Shooting at the Empire State Building

The data collection infrastructure is in place...and there is no 4th amendment issue here.

And that is why it should be required for all firearm sales. No one should be able to walk out of gun shop with five AK47s w/o that sales being reported. Extending it to ammo might be a little more difficult in terms of determining a quantity subject to reporting.

 

Precisely.....but wait!

"If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" has worked in conservatives' favor for over ten years now in respect to keeping the "motherland" safe from the threat of Muslim terrorism. Suddenly, when applied to their favorite amendment, it's offensive and anti-American. Go figure.

/Blatant generalization moment.
--- merged: Aug 27, 2012 at 8:24 PM ---

What would be the issue with all retail ammo sales being reported through a barcode and scan system going directly to a central database?. It's a lot of data, I know but most of it would end up never being heard from again unless it somehow found itself matched up with other data to reveal a suspicious pattern?

Joe Nobody purchases 2 high powered handguns on November 1st, 2010 along with 200 rounds of ammo.
He buys another 300 rounds 6 months later
And another 300 in early 2012.
Then he goes out and buys a semi-automatic weapon on July 10th 2013.
On July 20th he buys 5000 rounds of ammo for the handguns and 4000 for the semi-automatic.
Probably nothing. Might be he just retired and wants to take his target shooting hobby to the next level. Or it might be something worth checking out if he was a guy just recently fired from his job or in the middle of an ugly custody battle with his ex-wife.
Is it an invasion of privacy to inquire about such things?

In any event, the low quantity ammo purchases have set a baseline for Joe's ammunition purchasing habits which, as with any gun owner, are subject to change, but they can be informative in conjunction with other factors.

 

.............

 

I take that as some sort of code for disagreement or possibly - why the fuck am I still harping on this?

It's after 2 in the morning here in the UK.

Too late for me.

 

Really that's just my short hand for I thought about making a post and realized it would not add to the thread nor would ii add anything new to the thread. It's basically me saying "said what I have to say and unless something new is put forth I'll bow out of the conversation now."

 

I think I've arrived at the same destination. Said it all and then some.

 

why not?
--- merged: Aug 28, 2012 at 8:38 PM ---
I wish I hadn't waited so long to chime in on this, but can any of the rights restrictions proponents tell me why they are comfortable in denying me my full rights simply because they are too scared to uphold their responsibility to freedom?

Plan9, this includes you.

 

Joniemack: You have something going here that doesn't happen often with regard to the second amendment: A real debate. Sure, you have stated your opinion multiple times, as have the other side. However, the fact we are having the dialogue is forcing both of us to refine our positions and at times make concessions that we have not previously had to.

If we could sort through things in a couple of weeks this controversy would have been put to bed a long time ago. Persistence is the only thing that may lead to resolution, though many people seem to favor disengagement and a retreat to their ideological corners.

Redux: If a crazy person can only shoot one AK-47 at a time, what will you gain by preventing someone from buying five? I have often bought multiple AR-15 receivers in a single purchase and eventually use them to build target rifles. It seems as though you think my activity should be stopped, but are perfectly OK with the lone 'gunnman' buying a single AK-47, which is really all he can use...

Duane: Remember that we live in a republic and as an alternative to constant civil war we have agreed to actually talk to each other once in a while and, on occasion, compromise. With regards to domestic policy I am a pretty strict libertarian, but that does not mean I am going to start shooting people just because I don't always get my way: It is much better to influence through discussion and activism than through violence, even if I don't get my way. If we refuse to engage in discourse we forfeit our ability to influence. Additionally, it won't be a discussion if we refuse to actually discuss anything. I have very closely held opinions about the value of an armed public, but at the same time I am able (to a degree at least) separate myself from the principle to discuss effects.

I hope this thread continues, not so much because I expect to make a complete turn around of personal position but because it has become far less crazy polarized than most similar debates... both sides are stepping back a little and discussing, even though nobody has completely conceded, which isn't what I expected to happen...

 

Having the licensed dealer report multiple sales to ATF (as has been required for handguns for 30+ years) does not prevent you from buying as many as you want.

It might prevent you from selling four of the five to persons who cannot purchase legally.

 

Would you sell to a convicted felon or a minor if you knew it could be tracked to you?

Or you could just claim they were stolen.

 

Same old arguments.

Never mind.

Lets just make it as easy as possible for minors, misdemeanor spouse abusers, convicted felons and the severely mentally ill to acquire a weapon.
--- merged: Aug 28, 2012 at 10:55 PM ---
While we're at it, lets just make it easier for teens to buy alcohol and then go on drunken joy ride since laws cant prevent these acts entirely.

 

One possibility would be to have all that shit reported automatically and have some sort of algorithm decide whether a particular purchase is troublesome or not. Flagged purchases would be subject to further review. It shouldn't be a problem to calibrate it so that Johnny-on-the-weekend's funtime ammo purchases don't raise any flags. I'm agnostic on the utility of such a program and just saying that we have the technology.

 

no part of anything you suggested even comes close to your desire of making it more difficult for those you don't want to obtain weapons, from obtaining said weapons. That is the same old argument.
--- merged: Aug 29, 2012 at 5:13 AM ---

something i'm learning to see as every year goes by and 'we the people' hand over more power to the government so 'we the people' can feel safer is that the gov will never stop taking rights and power. So while i'm standing here fighting their power grab, now I also have to deal with most of 'we the people' gift wrapping their rights, mine included, to the government. I say no more. my rights are not yours, or anyone elses, to surrender to ease your delicate sensibilities and fears. If it takes raw and powerful violence to retain my rights, so be it.

 

Duane, could you explain what rights would be taken away from you by any proposal made here? And explain how that proposal would take away those rights?

When you say "government", are you just talking about your federal government or does this apply at all levels of government? In any event, in a constitutional republic like the USA, to what extent is the government separate from the will of the people and, if that separation is too great, what better political system should be in place?

Finally, would you agree that rights come along with responsibilities? If so, what are your responsibilities and at what point does your right infringe on another's?

Right now, your post is meaningless rhetoric to me.

 

/broad principles in a discussion which has moved on to the finer details.

No Duane, we all enjoy the same body of rights and there is ample judicial and legislative precedence to support the argument that if one right infringes upon another, the infringing right be subject to regulatory restriction which (in theory) does not not exceed the point of relief.

 

any proposal that infringes upon any of my rights is enough to render that proposal moot.

for this particular discussion, i'll stay with federal. each state has it's own constitution and would need to be looked at in that way.

the constitution was written to limit the federal governments involvement in the rights of the people. It was also intended to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

everything comes with responsibilities and my responsibility would be to not harm another with those rights unless my own rights are being harmed.
--- merged: Aug 29, 2012 at 9:23 PM ---

there is ample judicial and legislative precedent that shows both bodies have been wrong as well, so I really don't care anymore about their precedent especially when that precedent is set by the frantic and terrified emotions of a populace too afraid to defend themselves, so they create a special body of people to do it for them.

 

"their" precedent?

You are aware that legal precedence has worked in favor of the gun right advocates, aren't you?

If I'm frantic and terrified it has nothing to do with being afraid to defend myself. I'm of the opinion that a gun would only protect me (and anyone else) in .001% of any dangerous situation. The weapons I've used are common sense (don't go into the hood at night) and keeping my wits about me when danger has presented itself. In most real-life situations, guns on hand for defense end up being either useless or unwarranted and in some cases can escalate a low threat situation in a major one, simply by virtue of their presence.

I consider those who feel as you do Duane, to be the frantic and terrified ones. Afraid of what, I'm not entirely sure. Maybe everything.