Gun Registration Paper Trail Is Long And Convoluted
http://www.npr.org/2013/04/11/176954...and-convoluted
any law enforcement officer ought to be able to trace any gun from his smartphone or car computer or anywhere, instantly.
You rolling around with a gun that isn't registered to you, the cop should confiscate the gun and arrest you, for a fine.
Then the registered owner needs to be found and queried, under threat of arrest and fine, why his gun was in somebody else's possession.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-20-2013 at 03:34 PM.
You can't be serious. It's a wildly bersome hurdle to criminal investigations And frequently prevents the traceability of weapons used in crimes back to owners/purchasers hindering all types of research. This is base level data much research is built on.
as DMC proved by his inwillingness to answer dirct questions, this NRA implemented roadblock is completely unnecessary.
I understand this. What I'm trying to figure out is what you think this data will do to influence policy decisions regarding gun control.
Creepy Christian Preacher Wanders Around Texas Town Armed With Assault Rifle to Protest Strictness of Texas Gun Laws
If you go shopping in Huntsville, Texas, you’re likely to run into a local preacher with an assault rifle slung across his back. Beginning last week, Pastor Terry Holcomb started posting videos of himself wandering into local businesses with an AR-15 Bushmaster rifle — the same weapon used to kill 20 children and six adults in the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting.
In one video, Holcomb wanders about a Walmart for several minutes before he is approached by two store employees and asked to leave. He argues briefly with those two employees until a manager approaches and threatens to call the police if he does not exit the store. Although Holcomb then agrees to leave the store, he refuses a request to stop videoing the engagement — at one point, his camera man claims the recording is for Holcomb’s “safety.”
Holcomb told a local news station that the purpose of his con uously armed visits to Huntsville businesses is to protest a Texas law which permits gun owners to openly carry long rifles but not handguns, which must be concealed and can only be carried by individuals with valid concealed carry permits.
http://www.alternet.org/creepy-chris...ter885078&t=13
East Texas!
Christian preachers!
Look up the definition of source or core data. There are literally hundreds of analytics to be applied and studies to be executed to educate ourselves on the effect of guns on our society.
What do you think will be revealed with this new data?
stuff the gun industry doesn't want us to know, and apparently the gun industry knows what that stuff is
Like what? I'm honestly curious.
You mean like the law against a national firearm database? Other laws are interpretations by the states. That's why you can open carry in Vermont and you cannot even concealed carry in other states.
You may suggest anything you wish.
It was a strawman. I wasn't the one who brought up limitations. That was you. I know the playbook better than you (i.e. what about nuclear weapons? and i.e. what about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?)
There is no limitation in "shall not be infringed upon". There are laws that limit our freedoms, but they do not remove our Cons utional rights, they just infringe upon them. That's what most USSC case law is about. Then again, only an emotional person would say the federal government is corrupt.
The NRA’s war on gun science
In addition to fighting gun laws, the gun lobby has spent the past 20 years fighting research into gun safety
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_...n_gun_science/
That's a law. If it's uncons utional, start a pe ion and see where it goes.
If you think the US Cons ution isn't a valid benchmark for laws affecting rights, you're in the wrong country.
Sure that, which I would argue is a law that has detrimental effects, or just about any law that is enforced by the ATF relating to firearms. The point is, and this has been consistently upheld by SCOTUS, the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited.
I personally take issue with the gun lobby writing laws to supress the collection of data and perform valuable research.
the SCOTUs has consistently upheld that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited. Sorry, you may want to familiarize yourself with the law.
Now that's a straw man. I never suggested the law is uncons utional, I just the the practice of suppressing data and defunding research through legislation is bad law/policy. Quite frankly I'm nit sure how any intellectually honest person would disagree.
Not sure you know how a bill becomes a law, but here's a hint: Lobbyists don't write bills. Generally staffers write them. I know it makes you feel better to toe the party line with that type of nonsensical rhetoric but you're speaking to an adult. Act like you have at least a basic understanding of the federal government if you're going to about how things are done, or is this just me focusing on words again?
That's not what I asked. Pay closer attention and stop meandering off course. Where is the limitation in "shall not be infringed upon"? While a person cannot own a nuclear bomb, a person can keep and bear arms. Attempting to change the meaning of the term "arms" will not get you where you want to be. Telling someone they have to share data with the entire world if they want to keep and bear arms is infringing upon that right, the same as telling someone they have to share their personal data with the world if they want due process.
Ergo if someone disagrees with you, they must be intellectually dishonest. Basically a bas ized form of argument by ridicule.
Example: Should the taxpayers pay for research into termite farts? Shouldn't you and I be forced to open our homes to people who come in and monitor termite farts? Anyone who doesn't is suppressing data and "defunding" research. How intellectually dishonest.
In fact, anything that can be researched that any group of people feels could bolster their political positions should be funded and completed. Anything else would be intellectually dishonest.
You should lobby congress to stop the production of all these fully automatic revolvers.
boutons, nobody is going to read your links...you should have figured this out years ago
I am we'll aware the lobbyists don't actually write laws, although organizations like ALEC will in fact provide template for lawmakers that have been successful in other states, but generally at a state level. So yes, it's you focusing on words again. You understood the point.
I'm not attempting to change the meaning of arms to make my point. Can someone committed to a mental ins ution keep and bear arms? Is that not an infringement on that person's right? Again, it's not an unlimited right. And no one is suggesting they have to share data with the entire world to own a firearm. Another straw man. Safeguards can be put into place to protect the data from the public.
We need to separate the conversation of gun ownership and safety from politics. that's where you use cost benefit analysis to determine how federal research funds are directed.
Dog in hunt/dog not in hunt
If I don't read your words, it does start to make more sense so you could have a point. Or do you want me to see the emotional side of it?although organizations like ALEC will in fact provide template for lawmakers that have been successful in other states, but generally at a state level. So yes, it's you focusing on words again. You understood the point.
lol Snowden says hi.I'm not attempting to change the meaning of arms to make my point. Can someone committed to a mental ins ution keep and bear arms? Is that not an infringement on that person's right? Again, it's not an unlimited right. And no one is suggesting they have to share data with the entire world to own a firearm. Another straw man. Safeguards can be put into place to protect the data from the public.
Once someone is committed, they give up that right. Maybe you need to do a bit more research on these talking points.
There is a foolproof safeguard in place now. It's called the law against a federal firearms database.
That's impossible. The 2nd Amendment will always be a political talking point. You cannot separate that from politics. Should the 1st Amendment be removed from politics as well? How about the 4th?We need to separate the conversation of gun ownership and safety from politics. that's where you use cost benefit analysis to determine how federal research funds are directed.
Once you direct federal research funds to studying gun related crime, you're targeting guns. Like it or not. Every funded research program has a desired outcome, almost never an open ended discovery process but a specific finding is what fuels funding in the first place. Colleges get funded to find things that the private sector can profit from. They aren't being paid to see what happens when... but to find this or that marker. It's the hunt for Noah's Ark and anything you find that you can somehow call a remnant of the Ark you will call that for more funding.
So no, no federal funding to see how best to remove our 2nd Amendment rights. I'm not paying to have my rights removed.
I'm not sure why you keep going back to my dog in the hunt comment. I've clearly stated what my dog in the hunt is.
The Patriot Act is a highly flawed law and should hardly be used as a model for protecting personal data.
How about requiring an age limit to purchase a long gun or pistol? Is that not infringing on the right to bear arms based on arbitrary criteria?
There is a better safeguard which would not prevent the collection of data.
What you've described is bad science and nothing I'd recommend. Good science is perfectly apolitical and very well may result in recommended policy changes that loosen gun control laws. we need to collect the raw data to identify causal relationships.
Because you keep contradicting yourself. Say what you mean and squelch the senseless doublespeak.
Same government.The Patriot Act is a highly flawed law and should hardly be used as a model for protecting personal data.
Children are not autonomous en ies.How about requiring an age limit to purchase a long gun or pistol? Is that not infringing on the right to bear arms based on arbitrary criteria?
Then it's not better (see Patriot Act response above). Give us your credit card information and we can find you good deals. Your data is safe with us. It's better than not having a credit card data collection process.There is a better safeguard which would not prevent the collection of data.
There's no such as "apolitical" except in concept. It's like saying "good socialism works". We live in reality, and in reality everything the federal government does is for political reasons. There's no pressing need to research gun crime. It's been done already. What you're suggesting is a national firearm database that's "secret". It's not going to happen. You can can the "apolitical" crap now, especially in the "Political" forum.What you've described is bad science and nothing I'd recommend. Good science is perfectly apolitical and very well may result in recommended policy changes that loosen gun control laws. we need to collect the raw data to identify causal relationships.
With that I'm drawing our discussion to a close because I'm not getting anything from it.
btw - Federal law prevents hand guns from being sold to people under the age of 21. INFRINGED!!!!!!
How many times does our government have to go sliding down the slippery slope on every issue before people like you accept that they can't be trusted with too much power?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
