used to have a CC permit and carried for self protection. When an unstable ally on the board of supervisors killed the mayor and another supervisor with a handgun while she was down the hall, Feinstein was the first person try to save one of the victims, she has seen what a gun can do close up. Then after the 101 California murders she came to the conclusion that certain types of weapons and ammunition were stupid to allow people to be able to buy. She is an outspoken advocate for the banning of assault rifles and weapons that are designed for military use, and for closing the gun show loophole. It is a far from radical view.

Of course there are no counterweights to the gun owners on TV saying "pry it from my cold dead fingers" on the other side that I know of. Who are the people demanding the banning of all guns, that hunting weapons or revolvers be confiscated? I haven't heard their voice in the debate.

We have doctors and mayors on one side asking for reform to try to lower the cost of gun violence, and those opposed who feel that any weapon that can be hand held is their God given, constitutionally guaranteed right to own and carry anywhere; a right which they threaten to defend unto death. So if those asking for 30 round clips and cop killer bullets to be banned, are the most radical voices of gun control, and the other side's radicals are saying they will kill any officer of the law that tries to mess with their guns, I don't think the agenda driven mantras on the two sides are equal.

âI do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.â Ronald Reagan
01/19/2013 11:42:29 AM · #698
Originally posted by Flash:

This video is definately biased but does have a point.

Citizens against senseless violence video

Exactly how many of you gun control advocates would put a sign in YOUR front yard proclaiming your house as a "gun free" home?


... I would.

Ray
01/19/2013 11:55:12 AM · #699
Originally posted by Flash:



A new article on CNN I believe is tauting the formation of new groups to go grassroots to target states where democratic senators are up for reelection to show them they have nothing to worry about when supporting the president's proposals. With the NRA adding members at about 8,000/day, it appears currently that maybe those senators may wnat to evaluate their constituentcy closely. Harry Reids office is presently getting calls 2 to 1 AGAINST the presidents proposals. Doesn't look like Harry is very eager to take up the charge - yet he will blame the house and republicans as the problem. Perhaps not Harry.


...ever worry that perhaps there might be groups that could rise to counter the slanted view provided by the NRA and some of the gun owners, where would the NRA be should the gun control folks gain an upper hand.

You know me Flash and are familiar with my background. Surely you can understand that I am not an anti-gun person, but would readily support some semblance of controls as it relates to registration, storage, trigger locks, background checks for all and the maintaining of records relative to mental issues and the like.

Sadly what seems to prevail,on both sides of the aisle is an all or nothing approach.

Ray
01/19/2013 12:34:51 PM · #700
I heard an interesting statisic the other day: Since the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy ("only") 44 years ago there have been approximately twice as many Americans killed by guns as US soldiers killed in every war we've ever fought, back to the Revolution.

Patrick Leahy (Senator from Vermont) notes that his state has vary few gun regulations, but one of them is that, when hunting deer with a semi-automatic weapon, you are limited to a capacity of six rounds ... and asks whether it's logical that we provide greater protection for deer than kids ...
Pages:   ... ...
Current Server Time: 10/13/2025 07:23:22 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 10/13/2025 07:23:22 AM EDT.