Slashdot Mirror
DEA Planned To Monitor Cars Parked At Gun Shows Using License Plate Readers
HughPickens.com writes According to a newly disclosed DEA email obtained by the ACLU through the Freedom of Information Act, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives collaborated on plans to monitor gun show attendees using automatic license plate readers. Responding to inquiries about the document, the DEA said that the monitoring of gun shows was merely a proposal and was never implemented. "The proposal in the email was only a suggestion. It was never authorized by DEA, and the idea under discussion in the email was never launched,'' says DEA administrator Michele Leonhart.
According to the Wall Street Journal the proposal shows the challenges and risks facing the U.S. as it looks to new, potentially intrusive surveillance technology to help stop criminals. Many of the government's recent efforts have scooped up data from innocent Americans, as well as those suspected of crimes, creating records that lawmakers and others say raise privacy concerns. "Automatic license plate readers must not be used to collect information on lawful activity — whether it be peacefully assembling for lawful purposes, or driving on the nation's highways," says the ACLU. "Without strong regulations and greater transparency, this new technology will only increase the threat of illegitimate government surveillance." National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam says the NRA is "looking into this to see if gun owners were improperly targeted, and has no further comment until we have all the facts."
According to the Wall Street Journal the proposal shows the challenges and risks facing the U.S. as it looks to new, potentially intrusive surveillance technology to help stop criminals. Many of the government's recent efforts have scooped up data from innocent Americans, as well as those suspected of crimes, creating records that lawmakers and others say raise privacy concerns. "Automatic license plate readers must not be used to collect information on lawful activity — whether it be peacefully assembling for lawful purposes, or driving on the nation's highways," says the ACLU. "Without strong regulations and greater transparency, this new technology will only increase the threat of illegitimate government surveillance." National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam says the NRA is "looking into this to see if gun owners were improperly targeted, and has no further comment until we have all the facts."
I had assumed that this has been SOP for decades.
the DEA and IRS have been monitoring gun shows, gun ranges, gun any-damn-thing since Obama was elected. i expect this post qualifies as well.
This story will probably get more attention than the CIA torture report. More attention than the NSA surveillance scandal. More attention than just about anything that actually _needs_ attention. Why? Gun nuts are paranoid as hell, that's why. Despite having the security of a firearm they're terrified that the government is going to sweep in and take them away for...what reason again? If anything it's in the US government's best interests for their citizens to be shooting each other dead, saves them ammunition on those shiny new NYPD vehicles with FUCKING MACHINE GUN TURRETS. There is absolutely no practical reason that anyone in the NYPD needs an armoured vehicle with a machine gun turret. Tihs is supposedly to help "fight" terror instead of "create" terror. Oh, of course they won't use them against protestors. Of course they won't.
Sometimes I think Americans are just going to sit on their asses and take all of this bullshit until the government actually does pull a Tiannamen Square on some protest, at which point the guns will finally be aimed at the people who truly deserve to have their heads blown off. Politicians.
First, do please define "sensible gun regulation".
Second, are you aware of how much 'gun regulation' already exists today both in federal, state & local statutes?
You are hard pressed to find a legal consumer good which is more regulated than firearms with regards to it's manufacture, sale, transport and use.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Same path as meth, crack, coke, and pot come the guns. The DEA is just doing its job, and when sensible gun regulation is passed (bringing the US up with civilized nations like England and Japan),...
How about France? Is France 'civilized'? Do they prohibit the possession of guns too?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
If there is such a thing as 'the sound of the NRA deciding that maybe the can agree with the American Communist Lawyers Union on something', I suspect this is what it sounds like.
You are a liar.
Venezuela's gun murder rate went UP after guns outlawed in 2012, from 68 per 100,000 to 79 per 100,000 in 2013.
Let's talk about another hispanic country that made guns illegal except for those who have signed paper by minister of defense, Mexico. A real crime free paradise there since citizens aren't allowed to have guns, eh?
so some random brain-fart email was sent, never acted upon, and this gets blown up into "planned to track owners"
If someone wants to have a serious discussion of the decades of problems the DEA has caused legitimate gun owners, and how they've armed murderers and cartel thugs, let's have a different article series. But I doubt anything would be approved as "story" on this site, it's fading into a place where people just cut and paste "news" from other sites instead of writing original material with sources. Just clickbait tabloid trash site now, how sad.
Another statist crackpot. There seems to be an unending supply of them. If you think England is a model for what we should look like, I hope it never happens. Personally, I prefer a balance between the government and citizenry so that the government serves the people rather than owning them.
France, Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand, Canada, Russia, Finland, Czech Republic, Slovakia etc all allow gun ownership and self-defence to varying degrees. All countries that show inequality as the main cause of crime, not pie-in-the sky feel-good laws.
-- A (formerly Ukrainian) Canadian wishing for American gun laws.
Taking Uber to gun show, check.
Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
Isn't this more under the jurisdiction of BATFE?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
Keeping an eye on the Mexican cartel's major source of weapons seems like a half-sensible suggestion. And since it's at least half sensible, it's completely unsurprising the DEA decided not to actually do it.
But the 2nd amendment says that all Americans should have automatic weapons!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (John Oliver)
Please don't send a Word document when a text file will do the job.
If you have a gun for your personal use (ie you are not a farmer) then I want you watched as a terrorist, because that's exactly what you are
And if you have thoughts like that, I also want you watched as a terrorist, because thats exactly what you are.
Oh, you want to claim the first amendment protects you? funny how you cant count to 2 though....
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Are you, AC, implying that America has stooped so low as to resort to mass imports of cheap south american guns, and guns banged together from over-the-counter ingredients and household chemicals in clandestine workshops, to satisfy our craving for firepower?
You filthy communist. We do sometimes dabble in exotic european guns, just as we do with club drugs; but that's different.
DEA Planned To Monitor Cars Parked At Kraft Shows Using License Plate Readers
DEA Planned To Monitor Cars Parked At Dog Shows Using License Plate Readers
DEA Planned To Monitor Cars Parked At Quilting Shows Using License Plate Readers
DEA Planned To Monitor Cars Parked At Cat Shows Using License Plate Readers
DEA Planned To Monitor Cars Parked At Boat Shows Using License Plate Readers
DEA Planned To Monitor Cars Parked At Jewelry Shows Using License Plate Readers
I didn't say you were paranoid, you must have imagined that.
Australia's crime rate went up after guns were outlawed in 1996, although gun incidents went down since most discharges were accidental and most injuries were self-inflicted. Soon after, the police were raiding motorcycle gangs every 18 months for drug and gun crimes. Now with the surveillance and the anti-association laws, that's down to every 6 months. But police still collect 4,000 illegal weapons every year. Most of them are mass-produced firearms but there is an increasing number of home-made firearms.
I'm not sure if you're trolling or serious.
Would you mind clarifying?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
ban gun shows.
two kill birds with one stone:
no more illegal surveillance and no more (fewer) armed morons.
France, Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand, Canada, Russia, Finland, Czech Republic, Slovakia etc all allow gun ownership and self-defence to varying degrees. All countries that show inequality as the main cause of crime, not pie-in-the sky feel-good laws.
-- A (formerly Ukrainian) Canadian wishing for American gun laws.
What you SHOULD wish for is a bit of added intelligence which allows you to have the
wisdom not to even consider trying to tell citizens of other countries which of their rights
should be taken away.
In other words : stay the fuck out of business which is not yours.
.
It genuinely seems unreasonable to me to simultaneously both be in a public place and while still having any expectation of privacy. Unless they are turning around and arresting the people whose plates they found at such lawful meetings without charging them with a crime beyond the fact that they were there in the first place (which is not illegal) then there'd be something wrong. That's not what's happening, so I don't see the problem.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
What about the license place recognition software I've got running on the PC in my car that's connected to the camera looking out the front window that's storing the image, plate number and GPS coordinates in a database?
According to the Wall Street Journal the proposal shows the challenges and risks facing the U.S. as it looks to new, potentially intrusive surveillance technology to help stop criminals.
I don't know whether or not to be surprised that the WSJ (owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox "News") would call technology to read license plates of vehicles parked in public lots "intrusive" - or is it just because it's proposed use includes gun shows?
National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam says the NRA is "looking into this to see if gun owners were improperly targeted,
Pun intended?
Anyway, I thought the popular Conservative mantras concerning privacy were (a) there should be no expectation of privacy in public and (b) if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
... it's not a problem.
This is what the same people that call Snowden a traitor says while they are absolutely outrage to be spied on when going to a gun shows.
Venezuela's gun murder rate went UP after guns outlawed in 2012, from 68 per 100,000 to 79 per 100,000 in 2013.
And that change in the rate could only be caused by the changing of the law. And not, at all, perhaps, by the minor economic chaos that's going on in the last few years? Or a myriad of of other factors?
Right?
In what country is that balance tipped in favour of the citizen?
That's so 20th century. Our Government will take care of us, we don't need those pesky rights or even that Constitution. Just let the Government do it all for us!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Police in other countries routinely use ANPRs to record license plates for *all* vehicles that pass them by, e.g.:
Queensland police using GPS technology to track and store thousands of number plates
If you think your government isn't doing this already consider yourself officially nuts. If you think 3rd parties aren't doing this already, with even less privacy controls, consider yourself off-the-planet nuts.
First, do please define "sensible gun regulation".
Got a gun? Go to prison.
that's every gun control advocates idea of sensible gun control. they may deny it, but everyone knows it's their ultimate goal.
You are obviously confusing civil rights (completely unrelated to guns) ...
You are misinformed regarding the civil rights movement. One of the rights the movement fought for was firearms ownership. Blacks were being discriminated against with respect to firearms too. The KKK boys prefer their victims unarmed when they show up.
Except guns are not illegal in Australia! Certain types of guns are now illegal as on 1996, but types of rifles, shotguns, and pistols (for IPCC match shooting, .38 / 9mm or less caliber) are legal. Over 5% of Australians own a gun.
Or a dictator head of state died and things went "apeshit" for a while in 2013? Yes, I admit there may well be reasons that have nothing to do with gun control at play there, but if so then that country is a lousy example to use by the poster to whom I was replying.
Our gun laws worked exactly as advertised, after a string of US style mass shootings in the late 80's / early 90's the laws banning semi-automatics were introduced, the catalyst being the Port Arthur massacre that claimed 30+ lives. Since the laws were introduced 20+yrs ago there has not been another mass shooting in this country. Since mass shooting had been rare the effect on the murder rate was insignificant. Gun deaths are still around 200 souls per year, there are towns in the US that have a higher rate than our entire country, this fact has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with the culture inherited from our colonial past.
This may be extremely difficult for an American to understand but "self-defence" is not a valid reason for granting a gun license in this country. Nobody living here needs a semi-auto rifle/shotgun, and very few of us would want one anyway. However before you start raving how stupid we Aussie's are, what other country can you name where the leader can go for a regular morning jog in the street without a small army of heavily armed body guards following him around?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
especially for the government spies in these caverns http://is.gd/h8hinX (It's a dream job)
This article is very old "news". In Sacramento, there was a "big" news story last summer about the local police (and presumably everyone else up, down and sideways in that food chain) were using cameras to snarf every license plate as cars came into the State Fair. They bragged at how many arrests they made from this practice. Presumably, the "success" of this will lead to more of the same all around. Many (most) of our big cities have license plate reading cameras and SW at major choke points (bridges, etc,) and monitor traffic in real time. All in the name of "safety".
The mere situation where they vehemently insist that sporting clubs are a "well organized militia" shows how far it has diverged from anything resembling reality.
you may want to educate yourself on the wording "well regulated militia" Because you are not using it in the proper context. Heres a hint. it has nothing to do with government regulations, and everything to do with owning guns in working order.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I guess the plates are coming in with me then.
Nope they do not prohibit possession of firearms. They are restricted in a number of ways and concealed carry generally is not allowed. That said there are plenty of fully automatic rifles in the hands of criminals and others. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
banning something has little effect on the non law abiding. Look at the speed limits in the US they are designed with the assumption that they will be broken by people going about 7% over the posted limit.
Oh really?
Oh, you want to claim the first amendment protects you? funny how you cant count to 2 though....
The first amendment guarantees he can say whatever the hell he wants about the other numbered rights, nobody is forcing you to agree with him.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Are you, AC, implying that America has stooped so low as to resort to mass imports of cheap south american guns ... to satisfy our craving for firepower?
Taurus?
Except for some state chapters, it's ignored the 2nd amendment. The NRA was founded as a gun organization, so at least it doesn't pretend to protect all your rights.
> Clearly the NRA is far more successful than the ACLU
The NRA has 10x the membership of the ACLU (5M vs 0.5M), 2.5x the budget of the ACLU ($255M/yr vs $100M/yr) and spends it all on a single issue. No wonder they are more successful.
The murder and kidnapping rates in Venezuela have skyrocketed. I don't know where you get the 1/1000 figure (but i would wash my hands if i was you.)
This story will probably get more attention than the CIA torture report.
The reason why it can and should get more attention is that it's obvious even to a three year old such monitoring is wrong, whereas torture is an issue that's very much up in the air as to being reasonable to use - but there's no question the people it was used against were ACTUALLY criminals.
Nothing says "false moral equivalence" more than equating making known terrorists who have been captured in combat a little uncomfortable for a while, equal to clamping down on people who may be engaging in Thought Crime for acts that aren't technically illegal yet .
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Australia's crime rate went up after guns were outlawed in 1996
Yeah and the massacre rate went to .... eer zero.
Anyone who thinks the ban on guns was to stop single murder is quite frankly stupid. There are many ways to kill. The thing that makes projectile weapons unique is that they can be used indiscriminately from a distance at multiple targets.
You want to stab me, you'll have to get close first. I have a fighting chance. .... well you have a fat chance.
You want to stab everyone in the room.
You have a gun and want to do either then you effectively have that power over others.
The gun laws in Australia did exactly what they say on the box, and it is an amazing contrast walking into a school in Australia compared to one in the USA where we for instance don't have or enact things like emergency plans when a student decide they feel like killing everyone in the school.
The mere situation where they vehemently insist that sporting clubs are a "well organized militia" shows how far it has diverged from anything resembling reality.
you may want to educate yourself on the wording "well regulated militia" Because you are not using it in the proper context. Heres a hint. it has nothing to do with government regulations, and everything to do with owning guns in working order.
Now you're going to tell me that a pressure regulator is designed to keep things regular and in working order.
I see increasing use of privacy screens on license plates.
Guns don't make a populace harder to control, and haven't for some time. A modern military full of trained soldiers can effortlessly contain even the best armed populace. A bunch of gun nuts and their toys don't have the resources to compete with a standing army...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
" NRA is "looking into this to see if gun owners were improperly targeted,"
I don't know who else would be targeted at a gun show so once the NRA picks up it's batphone you can bet the DEA will be as marginalized as the ATF (understaffed to monitor firearms nationwide, directorless for 7 years, etc), effectively ending the war on drugs.
> Clearly the NRA is far more successful than the ACLU The NRA has 10x the membership of the ACLU (5M vs 0.5M), 2.5x the budget of the ACLU ($255M/yr vs $100M/yr) and spends it all on a single issue. No wonder they are more successful.
The NRA's power is the membership not the money, a membership that shows up on election day. Organizations that deliver voters beat organization that can only deliver money.
It really doesn't matter how much sputtering, bloviating, and hand-waving you put forth: "well-regulated militia" has a specific, well-understood meaning in the contexts of US history and Constitution law.
> ultimate goal.
It should be their ultimate goal. It is the ultimate goal of anyone with half a brain. The Republicans keep kidnapping and shoving feces up the vaginas of preteen girls then raping them. The NRA keep working hard to protect those people. Any sensible person would consider that wrong.
The explicit point of the Second Amendment is not to allow "well regulated militia" to have firearms, but make ownership and use of firearms prevalent and unrestricted so that people who do end up in well-regulated militias are already familiar with firearms, both use and maintenance.
my point is that he wants to use his 1st amendment right, to try and restrict people who are supporting the 2nd amendment. not realizing that the 2nd amendment is one of the few things making sure his 1st amendment is upheld
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Meanwhile, those of us with whole brains know better. People like you disgust me.
If you can't accept that people spoke differently centuries ago, there's little hope of educating you about anything before the 1970s.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
When the government comes out and says anything resembling "planned", "suggested", "considered", etc., it really means that they've been doing it for decades
No matter if the American government has carried out this 'car plate scanning' thing for decades, this announcement by itself is a PSY-OP and this mark the beginning of the government of the United States of America launching PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE on the Citizens of the United States of America
In other words, the government of the United States of America is no longer a government of the People, by the People and from the People --- The government of the United States of America has become a government AGAINST the People
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
But aybiss would force every to agree with himself, or be treated as a terrorist. So what's the difference?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
You are hard pressed to find a legal consumer good which is more regulated than firearms with regards to it's manufacture, sale, transport and use.
You are also hard pressed to find other consumer goods which are potentially that harmful to other people.
Would it blow your mind to know that current US Federal law defines the militia as "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard"?
Seriously, it's 10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia: composition and classes
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
They just want to confiscate some weapons so that they have more to ship off to Mexican drug cartels.
The point wasn't whether they did it, but that they were planning to. Hence the word."planning" in the title. And you want your readers to think slashdot is trash? Why, so that they'll leave amd there can be a greater share of shills like you here?
Well, how are you going to have a well regulated militia if nobody knows anything about guns except what they learn from the movies?
Australia's crime rate went up after guns were outlawed in 1996...
That same old horseshit that's been forwarded to half the email accounts on the planet? Not quite the case, mate.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
As the father of an Australian child, you don't know how grateful I am to have my kid growing up in a country where she actually might not get shot at school.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
And how do we know this is not already being done by Google, or Microsoft or others. At Gun shows, Mall parking lots, car dealerships and other places in order to get data to sell or collect marketing information. The technology is out there, we don't have the political will to stop it. Privacy died the day the microchip was created.
Guns don't make a populace harder to control, and haven't for some time. A modern military full of trained soldiers can effortlessly contain even the best armed populace.
Not necessarily if the standing army comes from the same population as the civilians and is sympathetic to their grievances. The military may ignore orders and stay in barracks or refuse to fire upon civilians, as occurred when Soviet hardliners tried to prevent the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Or members of the military may actually join with rebellion citizens, as in the US Civil War.
Non sequitur. Lots of places guarantee their citizens freedom of expression, and honour this guarantee quite well, without letting them carry guns all over the place.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
You are hard pressed to find a legal consumer good which is more regulated than firearms with regards to it's manufacture, sale, transport and use.
Cocaine-based painkillers probably beat firearms, when it comes to the extent of regulation. Only a single manufacturing plant in the US is licensed to produce them, from a single source. To obtain them, you need to demonstrate a specific need for them to a licensed professional. And you can only use them on the specified schedule, in the specified manner, without breaking the law.
Compare with firearm regulation in Australia, where you're allowed to own a handgun only if you're a competitive shooter, and take part in at least four competitions per year.
Greece as of last week?
And the bankers and their statist comrades are shitting their pants.
Which gun club propaganda do you wish me to read for the sake of re-education Comrade?
National Guard.
Oh wait, that requires a chance of having to serve the country and maybe get shot at. Can't have that, it's too scary! What's a coward to do then apart from call their sporting club a "well regulated militia" even when it fucks up and adds to problems. Not "well regulated" and nothing at all like a dictionary calls a "militia".
Yes and PI is 3.11 by law as well. Try again.
You also missed the "well regulated", and since gun clubs are opposed to regulation I'd be interested in how you weasel out of that one.
I learned how to fire a rifle at nine but I see it as a tool and not a flag or penis substitute.
Watch out! Here comes the King of England! Oooh look out! Here he comes! He's gonna get ya!
Actually, history has proven that no military, no matter how powerful, no matter how brutal, can ever conquer an armed civilian population.
Look up Hungary in 1956.
Or Warsaw in 1944.
After the remaining population had been expelled, the Germans continued the destruction of the city.[7] Special groups of German engineers were dispatched to burn and demolish the remaining buildings. According to German plans, after the war Warsaw was to be turned into nothing more than a military transit station,[73] or even an artificial lake[150] â" the latter of which the Nazi leadership had already intended to implement for the Soviet/Russian capital of Moscow in 1941.[151][152] The demolition squads used flamethrowers and explosives to methodically destroy house after house. They paid special attention to historical monuments, Polish national archives and places of interest.[153]
That's what happens to those who think that you can just pick up a rifle and defeat an entire army.
They kill you, then burn you, then stomp you into the ground THEN THEY PUT A FUCKING LAKE OVER YOU!
And if you think that guerrilla warfare is the answer, go over to Spain and ask the Maquis how that goes.
You're basing your ideas on some romanticized form of survivor bias.
Primarily regarding the factors of how brutal and motivated the military is to EXTERMINATE any opposition.
You only need to "conquer" someone if you need them for something later.
If you just need the land or the fillings in their teeth or just don't care...
You want to fight off an army - get an army and A BUNCH OF ALLIES.
In the American Revolutionary War (1775â"1783), France recognized American independence in 1778, Went to war with Britain, and sent its army and navy as well as money and munitions. French intervention made a decisive contribution to the American victory in the war. Motivated by revenge for its losses in the Seven Years War, France began secretly sending supplies in 1775. Spain and the Netherlands joined France, Making it a world war in which the British had no major allies. France got its revenge, but materially it gained little and was left with 1000 million livre in debts.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Second, are you aware of how much 'gun regulation' already exists today both in federal, state & local statutes?
Apparently not much, judging at the sheer amount of guns in circulation in the US.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Yes and PI is 3.11 by law as well. Try again.
I would assume you're referring to the infamous Indiana state senate bill from 1897 in which an amateur mathematician attempted to have the state use his incorrect formulas to "square the circle", as it were. Firstly, that never became law. It was never even voted on in the Senate because after 30 minutes of laughing at the bill for being absurd, it was indefinitely tabled as a waste of time and money.
You also missed the "well regulated", and since gun clubs are opposed to regulation I'd be interested in how you weasel out of that one.
I most certainly did not miss "well regulated". The Oxford English Dictionary from the time that phrase was penned ought to help you understand why it doesn't help your argument. That can be found here: http://www.constitution.org/co...
Even without the help of the Oxford English Dictionary, one should be able to discern that a group of men who'd just used their personal firearms to overthrow their oppressive government would not mean to secure the right of the government - rather than the people - to keep and bear arms. That's absurd. One does not use firearms to overthrow an oppressive government only to turn around and insist that only the government should have firearms. It's a farcical view of history. Something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I learned how to fire a rifle at nine but I see it as a tool and not a flag or penis substitute.
Of course it's a tool. It's as much a tool as a hammer or a screwdriver or any other. However, its uses can be vastly more important. That doesn't elevate it to something beyond a tool and it should never be treated as anything but (with the obvious exception being as a collector's piece in some circumstances). However, it being a tool which can be used to secure freedom, life, and other basic human rights, the government cannot and must not deprive the people of it through force of law or otherwise.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
So those "illegals" can form militia groups, that's kewl.
Certainly not the UK which has gun laws comparable to Australia. I don't know of any other country where you could make this claim, if it's even generally true of Australia, but even if it is, it's a statistical outlier across the world regardless of gun laws. Chances are that if your leader needs no body guard (this was not true even in the medieval era for monarchs), your leader is simply not important enough for anyone to want dead.
...Look at the speed limits in the US they are designed with the assumption that they will be broken by people going about 7% over the posted limit.
Really?
And yet, if cops pulled over 100% of the people driving 1MPH over the limit and gave them all tickets, you would see your 7% figure drastically drop.
Enforcement has a lot more to do with speeding these days than design.
You are also hard pressed to find other consumer goods which are potentially that harmful to other people.
Potentially? Anything is potentially dangerous. Take Dihydrogen Monoxide for example. A women drank so much of it on a radio show that she died. And doctors recommend that most people drink more of the stuff. There are actually places where you can just walk up, press a button, and drink it or put it in a container. With no monitoring whatsoever!
Until recently, you were more likely to die in a car accident than by gunshot. Even now, if you mask out suicides, you are more likely to die by car than by gun. I.e. guns are most dangerous to voluntary actions by their owners while cars are more dangerous to people who do not want to die.
I would rather that stranger to stranger sales (e.g. gun shows) were more heavily regulated, but that's not because guns are inherently more dangerous than other items. It's because we could do more to restrict the flow of guns to criminals. I'm not particularly worried about friend to friend sales. The hard part is differentiating between the two.
And the Second guarantees that I may own a firearm. No one is forcing you to agree with me, and until I do something illegal with it, you cannot prohibit my possession of it.
you seem to think that Laws can be passed that would somehow prohibit the misuse of firearms. With the hundreds of Laws now already in existence with regard to firearms, including a Law that says one person may not murder another, murder still occurs.
only when someone misuses a Right, may that Right be restricted FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL. Not society as a whole. That would be oppression.
Yes, in old america Cow herders were allowed to have weapons.
Not anymore.
So let me get this straight, there is concern that the same organization that couldn't keep track of guns they sold as they traveled across the border, when that was the entire intent of their program, is thinking about tracking cars of people who attend gun shows?
LET THEM! There is no way to keep your identity safe than to put it in the hands of a government organization that won't be able to do diddly squat with it, due largely to their own incompetence...
And since it comes up any time guns are mentioned... On the topic of gun regulation I have only one think I want to see, That stupid law that forbids the government from tracking statistics on gun crimes (where criminals got the guns etc.) repealed.
We can close all the loopholes we want, but if the criminals aren't buying guns from gun shows, then what the hell good did it do us? The last study (done in 1997 interviewing inmates in federal penitentiaries, mostly for crimes committed prior to the Brady bill) suggests that 2% of guns used in crimes came from gun shows... An easier target would be the 15% of them who got them from retail stores, or 15% who got them from drug dealers, or the 35% who got them from family or a friend.
I've no idea how accurate those numbers are after numerous changes in gun legislation over the past ~20 years... but if get that data, then we can start making decisions on regulating guns in a meaningful way. Personally I thinking given what data we have the answer doesn't seem to be monitoring gun shows, it seems to be requiring gun owners to lock up their guns... but with out any recent data even that's a shot in the dark... So lets get the data to make rational decisions... or we could keep running the government like an internet comments section and concede every point to the loudest angriest person who doesn't mention Hitler.
There's a gun show at the Dulles Expo Center (Chantilly, VA), just about every month. Part of the Expo Center's building complex was sold (or maybe leased?) by Walmart a few years ago, so they share a joint parking lot. There is also a Holiday Inn, small strip mall, and about six fast food restaurants. Weekends of the show, the parking lot is typically full, and there are plenty of police casing the whole area. I've never actually stepped foot inside the Expo during one of these (we frequently grab groceries at Wally World), I probably will at some point in the near future, and I'm definitely going to be watching for the license plate scanners.
Just another day in Paradise
"Why are you monitoring perfectly legal activities?"
"To help stop criminals"
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
I don't remember too many gun owners or right wingers complaining about this http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law-jan-june12-nypd_02-28/ before.
Rights and freedoms are defended not only on the battlefields of our nation's wars but in our daily lives. And when we can no longer accept the daily cost of rights and freedoms in our lives we cannot have them. The goal can never be to save the last life because we can give up all our freedom and rights and not save the last life. Taking a right or freedom, however justified it may seem, takes it from the hundreds of millions of Americans alive today and the billions to come. It is an extremely serious thing to do. Today it is being done thoughtlessly for our own good in secrecy by people who consider they have the right to do that. They do not.
E Proelio Veritas.
Regulated used to mean well functioning. Clocks were called Regulators.
If they had put Skilled, Easily raised or gun toting kids, it would be more understandable to modern ears.
The founding fathers wanted the average man to know how to use a gun and be able to come the defense of his home and his country.
I do not own a gun, (sword family) but I think that guns safety should be taught in schools. Teachers should be encouraged to get concealed carry permits.
Perhaps also pass some tactics skills training so they can carry at school.
Yes. The answer is "very little".
Hard pressed?
It's harder to obtain, own, and operate a car than a gun in this country.
Hell, it's harder to vote than obtain a gun.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Place those gun nuts under strict surveillance. They're dangerous. Same with "hacktivist", all those computer nerds events should be kept under the watchful eye of the police 24/7. Who know what damage they might do. High-profile arrests and some raids on their homes should pressure them into accepting some good sense in their lives. Act now. Security through social conformity NOW!
Joe Biden is a square shooter. Joe Biden for 2016
First, do please define "sensible gun regulation".
Well to start with there could more more required background checks - that's extremely popular, but NRA blocked it because it was legislation involving guns.
As for the regulations - guns are dangerous! They were designed to kill! If other legal consumer goods are as dangerous, they are also regulated. Just look at how regulated medicine is.
I had assumed that this has been SOP for decades.
Given that police use plate scanners routinely to scan parking lots looking for stolen cars, then I have no doubt that they have scanned parking lots of gun shows.
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
Focusing only on "firearms deaths" as opposed to the overall rates of suicide and violent crime is ridiculous. The anti-gun movement is happy to use such bogus statistics and flawed or misleading data to push their agenda.
Pretending that gun control is going to save those lives presumes that people intent on murder will not use other means. Despite the fact that murderers use knives and blunt objects more frequently than firearms to commit their crimes. It also assumes that suicidal people will not attempt suicide because of limited accessibility of firearms. Nonsense.
Furthermore, and most ridiculous of all, it ignores the deterrent effect of private firearms ownership. Crimes are prevented every single day by people with firearms. Banning them might prevent a few "firearms related" deaths, but will cause an increase in muggings, home invasions, robberies and assaults as criminals prey on an unarmed populace. That's why the overall crime rate as opposed to "firearms" crime rate is the relevant statistic.
Pull out some data which shows a clear link between gun control and a decrease in the overall rate of violent or property crime and I'll take it seriously.
You are complete moron.
1. You can get a gun from a black market if you want. And that is not particulary hard business.
2. you can produce the gun yourself, if you want. And it is not hard work. And nobody can trace that.
So. Removing the guns from people does not work.
I prefer to live in the world, where i can own a gun. And own the type of the gun i personally want. And protect myself against ordinary criminals and official criminals that are using the face of a government.
I live in the US, and with the school my kids go to, they won't be getting shot anytime soon.
Lets be real here... this is just personal experience, but I live in the heart of Texas. The last time I've ever heard a round fired in anger personally... was never, and I've lived in the same place 40+ years.
What is deciding is if they really want a change to risk death. And if enough people want that, change will happen and governments will be overthrown by the population. Or serious change will be received (mixed schools and what not in the US) even without the population having guns.
You neglect, in your theory, the morality of the ruling party that the death-risking civilian is up against. I hold that Gandhi could peacefully & effectively protest British rule in ways that would have gotten him killed in many other parts of the world.
Communists, Nazis, Islamists, numerous other nasty ruling clans throughout history- are all perfectly willing to slaughter people who speak up in opposition to their rule. The young would-be gandhi never gets a chance to get noticed and gain a following because he's killed at the first sign of trouble.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Can someone please explain which right it is that you have not to be looked at when you are in a public place? Last I checked, there is no expectation of privacy in a public place, and rightfully so. There is also no sovereign right to drive, and the conditions of you using the public roadways include having a license, and displaying a license plate prominently on your vehicle. If you do not accept those conditions, you are free to use some other mode of transportation.
This is all very very well-settled law. Why are the kooky right wingers out there on the fringe still insisting on arguing this bullshit? If you're out in public, people can look at you. People can write down your license plate. People can take a picture of you. Period.
The part about tracking license plates at gun shows was one bad enough. The article also went on to say
"The Journal reported Monday that the DEA, an arm of the Justice Department, has been quietly building a database to monitor and store data about vehicles on major highways. Internal documents show the primary goal of the database is asset forfeiture, a controversial practice of seizing motorists’ possessions if police officers suspect they are criminal proceeds. Sometimes, those seizures take place without evidence of criminal wrongdoing."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/fe...
I guess we'll just have to continue with widespread firearm ownership and use then, since you can't think of any better way to do that.
The massacre rate is not zero in China where gun ownership and transferal is capitally punishable.
"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. "
Noah Webster
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787)
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)
I hold that Gandhi could peacefully & effectively protest British rule in ways that would have gotten him killed in many other parts of the world.
This. Whenever I see someone post the "First they ignore you..." quote, I always respond:
First they march you through hundreds of miles of hot jungle without food or water,
then they shoot you,
then they disembowel you,
then you lose.
- Gandhi, had Japan won WW2
First, do please define "sensible gun regulation".
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
That sounds VERY sensible.
It takes a lot of effort to manage something so bad that you can end up with the NRA and ACLU both on the same side of an issue.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The first world is looking at the US and their firearm violence and saying we've controlled guns so all you've got to do to fix the issue is take away guns, but I'm looking at the rest of the first world and I see countries that take care of their mentally disabled, that take care of their impoverished. I'm not scared my child will get shot, I'm scared my child will get killed. I just don't see taking away firearms without taking care of our other problems as making my child safer just safer from guns. People point to all sorts of anecdotal evidence that firearms make it easier to kill but they don't go back to any data, and looking across the world it doesn't seem that firearm ownership has any particular effect on overall violence.
A socially unstable country has higher violence? Tell me why we are wasting all this money and time on gun control when we could be fighting poverty and poor mental health care when it would drastically reduce OVERALL violence and provide tons of social benefits as a byproduct?
not located in Buffalo, Albany or NYC. You will see thousands and thousands of "No NY SAFE ACT" signs. In the front yard of house after house after house. Sheriffs are refusing to enforce it. The law is being picker apart by courts and "corrective" legislation. It is hugely unpopular and likely to go away sooner rather than later.
http://americannewsreport.com/...
In Colorado, the gun control folks were handed their collective butts in recall elections despite outspending the 2nd Amendment folks by a very wide margin.
There are still peaceful resolutions to these differences, but it certainly seems that it is more likely than ever that some gung-ho prosecutor in NYS will go after someone using provisions of the SAFE Act and will find that there are a lot of people ready to show up armed, like in the Clive Bundy situation.
Hmmm - in the UK, I would list the following: Cigarettes, alcohol, unhealthy fast food and cars. All of those kill more people than guns here.
And that's despite tens of thousands of privately held guns. We have very few murders that use legally held guns here.
As a CCW holder, I have already been fingerprinted by the Sheriff's office, photographed, background-checked by the FBI, and paid cash money for the process. But every time I buy a gun, it takes about 1 hour to show my CCW, fill out more paperwork, get all the background stuff confirmed, undergo the probative questions of the FFL from whom I'm buying (trying to see if there's any reason to deny the sale, e.g. if they thought I was drunk).
Last time I voted, I walked up to the empty desk, signed my name (no picture ID check), poked a few buttons on a video screen and walked out. Oh, and 20 years ago I filled out a postcard (name and address) to register to vote.
Redefining terms is a historic way of implementing dictatorships. Tomorrow, jaywalking will be redefined as a felony, just like people that throw snowballs are now called terrorist. Government does not get to change definitions of words just because they want to. Deffinitions are established by the people and industries that create them, and how they are used in society, and the intention behind it.
When a court or other government entity tries to re-define a word, it's nothing but arrogant nonsense. Recently the FCC tried to re-define "Broadband", but I'm a network engineer, and the industry is established, all the books and manuals are established, and the old definition stands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...
Low, to be sure, but the rate of similar crimes pretty much equally low before the laws.
And even the Port Arthur massacres were not really aided too much by the semi-automatic nature of the weapons. Bryant could have executed people at point-blank range with 6-shot revolver, either reloading or changing weapons (after the first magazine was emptied in his first semi-auto rifle, he did just that changed to the next rifle.
You are hard pressed to find a legal consumer good which is more regulated than firearms with regards to it's manufacture, sale, transport and use.
You are also hard pressed to find other consumer goods which are potentially that harmful to other people.
Automobiles.
I'm with you on that, but in fairness of full disclosure I should mention there is some contention on the meaning.
Those plates have pretty sharp edges. They'll just get you for possession of a concealed weapon...
In this case it's a large swath of people being spied upon, and not those open-carriers you so detest. Because every gun owner should be spied on extra according to your petty grudge, as if that's sone sort of poetic justice?
Good to know you won't stand up for those who've done you no wrong, let's not be friends.
> Despite having the security of a firearm they're terrified that the government is going to sweep in and take them away for...what reason again
There's ample evidence of this happening since it happened over and over again in the 90s under Clinton/Reno.
At the other end of the judicial process, do you actually believe that a DA will charge a person with all the applicable crimes? It is much more likely that the DA will want a plea bargain and agree to lesser charges. So tell me again how you think a tough gun law will work.
The truth is, as posted earlier in this thread, that no government can defeat armed civilians.
From WSJ article on same topic:
The Journal reported Monday that the DEA, an arm of the Justice Department, has been quietly building a database to monitor and store data about vehicles on major highways. Internal documents show the primary goal of the database is asset forfeiture, a controversial practice of seizing motorists’ possessions if police officers suspect they are criminal proceeds. Sometimes, those seizures take place without evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
yea!
Uhh, do you even understand what I was trying to say?
the 1/1000 claim is meaningless out of context. If it dropped from 1 crime per 100000 people to 1 crime per 100000000 people then who cares, since it was a non issue to begin with? Odds ratios are often used to obscure statistically significant but effectively inconsequential effects. If it dropped from 1 crime per 10 to 1 crime per 10000 then that might be significant assuming the crimes did not simply shift to other weapons. When people harp on one specific crime instead of overall crime, they usually want to hide that there was no overall effect since being robbed at gunpoint or knifepoint has no difference from the victims perspective. This is why medical research uses overall mortality as the endpoint since administering cyanide will reduce heart failure deaths to 0 in that cohort. Who cares if there were 0 gun deaths if the murderers all transitioned to knives so the rate was unchanged?
Yeah and the massacre rate went to .... eer zero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting
where we for instance don't have or enact things like emergency plans when a student decide they feel like killing everyone in the school.
In the US, no one ventures outside for fear of being shot. It's true, I heard it on the news.
Could it then be interpreted that if you don't fall within that subset (17-45yo able bodied men and National Guard women), your "right to keep and bear arms" may not be covered under the 2nd amendment?
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
only people who dont grow up with guns and gang bangers learn how to use a gun from the movies. Realistically it should be parents teaching their kids (sadly most parents these days dont know a stock from a barrel)
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
how many times are you going to bring up "well regulated" in the wrong context??? educate yourself it has NOTHING to do with regulations by the government
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
im not talking about gun club stuff, im talking about read the founders words themselves. well regulated has a very specific meaning in the context of the constitution. it simply means that anyone 17 and older should have a gun in working condition. nothing more
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
ok, and what recourse do the people have in other countries if say, a dictator takes over??? in america, we know what can happen
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Interesting that this program was going to be tested in Phoenix. The Phoenix are is ringed by freeways that are all equipped with revenue-generating speed cameras. Apparently, these cameras can do more than one thing. So much for the tired old bromide that "You have nothing to fear if you're not breaking the law [speeding]."
The above is a great example of how divorced from reality things get. When English doesn't do the trick the technique appears to be to speak in loophole weasel - attempting to redefine the English definition by pointing at very poorly drafted legislation.
Hence the pi reference - yet another case of shifting goalposts from where everyone expects them to be to "win" an argument. Your redefinition makes no more sense than redefining the ratio of the circle to something that doesn't work.
Also how can you call shambolic gun clubs that call for nanny state measures like expanding government to provide armed guards in schools (while simultaneously calling for small goverenment) "well regulated"? They can't find their ass with both elbows.
Looks crystal clear - National Guard.
You definition completely ignores the "well regulated" part, which clearly means something other than citizens with guns, clearly meaning a trained militia such as the original idea of the national guard.
Inconvenient for cowards who want military weapons without military service and like to pretend that they are via some form of magical thinking a "militia" fully justified to have any form of ordinance. I don't get why you losers don't just be honest and say you want the stuff without weasel justifications about how it's your right. If enough people want something a democracy delivers so you can have lax gun laws without the lunatic word games and faux patriotism.
I find it hilarious that when we are talking about selective surveillance of people of color, people in low-income communities, and Muslims, nobody seems to care. But if you decide to start spying on white people who go to gun shows, suddenly it's some kind of affront to Freedom.
As I have had to mention to you people before, it doesn't matter one iota what James Madison wrote in his diary, what Thomas Jefferson told a reporter, or what Ben Franklin wrote in the 1775 edition of The Poor Mans Almanac. What matters is what is codified in law, and these so-called geniuses were too damned lazy to articulate their ideas into something more substantial. It would not have hurt them one bit to add a couple more sentences into each Amendment, specifying exactly what they meant, but they didn't. So as written, I want my goddamned tank, my fucking rocket launcher, and 5 briefcases of yellow cake please. You don't need to worry why I want them, it's my RIGHT!
[citation most fucking certainly needed]
Please provide an authentically sourced LAW from this time period that required all "able-bodied" men to own a firearm. I don't think you can. You MAY find a STATE law requiring members of its MILITA to own firearms, but there is no blanket armament law that exists or has existed since the Constitution has existed. Your move, snookums.
NOTE TO OTHER READERS: Please FORGIVE my over-use of CAPITALIZED words in this post. THAT AC is evidently 4 years old and as such, my rhetoric has been adjusted to a level they might understand.
Guns were never outlawed in Venezuela. Sales were stopped. There's a difference.
Learn to love Alaska
By your reasoning, yes, they do. You want to claim 2A is absolute, so you should have no objection to EVERY amendment being literally absolute.
And you can possess whatever type of armament you wish, in any quantity, but that doesn't mean keeping them goes unpunished-------you will not see what I did there. You will tell me you did, and then proceed to tell me how wrong I am, so I'll go ahead and refute that responses as well: YOU, yourself, have on several occasions in this thread advocated for us to interpret the 2A based on what the Founders "meant", debated about, wrote newspaper articles on, etc and how overthrowing a tyrannical government was what they just got finished doing. This is meant to justify your gun love. However, in the same vein, the reason they put the 1A in was that people of the time were being persecuted, prosecuted, and executed for SAYING things about the persons in power. Therefore, just as you argue for the 2A, it was meant to be taken literally, so no, you cannot throw me in jail for yelling fire in a theater. But your argument states that it's ok to limit, VIOLATE even, my rights. It's typical hypocrisy. You don't want people calling you a poopyhead but you want the means to kill them if they do. That's called having your shit cake and eating it too.
Your post is full of fail smothered in failsauce.
First, do please define "well regulated", "militia", and "arms".
I read a short story a few years ago that postulated a similar situation.
What if Germany had won the war? They would take all Britain's possessions, including India. Gandhi thought he could peacefully coerce the Germans into freeing India. The German commander had him shot.
I forget the author and the title, but googling just now reveals this story by Harry Turtledove that is probably it.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I'm not objecting to widespread gun ownership. I'm objecting to cowardly pussies who insist they are "warriors" and need a "warrior gun" to make their penis feel longer or something.
if thats your answer, clearly you are wearing mud covered glasses. The national guard is one of MANY options.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Alcohol, motor vehicles, blunt objects, prescription medication.
you still keep saying this, but you still have not looked into it or you would not continue to spew such garbage. that is unless you have an agenda.
for the last time "well regulated" does NOT mean regulated by the government in any way whatsoever.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I would strongly disagree with that, but it's preferable to the absurd concept that the guys who'd just forcibly overthrown their oppressive government ensured that their new government had a monopoly on the instruments of force.
In other words, I don't have to show that my actual viewpoint is correct in order to demonstrate that his is incorrect. The idea that the "militia" consists of the US military and the National Guard is ridiculous and doesn't even have a basis in modern law; let alone colonial understanding.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Neither supported by, nor opposed by, theConstitution is NOT THE SAME THING as "Constitutional"
The Constitution specifically provides for a "right to bear arms", a right to "free speech", a right to be "secure in your papers" etc, therefore THESE things are "Constitutional Rights". The Constitution also specifically prohibits certain things, which are therefore "Unconstitutional". Slavery WAS, like most things in the realm of human events, history, and practice neither explicitly established, nor explicitly prohibited, in the Constitution; it was tolerated by the Constitution, and several of the founders wrote that they expected it to go away on its own, or aided by the overall language of the Constiution about the rights of "all men" within several generations. This was a compromise needed to unite both slave states and free states in the rebellion against King George. Part of that compromise equation was the so-called "three-fifths clause" which made all "non-free persons" (whether they were white or black SLAVES (both existed at the time) or Indentured servants (which ALSO existed both among blacks and whites at the time)) count as 3/5ths of a person for purposes of allocating seats in congress (intended to allow the slave states to have a reasonable presence in congress and therefore be willing to join the new nation, but not enough seats to let them expand slavery into more places in that new nation). The 13th amendment finally made slavery officially "Unconstitutional", but it was never actually a "Constitutional" institution in the first place, just a tolerated thing.
History matters, and claiming slavery was originally Constitutional, or that it was anywhere other than in the south-east quarter of the country, does a grave injustice to all the Americans of all ethinicites who were always opposed to it. Many famous founders like Ben Franklin were hard-core abolitionists, and many blacks in early America (in the Northern colonies) were NEVER slaves and indeed served in the original revolutionary war (one is in the famous painting of Washington in the boat crossing the Potomac).
That, like the rest of the document is WONDERFUL. Let me explain:
1. Without that clause, the United States would not have formed (the Southern Colonies were in no hurry to rebel against King George, whose armies and tax men at the time were only causing trouble up in the Northern Colonies) and without the United States forming, the Civil War approx 80 years later would not have permanently ended slavery.
2. That clause, as you will note by re-reading it, NEVER says that blacks are any less human or of any less value than whites. It only says that persons who are not themselves free, cannot be counted and used in the apportionment of seats in congress... THIS CLAUSE LIMITS THE POWER OF PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY OWN OTHER PEOPLE. Without this clause, every slave owner would get to count all his slaves and would gain more political power with each additional slave he owned, and slave states would get lots more poltitical power by importing even more black slaves from Africa!
3. That clause does NOT endorse, legitimise, or justify slavery. It simply accepts the fact that some states had slavery (a condition which existed all over the world, and in all racial groups in that century, and the centuries before, and still exists today in certain Muslim-run lands) and places a limit on the benefits of the practice. Without that clause, slave states would have had more political power and all the free blacks of the northern states would have lived under the constant threat of being converted into slaves as a result of any future election or decadal census count.
he was on the moral side of an argument with a nation whose population was (mostly)culturally (and to a sgnificant degree religiously) Chrisitian. This is the same reason who Martin Luther King Jr succeeded in the US (he made a Christian argument to a largely Chrisitan nation).
These VERY SAME "non-violent" arguments would have failed against Soviet Russia, NAZI Germany, Fascist Italy, Communist China, or any Islamo-fascist state. Non-violent protesters in Iran, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc are routinely beaten and killed with no positive change to the societies involved. Where is that guy who stood before the tanks in China? hmmmmmmm????
Then I suggest the TEC-9. It'll be awesome for your YouTube video.
Interesting..... since a number of gun shows are on private property. What's even worse, Uncle Sam does not know what citizen's privacy really is!
Like in France, where no one had to worry about siege with terrorists holding automatic weapons because weapons are outlawed?
Logic fails you, wait till one of your disgruntled militant muslim citizens goes off, your gun laws will not stop them from using guns
Agenda? An agenda of not wanting people so fucking idiotic about gun safety that they left a pistol in a state that a three year old fired it setting policy. I knew better than that at nine years old. See also the nanny state suggestions about guards in schools because the running gun clubs are too cowardly to act as if they are running gun clubs and do something about gun safety.
They are an utter failure as sporting gun clubs go and wish to extend that failure to political influence by a very strained and disrespectful twist of the Constitution.
I also find it incredibly insulting that you keep on pushing this shit on me as if I am a gullible idiot when you don't even believe it yourself. It's a stupid game where the gun clubs pushes a cynical lie thinking they are fooling a political party and the political party pretends to be fooled so they can have extra numbers and extra funding. Nobody really believes this shit. Your attempted manipulation to swallow this shit that you don't even believe yourself and can only back up with twisted weasel words from NRA propaganda is very annoying.
Did you even read:
i dont believe there are really THAT many of those people out there. Just as in any group, especially one 100 million strong, there will be some nut jobs
as we all know, they are the ones the media love to promote be it gun nuts, vax nuts etc.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Take the bus. Too much effort to save America from tyranny? Sheesh.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
9 September 2014 - Hunt family murders. Murder-suicide shooting spree by Geoff Hunt who killed his wife and three children before turning the gun on himself
19 December 2014- Cairns child killings - Stabbing attack. 8 children aged 18 months to 15 years killed.