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."

Comments

planned?

[Anonymous Coward]

I had assumed that this has been SOP for decades.

Re:planned?

[ganjadude]

"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 Leonhar

Sure, just like we never gave guns to cartels, and we have never been monitoring all americans communications either....

Re:planned?

[mrmeval]

They've been at the http://www.indy1500.com/ for years. The high tech method before all this newfangled automation was called a autonomous meat sack with a pen and paper. Now that they funnel participants in to buy a ticked they can just slap up a camera and record away.

Re:planned?

[MorphOSX]

When the government comes out and says anything resembling "planned", "suggested", "considered", etc., it really means that they've been doing it for decades, someone discovered something that might expose it, and they want to get ahead of the exposure in order to characterize anyone who tries to discuss it or believes it as a crackpot conspiracy theorist. Companies and governments have seeded public discussion with enough chaff that they can make anyone look like an idiot if they want to, and the public's already primed to believe it.

Re: planned?

[rubycodez]

Sad news for you, old neckbeard:
1. You are not little.
2. You are not a girl.
3. When Republican taps their foot in the stall next to you at the bus stop, the service that they paid you to perform is not considered rape.
4. Filing a police report was not wise, you are considered to have 'solicited'

Re:planned?

[AmiMoJo]

Indeed, the US is way behind if they were only planning to do it. The UK has been recording the number plates of people attending protests and other undesirable events for years. An old couple who went on a "stop the war" march where stopped on the motorway driving towards London a few years ago. Not actually going to a protest, just driving towards the capital. Automatic number plate recognition system flagged them up, computer told some plods to intercept and intimidate them a little, just in case.

Re:planned?

[Ol Olsoc]

Indeed, the US is way behind if they were only planning to do it.

This is merely NRA FUD. Your car is out in public, and a license plate is the exact opposite of a privacy device.

The technology has been around for years, but just like dim people look in the air and see contrails from jets and think da guvmint is spraying toxins or some other hoohaw, or see a water spray rainbow and think da guvmint is putting heavy metals in the water, these guys have just discovered that there is a database of license plates connected to one of criminals. And cameras, and stuff.

And there is no way that your rights are being violated if your car plates are scanned in a public parking lot. That info is as private as your credit card purchases. Every time I buy something, I tell people where I was, and what I bought. If your privacy is so important that your license plate number is sacrosanct, rent a bus to go to the gun show. In cash only of course.

Re:planned?

[Ol Olsoc]

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.

It's the buildup to another run on ammo sales. Scare the faithful about da guvmint, and they buy guns and ammo.

Before we get too far, I'm a gun owner, and enjoy using them.

I'm just not paranoid and insane.

Re:planned?

[operagost]

It's not about the individual plates-- it's about the data mining. Our government deems it a good use of the resources and rights it was allocated from the people to monitor the whereabouts of said people. I don't want my government abusing its rights and using my tax money to do such things.

I suggest you do not allow your dislike of organizations such as the NRA to cloud your judgement in the future.

Re:planned?

[P3r1$c0p3]

Tax payer : "What did I do, officer?" HLS Secret Police :"We are not sure yet, but you can wait here in jail until we decide what it is you are guilty of. Looks like you attended a gun show in 2010. Our plate scanner caught your car there. Care to explain?" Tax Payer : "I used to always go to gun shows." HLS Secret Police : "Johnson! Did you get that on tape?!" Johnson : "Of course, sir. We record everything ubiquitously everywhere." HLS Secret Police "Ha ha ha! send it to the secret prosecutor at the secret court! You will pay for this, John Q Taxpayer!" Taxpayer "You still have not charged me with anything." HSL Secret Police "Oh, you have been charged. I just can't tell you with what because it is classified! We are keeping you safe. You are welcome."

Re:planned?

[Ronin Developer]

I am aware that a certain midwestern police department would utilize license plate readers and drive through mall parking lots. The plates were run through NCIC and their DMV looking for scofflaws. This was pre-2005. I won't name the department or state.

In Philadelphia, PA, the Parking Authority added this specific capability to their vehicles as well to identify scofflaws and vehicles to boot.

In the former case, the vehicle license plates was also run against the vehicle table of the department's RMS where an officer could run additional checks, such as identifying previous incidents associated with a vehicle and/or known associates (and relationships) in addition to running the checks against the various law enforcement databases without submitting to the national databases. Each check against NCIC, theoretically, required probable cause or the officer faced discipline. Checks, at the time, against the DMV didn't require that level of scrutiny nor did the a check across the shared database used by other departments as these were local or state level systems. But, depending upon the hits returned from the other systems, a police officer could justify the check against NCIC in most cases.

The fact that they are doing this at gun shows...well...it's really no surprise. Knowing and recording that someone attended a gun show and associating it with a vehicle could, theoretically, save an officer's life given the likelihood that the vehicle may have a someone in it that may have a weapon (licensed or unlicensed). Of course, the counter to raising the officer's awareness could, potentially, result in a officer approaching a vehicle a bit more cautiously and, perhaps, more likely to use their own weapon. Double edged sword to say the least.

No, I don't work in this industry any longer and don't keep abreast of latest changes. Just relaying what was happening a decade ago.

Re:planned?

[Rick Zeman]

Companies and governments have seeded public discussion with enough chaff that they can make anyone look like an idiot if they want to, and the public's already primed to believe it.

You think? The government could tell me that water seeks its lowest level and I wouldn't believe them.

Re:planned?

[lexman098]

So how do I go about seeing what people bought with their credit card?

Re:planned?

[nobuddy]

As a gun owner and gun enthusiast- fuck the NRA. They have not been on the side of gun owners since the beginning. They are on the side of gun sellers.

Re:planned?

[davydagger]

the problem with anti-gun crowd logic is that anti-gun logic only applies to guns and gun control as an issue. The same logic will not be tollerated anywhere else.

Example: What-if, instead of a gun show, it was some other event that government didn't like. Gay pride/homosexaul rights, Convention for the Islamic faith, meeting of political activists(far ranging groups from socialists, US "Libertarians", enviromental rights, and various smattering of non-mainstream groups accross the entire political spectrum), pornography convention, or even good old convention on whistleblowing, or a hacker convention.

We'd all be screaming bloody murder and you wouldn't be saying anything.

Another example is when the anti-gun crowd doxxed gun owners, and claimed "freedom of speech", but no one said shit about "cyber-bullying", except when the gun crowd turned the tables, and posted the exact same personal information about the doxxers, they screamed bloody murder.

but thats the paranoid world of the anti-gun nuts.

Re:planned?

[AK Marc]

Next, you'll tell me that Reagan didn't make a deal to commit treason by trading arms to Iran in exchange for holding Americans hostage for a *longer* time (either one of the two events alone treason). But I guess two treasons makes a hero.

Re:planned?

[AK Marc]

When things have been proven to have happened, like Regan making traitorous deals with Iran, and yet, anyone who brings that up is called a conspiracy theorist by the Right. So the Right works really hard against their own interests by being one of the first to call other conspiracy theorists. Just like Nixon's actions were dismissed, until fully proven, despite the massive cover-up.

Re:planned?

[Ol Olsoc]

So how do I go about seeing what people bought with their credit card?

"We" normally don't see either. But it is the same way you get the license info. This stuff is not secret, If an agency wants to look at it, they can look at it.

In the OMYFUCKINGOD! GUVMINT IZ TRAKIN ME! world of the slashdot pseudo-Libertatians - aka "no wun telz ME wut to do!", this information can actually be used well to your advantage. If you are accused of something, you can subpoena that information to prove your alibi.

Location information is inherent from either Cellular phones, or credit card purchases. If you are so worried abuout teh Guvmint ever knowing where you are, better not ever turn on your phone, and you better use cash, or even better, barter.

Re: planned?

[Ol Olsoc]

It's called targeting, it's not right.

If they do it to every car in the lot it isn't.

Re:planned?

[Ol Olsoc]

As a gun owner and gun enthusiast- fuck the NRA. They have not been on the side of gun owners since the beginning. They are on the side of gun sellers.

This is 100 percent correct. This stuff is scripted, and I have some friends who fall for it every time. It goes like this

1. Something happens. Not unusual in a big country.

2. NRA notes that once again, the "jack booted thugs are a-comin to take yer Guns!"

3. The kook base is energized, and immediately goes out to buy every gun and bit of ammo out there.

Unfortunately, I was looking for a nice pistol when the last Gunz insanity hit. Prices were insane, and most of the stuff was sold out. It's like you have to buy when the insane fringe isn't going one one of their annual fits.

And here we are, just like every other time. Crisis over, we can still buy as many as we like, and as for the manufacturers?

PROFIT!

Quite the gig they have going there. the ammosexual market keeps buying, they keep preaching FUD.

Re:planned?

[Ol Olsoc]

We'd all be screaming bloody murder and you wouldn't be saying anything.

You make the mistake of assuming I am anti-gun. You are not alone. A guy at a breakfast meeting the other day nearly punched me when I asked what he was going to do with his Bushmaster. I'm talking about full spittle mouth screaming in my face charge at me.

Another guy one time asked me if I was an NRA member, I told him no, he asked me why. I told them I didn't like their politics. He then proceeded to call me gay, a communist, and a tree huggging liberal.

Odd, how he knew all that just because I wasn't a member.

No, I'm not anti-gun at all. I just don't like to associate with nuts when I don't have to.

So quit your assumption that anyone who says something against your precious NRA is anti gun.

Makes you look and sound like an ammosexual.

Re:planned?

[davydagger]

You make the mistake of assuming I am anti-gun.

which you most likely are, but you're going to say you're in favor of "reasonable legislation", which if you knew anything about guns, doesn't seem reasonable. In fact most of you are so damn see through its hillarious, and you're not fooling anyone.

So quit your assumption that anyone who says something against your precious NRA is anti gun.

"Anti-Gun" would be kind, assuming you held these views consistantly, you're litterally supporting police state antics right here in the USA.

Makes you look and sound like an ammosexual.

Sexual? What do you have against sex? Do you think the gun owners are in leauge with the homosexuals, perhaps other paraphiliacs and sex fetishists? I think it seems to me the problem is more with you're own sexually derived insecurities than with anyone else.

Re:planned?

[Ol Olsoc]

You make the mistake of assuming I am anti-gun.

which you most likely are, but you're going to say you're in favor of "reasonable legislation",

Wow. "reasonable legislation", eh?. Where exactly did I say anything about legislation? It's in quotes, so I must have written that somewhere.

Problem is, I didn't. But down the rabbit hole you go, chasing after and arguing with things that are not even there. Making up shit and frothing at the mouth. You are proving my point. You are a kook. You even make up shit I supposedly said so you can win some sort of argument in your own mind.

And you are a perfect example of what is wrong with gun culture. Unless everyone toes your warped line, they are "anti-gun". And really, that's foolish, because I would be a much better ally than enemy.

But your brand of paranoia requires as many enemies as possible, I suppose - even making enemies out of other gun owners.

Sexual? What do you have against sex? Do you think the gun owners are in leauge with the homosexuals, perhaps other paraphiliacs and sex fetishists?

Why on earth would you think I had anything against sex?

As for sex fetishists, Google Michelle Rovinsky. She's packin' heat in her bikinis and playboy bunny outfits.

Here is a page of people getting their sex drive mixed up with their pieces. I didn't post this, this was people showing where their interests lie.

http://imgarcade.com/1/funny-p...

There is a saying to help you remember not to get your second amendment rights mixed up with your sex life.

"This is my rifle, this is my gun, this is for fighting, this is for fun."

That's all we should be using either for.

Re:planned?

[Reziac]

Well, the solution is obvious. Park somewhere else and walk in, or hitch a ride with some lesser unfortunate.

Re:planned?

[ganjadude]

no i think reagan was totally wrong to do something like that. you dont mess with innocent peoples lives to make political points. its wrong no matter who does it.

im not a republican, so im not sure why you would think I was somehow ok with a clear violation

Re:planned?

[cwsumner]

Next, you'll tell me that Reagan didn't make a deal to commit treason by trading arms to Iran in exchange for holding Americans hostage for a *longer* time ...

Um ... Actually, he traded hightech arms like aircraft and tank repair parts for lowtech arms like AK-47s. They were then sent to Nicaraugua to the counter-revolutionaries, so they could take out the Soviet backed communist government there (which was way too close to us). A bit sleasy, but it worked. I would consider it illegal by international law, but not treason.

Re:planned?

[AK Marc]

For one, you are ignoring the part where he negotiated with terrorists holding US citizens hostages to *lengthen* the term of imprisonment, to make sure they weren't released before the November vote. Additionally, the trade of arms to Iran was actively aiding an enemy of the US, which is the definition of Treason (one of the few crimes defined explicitly in the Constitution).

Re:planned?

[Stuarticus]

At least they're not so paranoid they think they need to be wandering around armed for battle.

Re:planned?

[davydagger]

And you are a perfect example of what is wrong with gun culture.

I think you're a perfect example of what is wrong with politics today. Everyone who doesn't toe your exact line is now some "fringe wierdo", who is either inline for some unwarrented abuse from mental health services, departmant of homeland security, ATF, or one of those other many organizations which gives us the highest incarceration rate on the planet, by a fair margin.

Here is a page of people getting their sex drive mixed up with their pieces. I didn't post this, this was people showing where their interests lie.

I think thats you getting your misplaced puritanical impotence mixed up with the gun rights argument. Both cases you see other people having fun, and you get all mad.

edit: again, you can try and pretend you're not in the anti-gun crowd, but you're far too obvious, and everyone knows it.

Re:planned?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

The fact that they are doing this at gun shows...well...it's really no surprise. Knowing and recording that someone attended a gun show and associating it with a vehicle could, theoretically, save an officer's life given the likelihood that the vehicle may have a someone in it that may have a weapon (licensed or unlicensed).

You know what else could potentially save an officer's life? Maybe searching everyone's home to see if they have any items that would indicate that they own a firearm.

Yes I realize that there is a difference between having a vehicle out in public vs. a private home but I don't like the automated surveillance that is becoming more ubiquitous. Now toss in ALPRs on regular police cruisers running all the time as well as any stationary units and being able to surveil the entire population becomes easy. At what point are you willing to say enough is enough in the name of safety. At least with the old meat bag, pad of paper, and pencil it required them to expend real resources, now it is just automatic.

not New news

[turkeydance]

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.

Re:not New news

[turkeydance]

no...paranoid a lot.

Re:not New news

[ganjadude]

just because you are paranoid, doesnt mean you are wrong. I think the monitoring of our communications has proven as much

Re:not New news

[bouldin]

No, the burden of proof is on him after his allegation that this started under the Obama administration.

Re:not New news

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I, for one, would raise my most skeptical of eyebrows at the 'since Obama was elected' part.

The feds have had something of a mutually acrimonious relationship with some of the more enthusiastic personalities you find at gun shows since at least the very early 90's, probably earlier. If, say, Timothy McVeigh wasn't enough to inspire a few zillion man-hours in stakeouts, I'm not entirely sure what would.

The claims of surveillance I find fairly credible; but for it to have started in 2008 would have required that our hysteria over scary terrorist muslims completely blind the various relevant agencies to their ongoing togetherness problems with domestic militia movements and the like. Those certainly took on a lower priority; but there must have been some feds whose pallor and utter lack of arabic language proficiency made them a poor fit for higher profile work.

Re:not New news

[MorphOSX]

Yep. This has been a thing since long before Obama was in the office, and ever since there have been political points to be made around firearms. I expect they ramp it up any time they perceive a circumstance that could cause major issues, such as the violent protests that occurred during Viet Nam, during the civil rights movement, etc. etc. I think it's pretty damn well known that various agencies start looking much harder at groups when they start making waves that could upset the apple cart, and given the general unpopularity of Obama, the general attitude of some of the ultraconservatives who like to frequent gun shows, and the gullibility of some of the various nutjobs that listen to such ultraconservatives, I'm pretty damn sure they figure a little wasted manpower in keeping an eye on things is a good trade against a repeat of Tim McVeigh, etc.

Re:not New news

[AK Marc]

But doesn't prove it started when Obama took office.

Re:not New news

[ganjadude]

oh it most definitely did not start with obama, just ramped up since obama

Re:not New news

[stoatwblr]

I would have expected that ATF have been monitoring gun-related stuff (such as who attends shows) forever.

If you think this has just been happening since Obama was elected I suspect you're 60 years too late.

The sad part?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The sad part?

[I'm New Around Here]

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?

Since when does the government need a specific or legal reason? Guns have been taken for many reasons, and prohibited for many more.

Personally, I don't own a gun. But until you actually amend the US Constitution, and break the Bill of Rights even further, it isn't the government's business (or yours) if I have one or not.

Re:The sad part?

[khallow]

they're terrified that the government is going to sweep in and take them away for...what reason again?

Control. I guess I need to state the obvious, that an unarmed population is easier to control than an armed one. Weapons are just another form of power like knowledge or freedom.

Re:The sad part?

[ganjadude]

well after a shotting in another state, NYS decided to change its laws and implement the safe act. now, i know a number of people who have flat out refused to abide by it, but the government really does not like the fact that we have guns.

instead of complaining that there are americans fighting hard for the 2nd amendment, maybe we could learn from them and start applying that same want to maintain the rest of the constitution?

Re:The sad part?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny thing about your rant, and many like it. Ever notice how liberal civil rights supporters seem to lose every battle against the government? They are the "smartest of the smart" or "the elite intelectuals" and just can't seem to stop the NSA, or torture, or drone use, and on and on. You would almost think its actually impossible to defeat the government trying to control people.

However, the "stupid, redneck, hick, idiot" has managed to keep the government out of the 2nd amendment. They have been so successful that the laws restricting gun ownership are significantly more lax than they were a mere 10 years ago. Its now legal to own a "scary black gun" with a 30 round clip, have one in DC or in Chicago, where that was an outright felony before.

Why is it we keep calling people who do manage to stand up against oppression idiots, while those who roll over at the first inconvience to themselves smart? Maybe we should stop calling people names, get them interested in the things you want, and get ideas on how to fight oppression. Clearly the NRA is far more successful than the ACLU, and instead of spending time trying to outlaw the NRA you should embrace then and get their help and support.

Re:The sad part?

[HBI]

It's because the vast majority of the statists are on the left. Bottom line, that's why the idea of a right can't get a fair hearing on that side. Far more important for the state to dictate what you can and can't do than it is for people to have intrinsic rights.

Re:The sad part?

[ShaunC]

Gun nuts are paranoid as hell, that's why.

And with good reason; this story is yet another confirmation that they are out to get us. I wish everyone would be as paranoid as "gun nuts."

Re: The sad part?

[Lord Kano]

The ACLU's motivation was stopping mass surveillance and not the preservation of Americans' second amendment rights.

Sure, the ACLU may have been the source of this information but it will be the NRA, SAF, CCRKBA, JPFO and similar groups that actually use it.

LK

Re: The sad part?

[ganjadude]

lets see if the ACLU actually digs deeper or drops the ball to the NRA to go in alone. then we will know if the ACLU actually cares about all civil liberties or only some

Re:The sad part?

[Masked Coward]

The political left (I refused to call them liberal b/c they are quite the opposite) is not intellectual. It's a pseudo-intellectual Mutual Admiration Society of undeserving privileged, self-important hypocrites sitting around in a circle jerk and patting each other on the back. Their failed ideology has been tried in every age. Mass media brought it into worldwide consciousness and coordination, with cult of personality figures like Mao and Stalin, and yet so many never seem to learn.

Re:The sad part?

[ganjadude]

SCOTUS also said owning slaves was ok. just because SCOTUS says something does not make it constitutional

Re:The sad part?

[ganjadude]

well its worked in iraq, and afghanistan, and korea, and Vietnam....

Re:The sad part?

[ganjadude]

well, the NRA is focused on GUN RIGHTS

or are you saying that people who are in the NRA dont care about other things, because I can tell you thats simply not true

Re:The sad part?

[BrennanPratt]

That's exactly what it means. I suppose you could question whether or not its 'right' in a moral sense, but when SCOTUS says its the law, its the law. That's their entire role within the government.

Re:The sad part?

[LMariachi]

How is an unimplemented suggestion confirmation of anything? If anything, the fact that the idea was not pursued would confirm that they aren’t out to get us, at least not to the degree that paranoid gun nuts fear.

Re:The sad part?

[dbIII]

There is absolutely no practical reason that anyone in the NYPD needs an armoured vehicle with a machine gun turret.

The South African Police had those a while back - consider what they thought of the people they were deploying them against and you've got some idea of what the people running the NYPD think of New Yorkers.
Note I wrote "the people running" - so Horse Judges with well connected friends instead of something resembling professional law enforcement.

Re:The sad part?

[erapert]

So if you read this:

Police have been informed that a local gang had plans to murder and rape 's wife and family but decided to do something else instead... for now... no word on what the "something else" is.

You wouldn't feel even the slightest bit angry, apprehensive, or afraid? Come on, what's the problem? The gang never actually carried out the plans; it simply had the plans to do so at one point.

How is it any different if our government plans to abuse us but then doesn't... for now?

Re:The sad part?

[jsrjsr]

Gun nuts are paranoid as hell, that's why.

Are you paranoid if people are trying to do exactly what you think they are?

Re:The sad part?

[ganjadude]

actually i see your point. i worded it wrongly.

but i stand by my statement, just because SCOTUS says something doesnt make it constitutional. not in a world where they can take a 2 sentence simple amendment and decide it doesnt mean what it says, which is that all americans are free to own arms and there is nothing the government can do about it.

Re:The sad part?

[fustakrakich]

The only intrinsic 'right' I know of is F=MA

It is the only one to be proven inviolable so far, and the basis for all others. Everything else is cake

Re:The sad part?

[tranquilidad]

How is an unimplemented suggestion confirmation of anything? .

The fact that someone in the government would think it's OK to even suggest such an outlandish infringement of individual liberty is pretty scary.

Yes, it would be scarier if they had actually carried out the suggestion but it's disconcerting enough that people who suggest operations such as these are employed in positions where they can wield authority.

Re: The sad part?

[daninaustin]

Only some. At the national level the ACLU pretends the 2nd doesn't exist.

Re:The sad part?

[ArsonSmith]

Especially the DEA, I've been to a few gun shows, not a lot of dopers at them.

Re:The sad part?

[quantaman]

they're terrified that the government is going to sweep in and take them away for...what reason again?

Control. I guess I need to state the obvious, that an unarmed population is easier to control than an armed one. Weapons are just another form of power like knowledge or freedom.

Only for the crudest forms of control.

But aside from high profile assassinations an individual with a gun is pretty ineffectual. It does however make it easier for governments to justify all other sorts of restrictions. Police are going to maintain their monopoly on force, police militarization and police brutality are both consequences of police escalating against a heavily armed population.

And if things ever really get bad and you need a revolution the thing that really scares governments isn't an armed rebellion (a military can crush that), it's people protesting in the streets. All your guns will do is save the government the bother of hiring Agent Provocateurs.

Re:The sad part?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every one of us is responsible for interpreting the constitution.

Re:The sad part?

[PopeRatzo]

but i stand by my statement, just because SCOTUS says something doesnt make it constitutional.

Does that apply to the Supreme Court's "right to personal gun ownership"? Because it didn't exist until SCOTUS said it did.

Re:The sad part?

[AthanasiusKircher]

SCOTUS also said owning slaves was ok. just because SCOTUS says something does not make it constitutional

Huh?

Umm, when SCOTUS said owning slaves was Constitutional, it WAS clearly constitutional. You know, they actually added a Constitutional amendment to outlaw slavery (the 13th) about 75 years after the Constitution first came into effect. Until then, it definitely was constitutional and was explicitly part of the negotiations that went into drafting the original Constitution.

Re:The sad part?

[MorphOSX]

Actually, if you go back and review the US code, other areas of the constitution, other legal writings and opinions from the people responsible for writing the constitution and this amendment, and the rest of the mountains of historical evidence, you'll find that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what you think it doesn't mean. Historically, in context, the People were considered to be the Militia (US Code). The constitution gave the US Government the right to call up from the Militia an army, etc; and for the states to maintain a militia. As discussed here: http://www.constitution.org/co... (and supported through other sources of linguistic study and writings of the period), the term "well-regulated" referred to something being in proper working order or well trained. So, we have these facts: 1. The people of the United States themselves were considered the main defensive body, and all (male) members of society of a certain age range were automatically considered members of the unorganized militia. 2. The Constitution in other parts indicated that the States, and the Federal Government, had the right/duty to call up from the militia a military force, and that the militia was to exist. 3. We know that in the vernacular of the time, "well regulated", as stated in the amendment, was understood to mean "in good working order". As such, and with laws down the line, it is, and has been, a right of the people to be armed. Now, we may argue that times have changed, etc. etc. This does not denigrate or otherwise contradict the existence and persistence of an individual right to keep and bear arms, and given the extensive laws in place that control the manufacture, sale, and possession of firearms, said right is also well-regulated by a modern definition as well. I submit, further, that the fear over the private ownership of firearms is a topic which, due to the political nature of the discussion and the pressures of the media, has been blown greatly out of proportion. Such events such as Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc. are seriously dark tragedies, and heinous crimes a la ted bundy and charlie manson. They should likewise be treated not as events decrying the "sad state of our society", as they are neither systemic nor pandemic, and instead be treated as the brutal crimes that they are, the same as any other serial killer or other major criminal escapade. When placed in context with other crimes unrelated to firearms, the frequency of such events and severity of the crimes are on par with the major spree and serial killers, rapists, etc. We have simply fetishized firearms on both sides into a totem of power, rather than viewing such things as simple tools, much as we have fetishized war and conflict to such a degree as to be an unhealthy fixation.

Re:The sad part?

[I'm New Around Here]

That right existed before the Constitution specifically stated that the government cannot limit that right. Its existence has nothing to do with the Supreme Court.

Re:The sad part?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Does that apply to the Supreme Court's "right to personal gun ownership"? Because it didn't exist until SCOTUS said it did.

Please read the 9th and 10th amendments. Just because "rights" are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution does NOT mean they aren't real or don't exist. On the contrary, the Constitution was written with the exact opposite default position: if the Constitution doesn't explicitly say the federal government is allowed to do something (including restricting or regulating your rights), it by default does not have that power. Or at least that was roughly the way case law interpreted things until somewhere around 1937-1942.

Re:The sad part?

[BrennanPratt]

Unless you're planning on armed revolution or starting your own country with its own constitution on garbage island, the only thing a different interpretation of the constitution will get you is jail time. Just ask Wesley Snipes.

Re:The sad part?

[bruce_the_loon]

Correction, the South Africa Police still have these and deploy them when going into active violence, like the gang wars in Cape Town and Port Elizabeth, and striking mine workers.

Re:The sad part?

[khallow]

Only for the crudest forms of control.

We're speaking of government control. Of course, the control is crude.

Re:The sad part?

[I'm New Around Here]

How can the phrase "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" not be considered an endorsement of the right to personal ownership of weapons?

Why turn it into a race riot? Blacks are allowed to own guns too. If the KKK had marched on the state capital bearing rifles, the same gun control proposals would have been introduced. Maybe by a different person, maybe not. Either way, they violate the Second Amendment. When white veterans took up camp outside Washington DC, in peaceful protest, they had their Constitutional rights violated also. So stop with the race baiting.

Actually I just googled that tidbit, and you are wrong on several points. The legislation was already introduced, and the Black Panthers marched in protest against it. Reagan did not introduce the legislation, much less in response to anything. It was named the Mulford Act, after the legislator who introduced it.

As for "the first clause" of the amendment, it is for explanation of the right. A "well regulated militia" is in no way necessary for "the right to keep and bear arms". Actually, you should realize that if you can tell that the amendment is written as two clauses. One part of the text can stand on its own as a sentence. The other part is subordinate to it. They could have easily written "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. They are needed for the people to keep a well regulated militia." Whether the people keep a militia or not, and whether it is well regulated or not, has no bearing on the right to own weapons.

I love how some people only support the parts of the Constitution they agree with, and twist everything else into something it never was.

Re:The sad part?

[ganjadude]

Rights are not given by the constitution. Governments are limited by it.

Re:The sad part?

[Uberbah]

What percentage of your guns has Obama taken away yet? 10%, 30%, or is it coming up on 100? And there were all those Snowden docs talking about the DHS's double-secret-plus plans to disarm law abiiiiden muricans.

/endsarcasm

The Deep State doesn't give a flying fuck about ammosexuals and how many guns they have. Because 99% of them might talk a good game about fearing an unaccountable police state, only to turn on a dime and excuse cops for murdering citizens and cheering the bombing of the latest Muslim country that's never attacked us. And they couldn't be bothered to get out of bed when Obama signed domestic military detention without trial into law, anymore than the Obamabots did. Even Superman would be amazed at how fast they can strip off their "Don't Tread on Me" tshirts and begin goosestepping.

Re:The sad part?

[ganjadude]

you ARE aware that alot of the guns rights activists in the 60s were more about granting gun ownership for black folk right? A lot of "gun rights" were instituted to HELP groups like the black panthers in a time of really bad racism. But of course you dont know that.and frankly I dont care about what reagan did. I didnt like him anymore than I liked bush or obama

Long story short, Take your insults and shove um where the sun dont shine. Aducate yourself a little better

or to put it in terms a liberal would understand

Shouldnt black folk be allowed to defend themselves from the racists?? shouldnt women be able to defend themselves from their abusers???

Re:The sad part?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, one won't but 330,000,000 of them could.

Re:The sad part?

[BrennanPratt]

Unless you're filing an actual lawsuit, instead of just unilaterally not following the law because it conflicts with your interpretation of the constitution.

Re:The sad part?

[I'm New Around Here]

How is this modded 'Insightful'?

Because people can read, and pick up nuances others miss.

None of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are absolute rights.

If you had asked the people who signed the paper back then, they would probably disagree with that statement. Of course, we could point to several laws that would prove your point. But those laws eventually were found Unconstitutional.

Or are you saying laws about libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a theater, and inciting violence violate the meaning of the First Amendment?

If the Constitution is amended to allow what is now violations of the Bill of Rights, then those acts would not be a violation of the Bill of Rights;

Which is why I phrased it as "break the Bill of Rights even further", not "violate the Bill of Rights".

they would be explicit exceptions as opposed to the questionable courts judgments on them.

I get your point here, but would not call them "exceptions". Slander laws are not an exception to free speech. Simply put, free speech does not mean slander goes unpunished.

And why isn't it the government's business whether the weapon that you may or may not have is lawfully owned?

There is no concept of a weapon being "lawfully owned" if the government has no authority to pass laws about ownership of weapons. (Some states ban swords and nunchucks. When was the last time you heard of a nunchuck-toting madman?) Since that is what the Second Amendment states, no law outlawing guns or other weapons should pass Constitutional muster. Unless the people of the US decide to further break the Bill of Rights.

Please note, I am not saying that the people do not have the right to break the Bill of Rights. I'm saying that if they want gun control to be constitutional, in the US, that is what they have to do. They have to convince a majority of Americans to accept that amendment. They have to put it to the vote, publicly. Otherwise, neither the government nor you have any business to know if I have a weapon or not.

Re:The sad part?

[Uberbah]

How can the phrase "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" not be considered an endorsement of the right to personal ownership of weapons?

How can you love the second half of the 2nd Amendment but completely ignore the first half?

Why turn it into a race riot?

Why the faux butthurt in response to historical facts? The NRA was just fine and dandy with gun control laws, when they were pointed at the Black Panthers. The Deep State couldn't care less about your guns, as was proven for the nth time when none of the Clive Bundy fanboys who pointed guns at federal agents faced arrest, much less a federal pound-me-in-the-ass penitentiary. This coming from the same government that was prosecuting a journalist for "threatening" an FBI agent....on Youtube.

Reagan did not introduce the legislation, much less in response to anything.

Irrelevant. Total Information Awareness was proposed and shot down at the start of the Bush Administration, yet bulk data collection became routine after 911. That gun control laws were proposed before the Black Panthers arming themselves does nothing to change the fact that the legislation was hurried along when those "folks" decided to get "uppity" and take up weapons to defend themselves from racist cops.

Re:The sad part?

[Uberbah]

I suppose you could question whether or not its 'right' in a moral sense, but when SCOTUS says its the law, its the law. That's their entire role within the government.

Their role is support the system, with laughably contrived justifications if necessary. Like Bush v Gore, Florida v Reilly, or the recent one where cops aren't bound by the law if they claim ignorance of the law. SCOTUS is frequently 20 pounds of bullshit in a five pound sack.

Re:The sad part?

[Loki_1929]

Do you really believe a shotgun will deter the most powerful military machine the world has ever known from doing whatever the fuck it wants to do? Fact is, if they truly wanted to "trample your rights" they would have been trampled already.

Actually, history has proven that no military, no matter how powerful, no matter how brutal, can ever conquer an armed civilian population. It's a lesson the Soviets learned in Afghanistan, one we re-learned in Afghanistan, one everyone learned in Iraq, and one the British learned when their colonies rose up and demanded independence.

Think about it for a moment: the Declaration of Independence was a formal declaration of treason against the Crown, which at the time controlled the most powerful military machine the world had ever known. That open declaration of treason was signed not by a battle-hardened group of freedom fighters with CIA training, but by a group of farmers, doctors, and lawyers. Those same farmers, doctors, and lawyers beat that most powerful military machine in the world multiple times over the course of decades until finally they were left to do as they wished. The Soviets thought that maybe modern technology would make a difference, so they tried carpet bombing the Afghans into oblivion and eventually had to give up and run away. The US thought that maybe more modern technology and better tactics would make a difference, but the Taliban is still there and we're resigned to the fact that they always will be.

You see, so long as a group is willing to fight and die for their cause, and so long as they're sufficiently well armed, it doesn't matter how big and bad your military is. It doesn't matter how many of their fellow citizens they're willing to murder before they decide to turn 'round and shoot in the other direction. So long as people can organize themselves and have the means to exert force, a popular movement is unstoppable. A single guy with a shotgun is no match for a fully equipped military. A fully equipped military is no match for a pissed off populace armed with shotguns, handguns, semi-automatic rifles, and other instruments of war. And the idea isn't to rejoice at the opportunity to live through such a Hellish conflict, but rather to ensure that the government doesn't cross that line into oppression which would trigger such a thing.

I hate to bring it up because I don't think it's a great example of a good David versus a bad Goliath (i.e. the "little guy's" argument and methods leave a lot to be desired in this case), but the Bundy Standoff is most certainly an example of how suddenly government agents who are used to being able to use force to perform their duties get real polite real quick when met with an opposing force of dedicated and armed individuals. That's not to say that the Federal government lacks the resources to do whatever it wants by force at that ranch, but a bloody use of force on American soil has historically created a major backlash among the people (e.g. Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc) and raises the risk that additional incidents like it could spark serious unrest.

Which leaves the government in a challenging position. It can back down and work toward a peaceful resolution that doesn't risk bloodshed, it can tell its agents to use whatever force is necessary to do their job and have huge shootouts broadcast live on CNN, or it can send in Apache gunships to kill everyone who opposes them live on CNN. They (thankfully) elected to go with the least risky option of working everything out peacefully. But can you imagine the social unrest if you'd had CNN broadcasting Federal troops firing on (or slaughtering, as in the crazy overreaction option) American citizens on US soil over a land dispute? There would have been Congressional hearings, investigations, mass resignations, possibly indictments, etc. And if the government didn't do all that and basically told the people to go f themselves, the resulting unrest would be vastly worse.

Re:The sad part?

[Zontar The Mindless]

Wow, that's the first correct thing you've said in this thread.

Re:The sad part?

[I'm New Around Here]

Thank you.

Re:The sad part?

[Zontar The Mindless]

Weapons are just another form of power like knowledge or freedom.

One of these things is not like the others. One of these things is not quite the same.

Hint: Knowledge and freedom don't generally put your wife 6 feet under when your 3-year-old gets hold of one of them and figures out how to disengage the safety.

Re:The sad part?

[khallow]

One of these things is not like the others. One of these things is not quite the same.

Hint: Knowledge and freedom don't generally put your wife 6 feet under when your 3-year-old gets hold of one of them and figures out how to disengage the safety.

But I bet I can find a few other forms of power that could do the same thing. Just because a form of power is dangerous for a three year old, or even for anyone, doesn't make it not power. And once you have power, you have something that a government would want to control.

Re:The sad part?

[drnb]

Knowledge would have one keep firearms and/or ammo locked. Scenarios such as yours are trivially prevented without infringing upon anyone's rights.

Re:The sad part?

[Mr. Freeman]

> Gun nuts are paranoid as hell,

It's not paranoia when, as this article proves, the government really is out to get you.

Re:The sad part?

[Richard_at_work]

You haven't seen much until you drive through Jo' Burg and see an armoured personnel carrier and a dozen heavily armed policemen in the middle of a busy roundabout...

The South African police still have them - pretty scary considering most of the world at one point considered the ANC a violent terrorist organisation.

Re:The sad part?

[khallow]

You aren't responsible for interpreting the constitution.

Given that every US citizen is responsible for upholding the US Constitution, that implies legally leeway in interpreting it as well.

The judiciary is, and SCOTUS is the final authority on the matter. You probably don't want to go around making absolute statements about what is and is not constitutional unless you have a current SCOTUS opinion to back you up, because you start to look crazy.

And what happens when the Supreme Court makes unconstitutional decisions? This is not a hypothetical situation. It's not that hard a thing to stack with people who don't have an interest in fulfilling the job description and that has been attempted.

Re:The sad part?

[houghi]

Actually, history has proven that no military, no matter how powerful, no matter how brutal, can ever conquer an armed civilian population.

You can leave that aremed part out. The Russian population was not armed. They had some milatary help on their side. About the British: what weapons did Ghandi use again?

And look at East-Germany where there was not one shot fired to overthrow the government.

It does not matter if they are armed or not. It helps a bit, but it is not the deciding part. Sometimes it will result in a bloody civil war as well.

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.

Re:The sad part?

[NoKaOi]

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.

If the government actually did massacre a bunch of peaceful protesters, the media would spin it as if the violent protesters opened fire on the on the peaceful government agents who were there to protect them, and the machine gun turret operator is a hero who was protecting his brethren and saved the city from certain annihilation by terrorists. Even if there's clear, unambiguous video getting past around every website, you know that won't beat proper media propaganda.

Re:The sad part?

[khallow]

How can you love the second half of the 2nd Amendment but completely ignore the first half?

What is there to pay attention to in the first half of the Second Amendment? It's just a justification for the second part with no valid legal ramification. It's just like claims that the preamble to the Constitution has legal basis.

The Deep State couldn't care less about your guns, as was proven for the nth time when none of the Clive Bundy fanboys who pointed guns at federal agents faced arrest, much less a federal pound-me-in-the-ass penitentiary.

Do you have a reason for your opinion? "Facing arrest" sounds an awful lot like several dozen federal agents coming up as casualties just in the attempt and generating nasty guerrilla warfare problems for the "deep state" over the entire US.

Re:The sad part?

[dbIII]

considering most of the world at one point considered the ANC a violent terrorist organisation

The price of diplomatic deals with South Africa. I'm not sure how many actually believed it, especially since it was a time when US citizens were openly funding a real terrorist organisation in the form of the IRA. If the IRA wasn't bad enough then where did that put Mandella?

Re:The sad part?

[cardpuncher]

As a furriner, this is the part I always find hilarious.

If an enlightened citizenry were ever going to use their weapons to overthrow the overbearing state, there have been plenty of occasions over the last 50 years where you could construct an argument for justification.

And yet it never happens. And why not? Because the people who believe in the weaponisation of civil society have been right behind every form of oppression from slavery through to the Patriot Act.

The US government would be mad to deprive the gun nuts of their guns - they do their work for them.

Re:The sad part?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Do you really believe a shotgun will deter the most powerful military machine the world has ever known from doing whatever the fuck it wants to do?

A shotgun? Probably not.

One hundred million shotguns? Yep, surely will...

Re:The sad part?

[swb]

one the British learned when their colonies rose up and demanded independence.

While I generally agree with your thesis that an armed civilian population poses challenges to organized military force, especially a foreign occupying force, I don't know that it has much to do with the collapse of the British empire.

I think British largely ran out of resources to prop up their empire. Rhodesia held on as a colonial state for a decade without British support -- with British support, Rhodesia might still be a colony. South Africa was always marginal in terms of wholly British rule but nevertheless maintained a more or less colonial government for decades in spite of a largely pariah state status.

Which leaves the government in a challenging position. It can back down and work toward a peaceful resolution that doesn't risk bloodshed, it can tell its agents to use whatever force is necessary to do their job and have huge shootouts broadcast live on CNN, or it can send in Apache gunships to kill everyone who opposes them live on CNN.

I think an armed citizenry definitely helps, but the key seems be a lack of will and a lack of resources to fight total war. When the media isn't a factor, suppressing a local population through brute force and total warfare seems viable historically. The Russians had some real problems with the Chechens, but ultimately managed to maintain control. Their larger problems were poor training and equipment, but ultimately you could bomb them into the stone age, and they did.

Re:The sad part?

[thegarbz]

I love how some people only support the parts of the Constitution they agree with, and twist everything else into something it never was.

There's an entire industry dedicated to doing that. If the law were black and white there would not be a need for laywers, much less be justices disagreeing on the interpretation.

Re:The sad part?

[BlueStrat]

I'm saying that if they want gun control to be constitutional, in the US, that is what they have to do. They have to convince a majority of Americans to accept that amendment. They have to put it to the vote, publicly.

Or, they could just continue as they have been doing, passing blatantly unConstitutional laws, creating Federal regulations with the force of Federal law which are created and enacted wholly by unelected bureaucrats (which in itself is unConstitutional), and enforce them as if they were valid laws, and blackmail, destroy with media propaganda and legal struggles, imprison without trial, or kill anyone that refuses to comply.

Thugocracy meets Idiocracy...

I hate sequels.

Strat

Re:The sad part?

[PopeRatzo]

you ARE aware that alot of the guns rights activists in the 60s were more about granting gun ownership for black folk right?

Yes, but it wasn't the white ones who are doing it today.

Take your insults and shove um where the sun dont shine.

"Insults"?

Shouldnt black folk be allowed to defend themselves from the racists??

Yes, but they'll never be armed as well as the police.

Re:The sad part?

[PopeRatzo]

Please read the 9th and 10th amendments. Just because "rights" are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution does NOT mean they aren't real or don't exist.

And it doesn't mean they do exist, either. I have no right to drive without a license. By your logic, I'd have the right to drive without a license because the Constitution does NOT mention it.

The fact is that there were sensible gun laws for 200 years before the "2nd Amendment" movement started in the late '70s.

Re:The sad part?

[PopeRatzo]

What is there to pay attention to in the first half of the Second Amendment?

There you go. The 2A Movement's love of the Constitution exposed for the fraud that it is..

Re:The sad part?

[GrumpySteen]

It's different for two reasons. First, surveillance is not even remotely the same as rape and murder. Second, there were no plans, just a suggestion that didn't go anywhere.

Let's make your analogy more accurate. The local gang has one member suggest "Hey, why don't we go hang around in the parking lot at the gun store and write down license plate numbers so we can find out who might have guns" and the rest of the gang responded with "No, we aren't going to do that" and then they didn't do it. Why would anyone other than a paranoid asshat be the slightest bit angry, apprehensive or afraid? They didn't do anything and didn't even make plans to do anything. It was just a suggestion that got dismissed.

Re:The sad part?

[dywolf]

And you idiots modded this idiot insightful?

The word of SCOTUS by definition makes something Constitutional.

Owning slaves WAS Constitutional under the laws at the time.
The law presupposed that humans could be owned as property.
The finding of SCOTUS, while morally reprehensible, was within the boundaries of the law.

That's why we went back and changed the root law as stated in the Constitution to outlaw slavery.

Re:The sad part?

[Totenglocke]

Actually, if you read the Constitution or the Federalist Papers, SCOTUS was merely supposed to be the highest court - NOT the all knowing authority on what is and is not Constitutional.

Re:The sad part?

[Totenglocke]

Don't forget though that the 13th Amendment was added unconstitutionally.

Re:The sad part?

[dywolf]

Oh shutup.
And the idiots modded you insightful too...

It's well known that gun shows and other large scale "private party sales" (cause face it, half the people there are gun dealers, not just private parties) are a popular way of getting around gun legislation. The infamous "gun show loophole".

It's also well known that many of the purchases that occur at gun shows are straw purchases, people buying guns in an area of lesser regulation to traffic in an area of higher regulation.

Want to stop black market guns?
Close the loop hole.
Stop straw purchases.
And standardize the law, cause it's the differences in law that are being exploited.

Re:The sad part?

[jgtg32a]

First rule to being a privacy nut is to keep your head down and don't bring attention to yourself.

Re:The sad part?

[flopsquad]

SCOTUS also said owning slaves was ok

GD, you're a regular and thoughtful poster, so I don't think you're intentionally trolling. But if SCOTUS upheld slave ownership back in the 1800's, that's because the Constitution specifically contemplated and provided for slave ownership. It took a constitutional amendment (13th) to abolish slavery.

That doesn't mean SCOTUS is always (or even usually) right when it comes to protecting civil liberties. But that was just a Supremely bad example. :: ducks ::

Re: The sad part?

[mrchaotica]

The militia is not the government's business. The militia is the People's business, and may be used against a government if it has become tyrannical. (In fact, that's what the people who wrote the Bill of Rights has just finished doing!)

Re:The sad part?

[mrchaotica]

Blacks are allowed to own guns too.

In theory, yes. In practice, they will be shot if they get near anything that might be misconstrued as a gun (see e.g. the John Crawford and Tamir Rice murders).

Re: The sad part?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a cute interpretation, but completely wrong and shows you lack even the most basic understanding of 18th century English or even early US history.

"Well regulated" means proficient, as in capable and experienced. The "militia" is all able bodied adult males, and has nothing to do with a formal military.

The idea was that everyone should have access to fighting weapons so that anyone could defend their freedom if needed. By owning their own arms, people would know how to properly maintain and deploy their weapons if the need should arise.

The founders were very concerned about maintaining a standing army and felt it should be the responsibility of the People to defend their nation - against enemies foreign and domestic.

Re:The sad part?

[Totenglocke]

Why else do you think that every type of firearm / firearm accessory that the government wants banned are not things that are commonly used to commit crimes, but things that would be quite useful in a civil war?

Re:The sad part?

[ShanghaiBill]

Don't forget though that the 13th Amendment was added unconstitutionally.

So then, technically, slavery is still legal, and H-1B visas are okay.

Re:The sad part?

[BrennanPratt]

Given that every US citizen is responsible for upholding the US Constitution, that implies legally leeway in interpreting it as well.

Nope. You can file a court challenge if you want, but that's all the 'leeway' a US citizen gets in going against something that has been ruled on point by SCOTUS.

And what happens when the Supreme Court makes unconstitutional decisions? This is not a hypothetical situation. It's not that hard a thing to stack with people who don't have an interest in fulfilling the job description and that has been attempted.

I'm confused. You said it isn't hard to stack SCOTUS with people who don't have an interest in fulfilling the job description, then you link to an effort to do that which failed. SCOTUS appointment procedure as it stands is as close to allowing the democratic majority to influence the judiciary as it should probably get. People don't just 'get in'. Look at the stinkers Bush floated by Congress before arriving at Roberts.

And, again, when SCOTUS says it, it is law, and Constitutional. If you have a problem with a SCOTUS decision, then you can talk to your congress critter about changing the law or amending the Constitution. That is what you can do when SCOTUS does something that -you- disagree with, but SCOTUS cannot make an unconstitutional decision, by its very nature. Been that way since Marbury v. Madison.

Re:The sad part?

[khallow]

As I noted. the first part of the Second Amendment doesn't actually do anything. It's merely the authors' of the Second Amendment's justification for the second half. And I disagree with the AC replier to your post. There is no nuance here.

Re:The sad part?

[Totenglocke]

Knowledge has lead to plenty of deaths, as has freedom - because freedom means being responsible for the consequences of your actions. The gun didn't kill that women, her irresponsibility did, because as both a gun owner and a parent, she had a responsibility to keep the loaded gun away from her child.

Re:The sad part?

[Whorhay]

I don't really know that it's all that unjustified of a paranoia. The California Legislature a few years back expanded the list of convictions that prohibited gun ownership. They did not notify registered gun owners which were affected by this change and instead started serving warrants with SWAT teams.

Re:The sad part?

[T.E.D.]

Blacks are allowed to own guns too.

Are they really? It sure doesn't look like it.

Re:The sad part?

[khallow]

Nope. You can file a court challenge if you want, but that's all the 'leeway' a US citizen gets in going against something that has been ruled on point by SCOTUS.

Legally. Illegally, there's still quite a number of options, including a fair number of non-violent ones (since we have people here who appear to be concerned about gun violence).

I'm confused. You said it isn't hard to stack SCOTUS with people who don't have an interest in fulfilling the job description, then you link to an effort to do that which failed.

But it didn't fail because it was illegal, it failed merely because FDR didn't get enough votes. This remains a ready path for someone who already controls two branches of government to control the last.

Re:The sad part?

[ai4px]

Yes it was (added unconstitutionally). By hook and crook.

Re: The sad part?

[mpercy]

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

The militia was all free men capable of fighting and who could bring their own arms to the fight. The Founders, as you ought to recall, had just successfully used the "militia" to overthrow a tyrannical government. It was not a spur-of-the-moment decision, but carefully considered.treason and armed rebellion.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Reading those words, it is pretty clear that the Founders knew that the Constitution they were writing and the Government they were forming could fail and become just as despotic as good old King George. Knowing that all the people were armed, easily outnumbering any Government army that could be formed, was one stop-gap measure against that and the 2nd was written to cement that in place for as long as it holds.

"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)

Re:The sad part?

[ai4px]

But an out of control government agency can put your wife and 1 month old baby 6 feet under. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

Re:The sad part?

[x0]

It's well known that gun shows and other large scale "private party sales" (cause face it, half the people there are gun dealers, not just private parties) are a popular way of getting around gun legislation. The infamous "gun show loophole".

You know how I know you don't have a clue? See that bit in italics? That's how.

To be a 'gun dealer' requires an FFL, and if that dealer sells (transfers) a firearm, that dealer must complete a form 4473. No ifs, no buts, no loophole. If you see a person to person sale at a gun show, that seller is most definitely *not* an FFL dealer. Once you have an FFL, all sales are tracked.

If you think that a dealer is just going to sell dozens of 'personal' guns - nudge, nudge, wink, wink - then you don't know how BATFE works. If the dealer gets transferred a large number of guns, then sells those as personal transfers, he'd have some epic explaining to do - followed by multiple felony convictions.

m

Re:The sad part?

[mpercy]

This didn't just start 30 years ago...

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]

" `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

"The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

Re:The sad part?

[Totenglocke]

"The infamous "gun show loophole"."

Which is a complete load of bullshit made up by peopole such as yourself who are terrified of inanimate objects. Private sellers can pay a gun dealer to perform a background check if they're selling a gun to a stranger (and most do, both for peace of mind and to cover their own ass in case the buyer decides to use it in a crime) - they merely do not HAVE to. There is a very valid reason for why Federal law doesn't force (yes, key word force) people who are not licensed gun dealers to perform background checks. What is that reason? Because the only way to enforce it is to have a national registry of not only all gun owners, but every gun as well. Not only is this insanely expensive and inefficient (just ask Canada, they tried such a a registration system and ended up axing it after pissing away tons of money and still not getting it to work like it was supposed to), but in every nation and state (yes, including states in the US), gun registration has always lead to confiscation. We've been seeing more and more of this even in anti-gun states in the US, such as New York where a man went to see a doctor for insomnia and immediately had his guns confiscated or how about in New Orleans when the government used gun registries to confiscate the guns of ordinary citizens after hurricane Katrina?

Do not sit there and spout bullshit about "it's well known that X happens at gun shows" when you clearly have never been to one, otherwise you'd know that gun owners are very paranoid about accidentally breaking a law (it means both losing all of your guns a permanently losing your rights) and that most of the tables at a gun show are run by licensed dealers who must perform background checks on all sales, regardless of where the sale takes place.

Re:The sad part?

[Totenglocke]

Most notably, Senator Feinstien who even said in an interview about a decade back that "If the votes were there, I'd have said 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in'."

Re:The sad part?

[dcw3]

Gun nuts are paranoid as hell

Well, agree or disagree with more/less gun regulation, but since there's an active effort by many anti-gun groups to ban or place additional limitation, then it's not paranoia because people are out to get them.

Re:The sad part?

[BrennanPratt]

Legally. Illegally, there's still quite a number of options, including a fair number of non-violent ones (since we have people here who appear to be concerned about gun violence).

Correct, I'm not assert that 'legality' alters the fabric of reality so as to compel only action that comports with what is legal. But doing something illegal is not subject to 'leeway', you're breaking the law. Unless you're arguing that 'leeway' simply encompasses any action that could be undertaken by a being with free will, which I guess I can get on board with.

But it didn't fail because it was illegal, it failed merely because FDR didn't get enough votes. This remains a ready path for someone who already controls two branches of government to control the last.

Had it passed, it could have been declared illegal by the court. That was a confrontation that did not actually occur. The FDR packing plan only supports an assertion that it has been tried unsuccessfully in the past.

Re: The sad part?

[dcw3]

Technically you're correct that they're "absolute statements". That doesn't meant that the framers intended to allow the mentally insane to own weapons. That absolute statement would also allow you to own your own nuke. Is that okay with you? So, while it's easy to be literalistic, it's not pragmatic, and would be disastrous if allowed. Do you want to allow people to yell "FIRE" in a crowded area?...that's freedom of speech, right?

Re: The sad part?

[dcw3]

The phrase is ambiguous. But if you learn a little history, you'd know that the framers didn't mean what you think.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/g...

Re:The sad part?

[L. J. Beauregard]

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.

When the government pulls a Tiananmen Square, it will be against Occupy Wall Street or some other bunch of Smelly Hippies. They will mow down people who Had It Coming because they were a threat to Real Americans. They will proclaim Fascism to fireworks and Sousa marches and they will call it freedom, and the NRA will be the ones repeating the Leader's propaganda.

Re:The sad part?

[dcw3]

I guess I missed the civics lesson where we covered that every citizen is responsible. Where does that come into play? I know the military, and many political offices require an oath to that ideal, but ordinary citizens have a responsibility? Kinda reminds me of "original sin"...you're born with it.

Re:The sad part?

[operagost]

OK, if you want to play that game, in US vs. Miller the Supreme Court decided that firearms suitable for the militia-- that is, combat-- were the only ones expressly protected by the 2nd Amendment. So when some Democrat or "Independent" tries to write up a bill banning "scary guns" for having folding stocks or bayonet lugs, they are trying to ban the exact firearms we are supposed to have.

I'm also curious what definition of "keep" you use-- from "keep and bear arms"-- that precludes individual ownership. The only other one I could think of is if the government buys every able-bodied person over 18 an M16A4 and allows them to keep them in their house.

The concept of natural law dictates that we have all rights except those we delegate to our government. Our government never "gives" us any. The idea of government "giving" us rights leads to tyranny.

Re:The sad part?

[operagost]

QED.

Re:The sad part?

[operagost]

The fact is that you DO have a right to drive, but there are restrictions because automobiles are dangerous when used improperly. This doesn't put me in the fascist gun control camp with you, because there is EXPLICIT clarification in the Constitution on what kind of use is protected-- military arms-- and that is EXACTLY the kind of use progressive fascists have been fighting against forever. Save a short time in the 70s-80s when they actually focused on handguns in their drug war, of course.

You don't want to go down this path, because the government can just declare it DOES have a right to install cameras in your home, DOES have a right to perform cavity searches with 100 miles of the border, DOES have a right to your DNA...

Re:The sad part?

[mpercy]

It's also well known that many of the purchases that occur at gun shows are straw purchases, people buying guns in an area of lesser regulation to traffic in an area of higher regulation.

Want to stop black market guns?
Close the loop hole.
Stop straw purchases.
And standardize the law, cause it's the differences in law that are being exploited.

Actual statistics do not bear out your "well-known" trope. First, it's not a "loophole" its the Federal law written expressly to allow occasional private sales. The overwhelming majority of sales at guns shows are by FFL, who comply with background checks. Many others are responsible gun owners who expect you to show them your CCW or similar documentation. Only 2% of crime guns are obtained at gun shows. A mid-1980s study found that gun shows were such a minor source of criminal gun acquisition that they were not even worth reporting as a separate figure.

And the law already prohibits both straw purchases and private sales to people who are not legally allowed to own guns. There's a reason why non-FFL sellers at a guns show demand to see a CCW.

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

Seeing a valid CCW is an easy check to help private sellers feel pretty good that the person to whom they are selling is not prohibited from owning the firearm.

Re: The sad part?

[I'm New Around Here]

No, yelling "fire" is not free speech. It is simply making a noise, with the intent to either save lives, if there is a burning theater, or cause harm otherwise.

Speech is used to convey your ideas and beliefs to others.

Your viewpoint would mean bank robbers can't be prosecuted, because their hold-up note is protected by the First Amendment. Prosecuting them for robbing the bank violates their rights of demanding cash, using either their freedom or speech or of the press.

If anyone could tell the writers of the Constitution how stupid their descendants were going to be about interpreting their clear intentions, they never would have written the document to begin with. They would have stuck with the Articles of Confederation as the lesser of two evils.

Re:The sad part?

[operagost]

You are arguing against a straw man. Saying that a military cannot conquer an armed civilian population is not the same as saying that an armed civilian population is the ONLY way to repel a military.

Re:The sad part?

[I'm New Around Here]

I guess you never heard of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Many things were considered constitutional before he rose as a leader to show they were not. He violated many laws to show they were not only 'not fair', but unconstitutional as well. Most people today agree with his power to interpret the Constitution in this regard.

Why don't you?

Re:The sad part?

[fustakrakich]

I feel so very sorry.

Re:The sad part?

[ai4px]

why? because we think they already did it and are simply lying for damage control. Yeah, I don't believe them. Perhaps you will choose to not believe that they read emails or surf facebook or have executed no knock warrants or secret search warrants. ....and the items I list are just in the past 12-14 years. While I'm at it, I don't think Obama is the cause of this, I know it was the Bush era patriot act, but BHO isn't doing a damn thing to stop it and seems to be pushing forth.

Re:The sad part?

[GrumpySteen]

They didn't murder and rape the people at the gun stores, so the comparison is still offensively stupid.

Re:The sad part?

[rickb928]

I agree. It's just that if you don't retain the right to speak freely, and the right to self-defense, many or most of the other rights evaporate at the whim of the powers who can exert violence against you, and no one will either know or be able to resist.

Many of the rights in the Bill of Rights are interdependent. Stifle one, threaten all.

Re:The sad part?

[Type44Q]

Why turn it into a race riot?

Divide... and conquer.

Re:The sad part?

[MooseTick]

The 13th amendment states:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Technically, slavery is legal as long as the person has been convicted of a crime and it is deemed as the punishment.

Re:The sad part?

[ganjadude]

i guess its the first thing you read that i wrote then.

Re:The sad part?

[ganjadude]

funny thing, is i AM a libertarian lol. I dont think it was libertarians modding me down i think it was anti gun nuts or racists, or both

Re:The sad part?

[ganjadude]

The word of SCOTUS by definition makes something Constitutional.

actually no, it does not

Re:The sad part?

[rHBa]

Damn, where are mod points when you need them! +1 Insightful...

Re:The sad part?

[PopeRatzo]

The fact is that you DO have a right to drive, but there are restrictions because automobiles are dangerous when used improperly.

Just like guns.

You don't want to go down this path, because the government can just declare it DOES have a right to install cameras in your home,

If there's one thing the Constitution makes clear, it's that "government" doesn't have any rights.I figured Constitutional scholar like yourself would know that. Like the corporation, the government is not people. The constitution does not spell out government's "rights" it spells out government's restrictions.

And by the way...

This doesn't put me in the fascist gun control camp with you,

I've been a legal gun owner since the early 1970s. I just want the same reasonable restrictions that as you say, government puts on driving cars, because guns are dangerous.

Re:The sad part?

[PopeRatzo]

funny thing, is i AM a libertarian lol. I dont think it was libertarians modding me down i think it was anti gun nuts or racists, or both

He wasn't talking to you, he was replying to me.

Re:The sad part?

[PopeRatzo]

As I noted. the first part of the Second Amendment doesn't actually do anything.

It did for 200 years.

Re:The sad part?

[PopeRatzo]

Of the six cases you cite, do you realize that you were citing the minority opinion in four of them? In other words, the losing side.

Re:The sad part?

[PopeRatzo]

I'm also curious what definition of "keep" you use-- from "keep and bear arms"-- that precludes individual ownership. The only other one I could think of is if the government buys every able-bodied person over 18 an M16A4 and allows them to keep them in their house.

The question you should be asking is for the definition of "the people".

Re:The sad part?

[PopeRatzo]

No, he gave an explanation for how the 2A movement relates to those clauses. The meaning of the Second Amendment was clear for 200 years until Edwin Meese decided that we better start arming white people.

And make no mistake: The Second Amendment is an artifact of slave patrols. It is an artifact of our origins as a slave state. It is an artifact of our racist institutions. When Sam Adams and George Mason were advocating for it, they were doing so as the largest slaveowners in their state, and were afraid that the federal government would disband their slave patrols (whose job, in case you didn't know, was to go chase people and force them into indentured servitude at the barrel of a gun or be shot to death). It had nothing to do with "overthrowing tyrannical governments" or "rights endowed by the Creator" or any of the other flowerly bullshit that 2A advocates like to bandy about when fondling firearms.

I highly recommend reading the ratification debates in the state of Virginia. It's an eye opener to see what all the "states rights" and "Bill of Rights" were really all about. And brother, it wasn't about protecting the rights of you and me. It was about protecting the power of the ruling elite. The white, wealthy Anglo ruling elite. All the talk about government "by, of and for the people" was just folderol.

Re:The sad part?

[king neckbeard]

You are correct, but no branch of government seems to acknowledge that governments have no inherent rights, and outside of the occasional bone thrown by SCOTUS, the limitations set forth in the Constitution are all ignored.

Re:The sad part?

[AK Marc]

You aren't responsible for interpreting the constitution.

Yes, I am. Everyone is. That was known at the time, and it took the Executive and Legislative branches giving that power to the judiciary for the mess we are in now. Presidents and legislators pass laws they know are unconstitutional. That is unconstitutional.

It's all our responsibilities to judge the constitutionality of everything.

Re:The sad part?

[king neckbeard]

The Constitution has a clause limiting the funding of an army to no more than two years. A standing army was something feared more than a king. If you want to bitch about staying true to the Constitution, defund the military entirely. It would probably do wonders for us.

Re:The sad part?

[mpercy]

So? The point I was making is that pro-2nd Amendment, pro-firearm arguments didn't just start 30 years ago as an earlier poster intimated. The existence of these cases, no matter how they ultimately were decided, is sufficient to that purpose.

Re:The sad part?

[khallow]

What I find annoying about this argument is that the wording of the Second Amendment outright rules out your interpretation.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The English language hasn't changed enough to for your interpretation to have been valid way back when.

Re:The sad part?

[mpercy]

Please explain.

Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557

But to prohibit the citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm, except upon his own premises or when on a journey traveling through the country with baggage, or when acting as or in aid of an officer, is an unwarranted restriction upon his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky.

Whether or not an act of the legislature conflicts with the constitution, is, at all times, a question of great delicacy, and deserves the most mature and deliberate consideration of the court. But though a question of delicacy, yet as it is a judicial one, the court would be unworthy its station, were it to shrink from deciding it whenever, in the course of judicial examination, a decision becomes material to the right in contest. The court should never, on slight implication or vague conjecture, pronounce the legislature to have transcended its authority in the enactment of law; but when a clear and strong conviction is entertained, that an act of the legislature is incompatible with the constitution, there is no alternative for the court to pursue, but to declare that conviction, and pronounce the act inoperative and void. And such is the conviction entertained by a majority of the court, (Judge Mills dissenting,) in relation to the act in question.
The judgment must, consequently, be reversed.

Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga.

We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void; and that, as the defendant has been indicted and convicted for carrying a pistol, without charging that it was done in a concealed manner, under that portion of the statute which entirely forbids its use, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the proceeding quashed.

[Wikipedia: The Supreme Court in its ruling in Heller v. District of Columbia said Nunn, "...perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second amendment furthered the purpose announced in the prefatory clause...." The Nunn court concept of fundamental rights was relevant to determine whether or not the Second Amendment is a restriction only on the federal government or whether the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed by the state governments.]

People vs. Zerillo

The part of the act making it a crime for an unnaturalized foreign-born resident to possess a revolver, unless so permitted by the sheriff, contravenes the guaranty of such right in the Constitution of the state, and is void. The statute must be construed in accord with the provisions of our Constitution, and it may stand as an act prohibiting the use of firearms by unnaturalized foreign-born residents in hunting or capturing or killing any wild bird or animals, either game or otherwise, of any description, excepting in defense of person or property, but so far as it makes it a crime for unnaturalized residents to possess a revolver for the legitimate defense of their persons and property it is void.
Under the complaint and warrant and the evidence the defendant should have been adjudged not guilty. The conviction is set aside, and defendant is discharged.

State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574

On this occasion, the defendant threatened with violence was forced to abandon his property. He went to his place of business where he had the right to keep his pistol, "being on his own premises," and returned with it unconcealed. He was acting in self-defense of his person and in defense of his property. The court below most properly adjudged upon the special verdict that he was not guilty.

Re:The sad part?

[dcw3]

You appear to have completely misunderstood my statement and question. So let me try to clarify it.

Where is it indicated that every citizen is "responsible" for upholding the Constitution?

I in no way stated that MLK or anyone else has the power to interpret the Constitution, but we can discuss that as well if you like.

Re: The sad part?

[RyoShin]

Has the ACLU ever actively worked against gun ownership, though? They interpret the 2nd as applying to government-controlled military, not individual rights, but I don't know that they've tried enforce gun control. Here's a case where they defended a gun-rights supporter, though because of the violation of his civil liberties and not because of his firearms.

It's also a matter of domain rather than interest; where the ACLU doesn't take cases that could violate the 2nd, the NRA steps in. Why should the ACLU spend its resources on a battle the NRA can fight?

Similarly, I haven't heard much about the NRA working to protect free speech or the right to proper legal representation outside of fire-arm-related cases...

Re:The sad part?

[Lodlaiden]

Technically, slavery is legal as long as the person has been convicted of a crime and it is deemed as the punishment.

So explain why so many criminals are sitting around all day watching TV instead of planting/harvesting corn for my e85 vehicle.

Re:The sad part?

[PopeRatzo]

You're posting state court decisions that were part of the Heller decision. The Heller decision is the 2008 case that upholds this post 1970's view of the Second Amendment.

It doesn't change anything about what I said.

Re:The sad part?

[PopeRatzo]

You are correct, but no branch of government seems to acknowledge that governments have no inherent rights, and outside of the occasional bone thrown by SCOTUS, the limitations set forth in the Constitution are all ignored.

Are you surprised? The Constitution was nothing more than a counter-revolutionary document meant to undo and undermine the democracy movement in the colonies. It's a foundation document meant to enshrine the rule of the elite. It was full of language meant to satisfy the earnest and the stupid and allow the oligarchs to go about their business.

The ugly truth is, the Founding Fathers were venal politicians who had nothing like a "free country" in mind. They were wine snobs who didn't want to pay their taxes.

Re:The sad part?

[PopeRatzo]

I agree entirely, King Neckbeard. Unfortunately, our desire to see anything like the country described in the Constitution is just tilting at windmills.

Re:The sad part?

[PopeRatzo]

What I find annoying about this argument is that the wording of the Second Amendment outright rules out your interpretation.

So why do you (and the NRA) insist on leaving out that first clause? Even the inscription above the door at NRA headquarters leaves it out.

Re: The sad part?

[AK Marc]

At the national level, the NRA pretends the other 9 don't exist. The ACLU and NRA work together to cover all 10, each specializing in different ones. The ACLU does defend the 2nd, just not very vigorously.

Re:The sad part?

[stoploss]

I feel so very sorry.

Heh. You, sir, are a good sport.

In the larger context of the Constitution, most of these debates miss the fact that the Constitution is explicitly constructed as a whitelist of powers for the government. Everything else is reserved for the states and people. As for those Founders who opposed the Bill of Rights on the principle that it might mislead people into thinking the Constitution enshrines and delimits the people's rights... well, it seems they were correct after all.

The fact that the federal government has used a few privilege exploits ("general welfare" and commerce clause) to redefine the document does not change the fact that—the concept of civil rights not withstanding—the federal government simply does not have this power whitelisted.

Re:The sad part?

[khallow]

Where is it indicated that every citizen is "responsible" for upholding the Constitution?

I see it as a practical matter. Like any human institution, the Supreme Court can be gamed by destroying it, subverting it, or copying it. At that point, the only practical opposition comes from the public, should they want to keep a democracy.

Re:The sad part?

[khallow]

So why do you (and the NRA) insist on leaving out that first clause?

What do you mean by "leaving it out"? I'm just pointing out that it is irrelevant to law except as giving insight into the minds of the people who made it part of the Constitution.

Re:The sad part?

[I'm New Around Here]

FDR wasn't for the "weaponisation of civil society" when he had over one hundred thousand American citizens sent to concentration camps.

The Progressives were for eugenics and sterilization of the "undesirables of society", which included the infirm and blacks. They also were not pro-guns.

Actually, I can't think of any pro-gun people who are for the weaponisation of civil society. They simply want you to keep your hands off their Constitutionally protected property. If you choose not to have guns yourself, they don't care.

Re:The sad part?

[dcw3]

As someone who did take an oath, I understand your point of view. I also understand that human nature being what it is, you'll always have sheep on the sidelines who will always be passive no matter what the threat.

Re:The sad part?

[I'm New Around Here]

As a military veteran, I would love to see that part of the Constitution brought back to life. Pare the military down to what it should be, a group of officers and senior enlisted with young recruits that they train, who then stand guard at our embassies. If someone invades the US, train a whole lot more.

Re:The sad part?

[I'm New Around Here]

You don't want to see anything like the country described in the Constitution. Why pretend?

Re:The sad part?

[khallow]

I also understand that human nature being what it is, you'll always have sheep on the sidelines who will always be passive no matter what the threat.

Yep. Responsibility doesn't imply action.

Re:The sad part?

[ganjadude]

ahh, apologies. this thread is so big and bloated I thought it was to me haha. all in good fun my friend, all in good fun

Re:The sad part?

[Agripa]

Why? Gun nuts are paranoid as hell, that's why.

Given the machinations of BATFE and other law enforcement agencies, they are not nearly as paranoid as they should be.

Re:The sad part?

[dcw3]

I also understand that human nature being what it is, you'll always have sheep on the sidelines who will always be passive no matter what the threat.

Yep. Responsibility doesn't imply action.

Yes, but it does imply duty, and that's the point of my argument. I see it as the duty of every citizen.

Re:The sad part?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

And it doesn't mean they do exist, either. I have no right to drive without a license. By your logic, I'd have the right to drive without a license because the Constitution does NOT mention it.

Actually, you're both right and wrong. You do have the right to drive without a license, as fast as you want, not wearing a seatbelt or helmet, drunk as a skunk...if you do it on private land. Doing the same on a public road is prohibited because you implicitly enter a contract with the State to obey certain rules in order to make use of shared public infrastructure.

The GP's statement remains true and correct. The Constitution does not grant rights to citizens. Indeed, it goes out of its way to do the exact opposite: it limits what the government can do. As a governing charter, it is unique in that respect.

Re:The sad part?

[king neckbeard]

I don't think the underlying concepts have been superseded by anything generally recognized as more legitimate. The principles are pretty solid.

Re:The sad part?

[mpercy]

Yeah, I know what I'm posting. That's why I'm posting it. "Gun-control" laws have been around for a long time, and courts, including SCOTUS, have a long history of striking them down based on the clear language of the 2nd. 2nd-supporters didn't just start advocating and fighting for their rights because of some Black Panthers in the 70's, they've been fighting for 200 years.

SCOTUS decision in Heller is 100% in line with courts throughout the land and over the centuries:

[thanks wikipedia]

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

Anyone claiming the "militia" is the National Guard, or that people do not have a right to arms that might help them should a citizens militia need to form against despotic government with standing army, are the ones trying to change 100's of years of consistent reading of the plain language of the 2nd.

Re:The sad part?

[Methadras]

In fact, what the government should be doing is actually protecting your rights under the Bill of Rights and other rights enumerated elsewhere, not finding ways to erode them. I realize that this is a fantasy, but I still like to think that I live in a country that can turn itself around in this regard. Because never in my lifetime have I ever seen such callous tactical attacks against rights in general in this country before.

Re:The sad part?

[Methadras]

That is wrong. It was ratified by 27 states with the last one being Georgia of all places at the end of 1865. Where was the unconstitutionality of it's ratification?

Re:The sad part?

[ganjadude]

no you were right, i worded it rather poorly. I elaborated above

Re:The sad part?

[khallow]

Thank you, I agree entirely.

Re:The sad part?

[Anonymous Coward]

What percentage of your guns has Obama taken away yet? 10%, 30%, or is it coming up on 100? And there were all those Snowden docs talking about the DHS's double-secret-plus plans to disarm law abiiiiden muricans.

/endsarcasm

The Deep State doesn't give a flying fuck about ammosexuals and how many guns they have. Because 99% of them might talk a good game about fearing an unaccountable police state, only to turn on a dime and excuse cops for murdering citizens and cheering the bombing of the latest Muslim country that's never attacked us. And they couldn't be bothered to get out of bed when Obama signed domestic military detention without trial into law, anymore than the Obamabots did. Even Superman would be amazed at how fast they can strip off their "Don't Tread on Me" tshirts and begin goosestepping.

Sadly, throughout US history, the armed and vigilant citizenry has been on the oppressive side of every issue, from Indians to Japanese Americans, to runaway slaves to striking miners to integrating schools to the Patriot Act and all its spawn.

Re:The sad part?

[jwhitener]

SCOTUS also said owning slaves was ok. just because SCOTUS says something does not make it constitutional

You need to pick a word other than "constitutional". Because by legal definition, when SCOTUS says something is constitutional, it really is legally constitutional.

" just because SCOTUS says something does not make it moral"
" just because SCOTUS says something does not make it right"
" just because SCOTUS says something does not make it correct"
etc..

Re:The sad part?

[gzuckier]

Especially the DEA, I've been to a few gun shows, not a lot of dopers at them.

A few drunks though.

Re:The sad part?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Please read the 9th and 10th amendments. Just because "rights" are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution does NOT mean they aren't real or don't exist.

And it doesn't mean they do exist, either.

Absolutely true. But in federal law, by default, they exist until proven otherwise (at least according to the pre-1937ish Constitution).

I have no right to drive without a license.

Actually, you do, according to FEDERAL law (again, going with the pre-1937ish Constitution). The 9th and 10th amendments say that regulation of rights not enumerated are reserved to states or to individuals. The STATES may regulate your right to drive. The federal government does not get to regulate that right.

By your logic, I'd have the right to drive without a license because the Constitution does NOT mention it.

Precisely right, since regulating driving or transportation is not an enumerated power of the federal government (pre-1937). Nowadays, and for the past 75 years or so, SCOTUS has just rolled over and let the federal government pretty much do what it wants, so the federal government is effectively no longer bound by enumerated powers. But back when it was, from the perspective of the FEDERAL government, they could not regulate your right to drive... only states or local governments.

The fact is that there were sensible gun laws for 200 years before the "2nd Amendment" movement started in the late '70s.

I'm assuming you mean the 1970s. 200 years before that was the 1770s. Please cite a federal law from the 1770s that qualifies as one of your "sensible gun laws." Or, well, for it even to be relevant to thsi conversation, it must post-date the enactment of the current Constitution, so cite one after 1789, I suppose.

Feceral law has always been pretty severely restricted in terms of gun regulation. (Note, for example, SCOTUS's overruling of the Brady Bill's requirements for state and local governments to conduct background checks -- those are reegulations that get to be determined by STATES, not by the federal government, according to the 10th amendment.) STATE laws were always allowed to regulate that right, since states are by default granted regulatory powers not assigned tot he federal government.

What SCOTUS did in recent years was to INCORPORATE an explicit federal right into state and local law, a trend that it has gradually been doing with the Bill of Rights for the past 150 years or so. Before, only the federal government was bound to respect the 2nd amendment; now states and local governments must too. Just like state and local governments now must obey the 1st or 5th or whatever amendments too (which wasn't always the case -- for example, there were states in the U.S. that had official established religions).

(For the record, I think we need lots of better gun regulation. I'm fully in favor of strict training requirements etc. to own such a weapon. But that has no bearing on the legal arguments here, which you're grossly misrepresenting.)

Re:The sad part?

[PopeRatzo]

I'm assuming you mean the 1970s. 200 years before that was the 1770s. Please cite a federal law from the 1770s that qualifies as one of your "sensible gun laws."

The first statewide handgun ban was 1837, Georgia, but there were municipalities that banned handguns long before that.

. The STATES may regulate your right to drive.

And I want state and local governments to be able to have the same regulatory control over handguns. Which they had from the time of the ratification until the 1970s.

Re:The sad part?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I just want the same reasonable restrictions that as you say, government puts on driving cars, because guns are dangerous.

Careful with that reasoning it may not lead to where you think it will. For example as a private citizen I can legally own any type of vehicle I can afford or build myself while the types of firearms I could own are limited to a subset of those available or ones I could build similar to those available for sale. There is also the whole issue of licenses, registration, or training to own a firearm. Again here it may not work out how one would think. I can own any vehicle I want and neither I nor the vehicle needs to be licensed, registered, or have any proof that I am competent to operate it so long as it remains on private property or not used on public property. Now in my state if I want to use a firearm on public property I either need to have a CCW permit and be carrying only a hand gun or be out hunting with the appropriate hunting license and firearm acceptable for the game I am after. To get a hunting license in Minnesota if you were born on or after Jan 1, 1979 you need have gone through the basic hunter safety course which does have a meager shooting proficiency requirement that is sadly about as good as the standard driving proficiency test given to 16 year olds. The shooting proficiency for the CCW is fairly comparable and a rather sad joke as well. What we find is that firearms are already as or more regulated than vehicles.

Personally I would prefer that everyone who wants a firearm go through a real training course that offers a rather exhaustive training with stringent requirements. The best example I have experience with would be the BAS Shotgun or Rifle merit badges. Having also gone through hunter safety and the CCW classes they were a joke by comparison to those merit badges that were taught by a retired US Marine (picture R. Lee Ermey and you aren't far off). I would imagine that the US military also does an even more comprehensive training less the game hunting aspects so that would be acceptable to me as well. Problem no one wants to talk about that kind of regulation.

Re:The sad part?

[PopeRatzo]

For example as a private citizen I can legally own any type of vehicle I can afford or build myself

But you might not be able to drive them on public roads.

.. while the types of firearms I could own are limited to a subset of those available or ones I could build similar to those available for sale.

And what's to stop you from building your own absolutely unsafe handgun, except the same limitations that prevent you from building the car of your dreams in your back yard?

I think you're making my point. You want similar restrictions on cars and guns to those I favor.

Personally I would prefer that everyone who wants a firearm go through a real training course that offers a rather exhaustive training with stringent requirements.

I've seen what passes for firearms training here in Illinois. It's basically a pro-gun rights seminar that encourages people to carry a lot more gun than they can handle. I say this as gun owner for the past 35 years.

I would imagine that the US military also does an even more comprehensive training

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, I absolutely believe that military veterans should keep and bear arms, as long as they can demonstrate good judgement and mental stability at about the same frequency that a driver is required to demonstrate good vision and driving skill. And both drivers and gun owners should be able to show the same financial responsibility (ie: liability insurance). You can be arrested for driving while intoxicated, but not for carrying your pistol while similarly impaired, after all. Both represent a public hazard.

Also, there needs to be registration, background checks and a waiting period. It's been shown that even a 7-day waiting period to buy a handgun can lower in the instances of women being killed by their spouses by almost 40%.

Re:The sad part?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I thing we may be talking past each other here. When I hear people saying that they want firearms regulated like vehicles they usually assume that things would get substantially more restrictive for gun owners. I was trying to point out how making firearm ownership comparable to vehicle ownership, not operation in the public where there is probably a pretty good parity already, would result in laxer gun laws.

I would agree that we should have stricter laws on carrying a firearm while intoxicated as it appears that in my state it is legal to carry one while intoxicated but you can't hunt while intoxicated. I was familiar with the second part being an avid hunter and had just assumed it was similar for the first.

As far as training it sounds like what is offered in Illinois is similar to what is offered in Minnesota which is why I pointed out the BSA merit badges as examples of substantially above average training. Unless you had grown up being taught how to handle, maintain, store, and use firearms there is no way one could pass in even a single day. The driver training is also horrible and when I went through it I had already been driving vehicles for 7 years and had been racing for 3 so found the drivers ed offered by the school to be lacking. No skid pad, no operating it at speeds above about 5 mph until you did your 2 one hour sessions on the road, no how to handle emergency situations, etc.

I am actually surprised that there are places where there isn't a waiting period for a handgun purchase. In Minnesota to purchase a handgun or "assault weapon" (I really hate this term as all it seems to really mean AR or AK platform semi auto rifle) you need to go to your local police station and apply for a permit to purchase. They run some checks and respond back in 1-2 weeks and if you are good then you get a permit that is valid for one year that allows you to purchase handguns and assault weapons. When you go and purchase one at a store you present your permit and they check that as well as running the standard instant background check that is run for standard long gun purchases. So in this case there is at least a week if not closer to 2 week wait from when you decide you want to purchase a handgun to when you are able to do so.

Also I agree there are too many people purchase more handgun that what they need to the point of being silly. Most are just a range toy but using anything that is a magnum class round for self defense against another person is excessive and would be the wrong choice. I say this as someone who owns a revolver on the upper end of the magnum side of the spectrum. That was gotten for protection against bear and the other large predators in norther Minnesota since I wanted something that would stop a bear with a reasonable shot in an emergency. Also I am a fairly big guy (5'9" 250lbs and does power lifting) and don't have a problem with handling a large heavy handgun.

Re:The sad part?

[PopeRatzo]

When you go and purchase one at a store you present your permit and they check that as well as running the standard instant background check that is run for standard long gun purchases.

I was driving through Missouri last summer and learned that there's a handgun "show" every weekend in Rolla where the only waiting period is as long as it takes the seller to give you change.

You're right, we were talking past one another. I think we're on the same page with these things. I'm in favor of communities being able to regulate handgun ownership in reasonable ways. The 2A absolutists are scary and a little dangerous.

Re:The sad part?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Wow that is a bit concerning, then again it is Missouri and shouldn't surprise me. The only time I have been in that state I saw some interesting things. A couple that stand our were the 2 billboards on the highway right next to each other. The first one read something like "Jesus Saves, some church exit what ever", the second one was something like "Live XXX nudes, some other exit". The other was when I went into a gas station and saw a display of Jack Daniel's and other hard liquors for sale.

Also the gun show loop hole in Minnesota doesn't really apply as any dealer (FFL holder) there has to follow the same laws just as if they were in there store. If an individual is there selling their firearms then the private party sales rules apply but even those in Minnesota tend to be stricter than most states. I remember reading that if the transfer isn't registered and if the firearm is used in a crime within a year the original owner is still liable to some degree. I can't find the MN statute so my google-fu must be off today but I would have provided a link if I had.. So this has lead a number of private parties to only sell to people who have a permit to purchase or to people they have known for a long time. Granted this still doesn't stop the gang members from getting them but it does seem to keep the crimes of passion down.

Now if people would just store them properly as I get real sick of the kid finds parent's gun and shoots someone stories but that is a different rant.

Re:The DEA is just doing their job

[DaHat]

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.

Re:The DEA is just doing their job

[I'm New Around Here]

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?

Well, well...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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.

Re: Well, well...

[Lord Kano]

I guess that just shows the NRA has a political agenda beyond gun rights.

Either that, or I missed the ACLU's campaign to ban guns.

The ACLU doesn't work to ban guns but they don't oppose the idea, either.

If you read the above link, they even take the unprecedented step of saying that in essence, the ACLU thinks that the SCOTUS is wrong and that the Constitution doesn't say what the SCOTUS says that it says.

LK

Re: Well, well...

[shutdown -p now]

Nevertheless, ACLU does step in when other rights (usually 4A and 5A) are infringed in the context of gun ownership, or when gun rights themselves are implemented in a discriminatory fashion (such as various laws restricting the gun rights of non-citizens). On top of that, there's the national ACLU and then there are the state branches, and state ones can and do go beyond what the national one considers worth defending. ACLU of Arizona, for example, has explicitly stated that they do consider RKBA to be an individual civil right.

Re:The DEA is just doing their job

[rubycodez]

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?

sensationalist headline

[rubycodez]

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.

Re:sensationalist headline

[shutdown -p now]

Well, maybe it was never acted upon because they found out that NSA is already tracking car plates pretty much everywhere, and got access to the resulting database as part of that inter-agency exchange program we've heard about recently?

Re:sensationalist headline

[MillionthMonkey]

I laughed when I saw this story. I've seen several videos posted online where open carry idiots run into people who get pissed off at them. They follow them back to their cars and carefully zoom in on their license plates for a couple seconds to make sure all the other armed dimwits out there get a good look.

I have to agree that Slashdot has gone to hell over the past 15 years.

So frustrate them by...

[willworkforbeer]

Taking Uber to gun show, check.

Soudns half sensible..

[spasm]

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.

Re:Soudns half sensible..

[ganjadude]

except for the DEA was the one giving those guns to the cartels, or have you forgotten about fast and furious???

Re:Soudns half sensible..

[tranquilidad]

If you consider 12% to be major then, yes, a major source of Mexican cartel's weapons come from the U.S.

"...out of approximately 30,000 weapons seized in drug cases in Mexico in 2004-2008. 7,200 appeared to be of U.S. origin, approximately 4,000 were found in ATF manufacturer and importer records, and 87 percent of those - 3,480 - originated in the United States." 3,480 of 30,000 is 11.6%.

Source

Of course, another major source of guns used in Mexican crimes came directly from the ATF. The Mexican government states that as of September 2011, ATF supplied guns have been found at about 170 crime scenes.

Source

Re:Soudns half sensible..

[spasm]

It might only be 12%, but 3,480 is still a *lot* of guns. Just saying. And yeah, the ATF has made a murderous nightmare even worse and some people should be doing prison time for that one.

Re:Soudns half sensible..

[spasm]

Not at all. The halfwits who ordered and implemented that one should be in prison too.

Re:Own a gun? Then I want you watched.

[ganjadude]

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....

Re:The DEA is just doing their job

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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.

OK, so let's rewrite the headline...

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

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.

Re:OK, so let's rewrite the headline...

[ganjadude]

why not just make it even more honest

"DEA to monitor cars... period"

Re:Why the DEA??

[AHuxley]

Different oversight and historical accountability.
If the front and back license plates, driver and passengers are going to get tracked in some federal database best to use a federal database that lawyers, the press, politicians and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) cant really question or even know about.
It also hides the requests for optical character recognition, facial recognition system away from the teams of journalists who look deep into state, federal gov and mil procurement databases for just such public contracts.
The US press and legal teams at a state and federal level where able to track cellular phone surveillance device due to paper work.
By using different federal enforcement projects to buy and run tracking systems the public databases and open court material can be kept more clean from legal teams and the press.

Re:The DEA is just doing their job

[Anonymous Coward]

... Venezuela's gun murder rate went UP after guns outlawed in 2012 ...

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.

Re:The DEA is just doing their job

[Lord Kano]

I'm not sure if you're trolling or serious.

Would you mind clarifying?

LK

Why don't people get it?

[mark-t]

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.

Re:Why don't people get it?

[Lord Kano]

The problem is mass surveillance and data mining.

There hasn't been an administration in this country for the past 63 years that I would have any level of trust with that kind of information.

LK

Re:Why don't people get it?

[Anonymous Coward]

> It genuinely seems unreasonable to me to simultaneously both be in a public place and while still having any expectation of privacy.

The problem you are having is getting past the fact that privacy is not binary, it is multidimensional and graduated. One dimension is being seen in public, but not having a permanent record made of it. As long as you insist that privacy is a simple issue of black and white, either 100% private or 100% public then you will be doomed to continue asking "why don't people get it?" Your choice.

Re:Why don't people get it?

[mark-t]

They don't arrest them on the spot, they wait until there's enough dots to connect to charge them with something and THEN they arrest them

You almost seem to say that like you would rather that they actually *DO* go and arrest people who haven't done anything illegal. Obviously that's absurd.

You clearly can't suggest that it is somehow wrong for them to not arrest somebody who hasn't actually done anything wrong, even if they may expecting them to do so eventually.

Are you suggesting, then, that it should be wrong for them to expect anyone to possibly break the law when they haven't actually done so?

Because that treads dangerously close to suggesting that certain thoughts should be criminal.

Re:Why don't people get it?

[mark-t]

Of course... and as we all know, ad hominems are much simpler to invoke than actually constructing a reasoned argument. That this may or may not reflect on the intelligence of a person who would utilize such a technique is an exercise left for the reader.

Re:simple solution

[ganjadude]

sure, lets continue to ban things out of irrational fear instead of simply stop breaking the constitution....

Re:simple solution

[kenai_alpenglow]

By the same rationale, let's ban protests (peaceful) as well.....

Cool

[viperidaenz]

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?

Re:Cool

[ganjadude]

i dont care what you, a private individual does with such a DB. you cant do anything to me with that information, and if you tried anything bad with that information, I would be within my rights to defend myself.

Re:Cool

[viperidaenz]

Until the software gets refined, turned in to an app and distributed to thousands of users around the world who get paid for the information they collect.

Re:Cool

[AK Marc]

So, if he were to give or sell that to the government, is that "bad"?

Intrusive? targeting?

[fahrbot-bot]

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.

Re:Intrusive? targeting?

[ganjadude]

ok, lets change it up a bit shall we???

Would you be ok with this tech being used outside of abortion cliniques?

would you be ok with this tech being used at peaceful protests???

would you like this tech being used at battered womens shelters???

Would you be ok with it being used at...... well you get the point

If you can think of 1, just 1 place where this tech does NOT belong in use, then it should not be used

Re:Intrusive? targeting?

[fahrbot-bot]

If you can think of 1, just 1 place where this tech does NOT belong in use, then it should not be used

That's a little too simplistic. According to your logic, if something [gun] shouldn't be used somewhere [crowded theater], it shouldn't be used anywhere. In the end, though, we probably actually agree. Pervasive monitoring is unwarranted and most likely just generates more noise than value - and is a waste of time, effort and tax dollars.

Re:Intrusive? targeting?

[ganjadude]

im talking about governments, not individuals. theres my distinction

If you have nothing to hide

[MinamataHG]

... 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.

Re:The DEA is just doing their job

[viperidaenz]

In what country is that balance tipped in favour of the citizen?

Re:Why the DEA??

[LynnwoodRooster]

More like the DEA had to find some new drug dealers to give firearms to...

The Bill of Rights?

[LynnwoodRooster]

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!

Re:The Bill of Rights?

[__aaclcg7560]

Stop watching Fox News. You might find life less paranoid.

Re:The Bill of Rights?

[ganjadude]

sure, lets watch MSNBC instead, theres no nutjobs on that station at all!

Re:The Bill of Rights?

[__aaclcg7560]

How reading and watching news from multiple sources to form an independent opinion. Oh, wait. It's hard work to stay informed. Never mind. Carry on. Nothing to see here.

Re:The Bill of Rights?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Don't need to watch Fox News to see the Bill of Rights being shredded by our Government. Which one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights hasn't been trampled, save the 3rd Amendment (which is the only one I can think of that is not regularly violated)?

Re:The Bill of Rights?

[__aaclcg7560]

Which one of your constitutional rights was infringed upon by the government this week?

Re:The Bill of Rights?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Well, my 2nd for certain, as I am not allowed to purchase my preferred firearm.

Re:The Bill of Rights?

[I'm New Around Here]

As long as those sources are FOX News, or any other place that doesn't love Obama. Or are you not the person who just said to stop watching one particular source of news?

Re:The Bill of Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know; I lack standing to file a lawsuit to force discovery to prove that I have standing.

Re:The Bill of Rights?

[__aaclcg7560]

If I was to get a firearm, I would have that problem as I lived in California. The South African Neostead Shotgun is unavailable in the U.S. and illegal in California.

Re:The Bill of Rights?

[__aaclcg7560]

I keep an open mind by not being bias towards whoever is currently president. If you're blinded by bia, the only news you will seek is the kind that confirms and reinforces your bias.

Re:The Bill of Rights?

[I'm New Around Here]

So you do watch Fox News? Or does that channel feed your bias?

Honestly, I don't know what your argument is.

Re:The Bill of Rights?

[__aaclcg7560]

I don't watch Fox News.

Re:The Bill of Rights?

[I'm New Around Here]

Thank you for the answer.

Re:The Bill of Rights?

[cwsumner]

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!

Funny, thats pretty much what my ancestors in South Carolina said, back before the Civil War. Only, they didn't say "government"...

Re:The DEA is just doing their job

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Civil rights movement included gun rights

[drnb]

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.

Re:The DEA is just doing their job

[rubycodez]

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.

Re:The DEA is just doing their job

[rubycodez]

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.

Aussie gun laws.

[TapeCutter]

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?

Re:Aussie gun laws.

[ganjadude]

so explain to me how the mass shootings at schools in america did not decrease with the "assault weapons" ban??

Re:Aussie gun laws.

[rubycodez]

Reading how the events went down http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... , one person with concealed carry could have stopped that deranged person with history of violence LONG before the body count went to double digits.

Re:Aussie gun laws.

[thegarbz]

The school shootings did not decrease because people used handguns. People's fascination with "assault rifles" as the only weapon capable of indiscriminately killing a lot of people in one sitting is laughable.

Re:Aussie gun laws.

[ganjadude]

yes. im nuts therefor mass shootings continue... great logic there

Re:Aussie gun laws.

[DaHat]

You forgot to mention that most "assault rifles" are often easily modifiable into a non-illegal configuration. Have a pistol grip? Quick! Replace it with a thumb-in-hole stock. Have a detachable magazine? Add a bullet button!

Unless the powers that be want to make illegal the Ruger 10/22 and standard hammer, any law seeking to limit access to an assault rifle or weapon that can be used to assault is rather pointless.

Re:Aussie gun laws.

[Kaenneth]

In the USA, we have bears, cougars, wolves, etc. Guns are essential in rural areas, and we don't (yet) have border checkpoints at the cities (except Manhattan I think)

in AUS, you have spiders, jellyfish, koalas, etc. Not even a bazooka will help you against them.

Re:Aussie gun laws.

[Zontar The Mindless]

Ah, yes, if we'd just had that one lone hero... *eyeroll*

Re:Aussie gun laws.

[Loki_1929]

Quite a number of people (not necessarily you, but maybe you too) would agree with the idea if that one person were sporting a government-issued badge. As if that badge somehow confers some magical abilities.

Re:Aussie gun laws.

[dywolf]

cause there never was a real ban.
seriously, most of the things you've said in this entire thread are made up BS.
you simply do not know the facts of the issue.

Re:Aussie gun laws.

[mpercy]

How many mass shootings (with semi-automatic weapons) were there before the guns laws? Two? And one since? And the new laws are the difference maker? From wikipedia, it seems Aussies ought not to be trusted with fire, knives or shotguns either...

Cullin-La-Ringo massacre - Horatio Wills and his traveling party were killed by Aborigines at Cullin-La-Ringo Station in Queensland in 1860; police, native police and civilians killed 60 to 70 Aborigines in response.
George David Silva murdered six members of the Ching family at Alligator Creek near Mackay, Queensland in 1911.
Coniston massacre - Over 50 Aboriginal people were killed in the last Aboriginal massacre in 1928. The motive was revenge for the killing of dingo hunter Frederick Brooks.
Hope Forest massacre - Clifford Cecil Bartholomew shot dead ten members of his family in Hope Forest near Adelaide, September 1971.[2]
22 September 1976 - William Robert Wilson - Killed two people and wounded four on Boundary Street, Spring Hill, Brisbane. Wilson took a .22 calibre rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition to Boundary Street around 12.30 pm and began shooting randomly. He shot and killed Monika Schleus, aged 17, as she crossed Boundary Street. Wilson shot and wounded Donald William Hepburn Galloway, who was also crossing the street. Proceeding to a milk bar, Wilson shot and killed Marianne Kalatzis, aged 18, and wounded Mavis Ethel Sanders and Virginia Hollidge. In the neighbouring shop he shot and wounded Quinto Alberti. Wilson was captured by police around 4:15 pm at a suburban house where Wilson was holding a man and four young women hostage. Wilson served three years in a mental hospital. On being found fit for trial, he was sentenced in 1980 to two life sentences for the murders and 10 years each, concurrently, for the four attempted murders. He pleaded guilty to all charges.[3]
Milperra massacre - Two biker gangs, the Comanchero and the Bandidos, engaged in a shoot-out in a hotel car park, killing 7 people in 1984, including a bystander. Only one defendant was acquitted on the murder charges.
Joseph Schwab - 1987, Schwab shot dead 5 people in and around the Kimberley region in Western Australia before being shot dead by police.[4]
Hoddle Street massacre - Armed with two rifles and a shotgun, Julian Knight shot 7 people dead and wounded another 19 in 1987 before surrendering to authorities.
Queen Street massacre - Armed with a sawn-off rifle, Frank Vitkovic roamed the Australia Post building killing 8 and wounding 5, also in 1987. When the weapon was finally wrestled from him, he committed suicide by jumping out of a nearby window.
Surry Hills massacre - Paul Anthony Evers killed 5 people with a 12-gauge shotgun at a public housing precinct in Surry Hills in 1990 before surrendering to police.[5]
Strathfield massacre - In 1991 Wade Frankum killed 7 people and wounded 6 others with a large knife and an SKS before turning the gun on himself when he realised he could not escape.
Central Coast Massacre - Malcolm Baker killed 6 people and injured another with a shotgun in 1992 before being arrested by police.
Port Arthur massacre - In 1996, armed with two semi-automatic rifles, Martin Bryant killed 35 people around Port Arthur and wounded 21 before being caught by police the next day following an overnight siege.
Childers Palace Fire - In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people.
Monash University shooting - In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.
Churchill Fire - 10 confirmed deaths due to a deliberately lit fire. The fire was lit on 7 February 2009.[6]
2011 Hectorville siege - A mass shooting that took place on Friday, April 29, 2011, in Hectorville, South Australia. It began after a 39-year-old male, Donato Anthony Corbo, went on a shooting rampage, killing three people and wounding a child and two police officers, before being arrested by Special Oper

Re:Aussie gun laws.

[ganjadude]

you keep saying that, but you havent corrected anything Ive said, which leads me to believe you have no other argument you just dont like facts.

or did the assualt weapons ban that clintion had passed never actually exist???

Re:Aussie gun laws.

[ganjadude]

Now, I don't think the US would ever implement such a law, but if we ever did, I suspect we'd see a significant drop in all gun deaths, and in mass killings in particular.

I think if the government tried to take everyones guns, it would result is much MUCH more death, not less. because 100 million gun owners in america are not going to willingly give up their guns

Re:Aussie gun laws.

[ganjadude]

actually yes. every single day you can find articles of good gun owners killing bad guys

Re:Aussie gun laws.

[rubycodez]

You are a fool, not a hero, a desparate person trying only to save their own skin and having the means to do so would suffice. Having a chance instead of no chance. *Eyeroll* at types like you, who want everyone to just be a victim

Re:Aussie gun laws.

[rubycodez]

Local news is full of those, but major news outlets in big cities have journalists with your mind set; it doesn't go with their agenda.

Consider this: Crime rate in USA has plummeted in last 15 years as concealed carry adopted by all 50 states. That's fact, so your point of view is bullshit. Guess fearing Constitutional right lowers IQ, eh?

Re:It's about entitlement for no work not guns

[ganjadude]

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.

I have an idea

[slashmydots]

I guess the plates are coming in with me then.

Re: I have an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the plates are coming in with me then.

Actually, just last week I had the temptation to go to a parking garage and swap random cars' license plates. Not my vehicle's license plate... just other peoples'. I'm guessing very few people would notice if it's the same state/county plate with the same color expiration sticker.

Why would I want to do this? For the lulz—the same reason I have taken parking tickets off other people's cars in the past. I referred to that as "making someone's day".

Re:I have an idea

[Whorhay]

Sadly not really an option in all states. Where I live all cars have to be currently plated and registered. Even if you've had it parked in your backyard under a tarp for the last decade it in theory has to have a plate on it. That plate is also not supposed to be covered by anything, even those translucent plastic plate covers are a violation. That said though you could always just slap one of those white cardboard "tag applied for" things over your plate, and probably avoid detection by the automated readers or arousing suspicion.

Re:The DEA is just doing their job

[JumpSuit Boy]

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.

Re:Own a gun? Then I want you watched.

[TapeCutter]

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.

Re:The DEA is just doing their job

[shutdown -p now]

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?

How about the ACLU

[daninaustin]

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.

Why are people modding this down?

[daninaustin]

> 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.

Not true

[daninaustin]

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.)

What's sad is you think that is sad

[SuperKendall]

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 .

Re:What's sad is you think that is sad

[Zontar The Mindless]

...such monitoring is wrong, whereas torture is an issue that's very much up in the air as to being reasonable to use...

Um, no, nothing "up in the air" about it at all. Torture is wrong.

Re:What's sad is you think that is sad

[Totenglocke]

Except when it's not. Generally? Yes. However, there are certain situations where it can be acceptable because you truly have no other options.

Re:What's sad is you think that is sad

[gzuckier]

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.

What's sad is that you believe this is true.
"The waterboarding technique was physically harmful, inducing convulsions and vomiting. Abu Zubaydah, for example, became "completely unresponsive, with bubbles rising through his open, full mouth. " Internal CIA records describe the waterboarding of Khalid Shaykh Mohammad as evolving into a "series of near drownings."
Sleep deprivation involved keeping detainees awake for up to 180 hours, usually standing or in stress positions, at times with hands shackled above heads. At least five detainees experienced disturbing hallucinations during prolonged sleep deprivation and, in at least two of the cases, the CIA continued the sleep deprivation.
Contrary to CIA representations to the Department of Justice, the CIA instructed personnel that the interrogation of Abu Zbaydah would take precedence over his medical care, resulting in the deterioration of a bullet wound Abu Zubaydah incurred during his capture. In at least two other cases, the CIA used its enhanced interrogation despite warnings from CIA medical personnel that the techniques could exacerbate physical injuries. CIA medical personnel treated at least one detainee for swelling in order to allow the continued use of standing sleep deprivation.
At least five CIA detainees were subjected to "rectal rehydration" or rectal feeding without documented medical necessity. The CIA placed detainees in ice water "baths." The CIA led several detainees to believe they would never be allowed to leave CIA custody alive, suggesting to one detainee that he would only leave in a coffin-shaped box. One interrogator told another detainee that he would never go to court, because "we can never let the world know what I have done to you." CIA officers also threatened at least three detainees with harm to their families - to include threats to harm the children of a detainee, threats to sexually abuse the mother of a detainee, and a threat to "cut [a detainee' s] mother' s throat."
...
Of the 119 known detainees, at least 26 were wrongfully held and did not meet the detention standard in the September 2001 Memorandum of Notification (MON). These included an "intellectually challenged" man whose CIA detention was used solely as leverage to get a family member to provide information, two individuals who were intelligence sources for foreign liaison services and were former CIA sources, and two individuals whom the CIA assessed to be connected to al-Qa'ida based solely on information fabricated by a CIA detainee subjected to the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques. Detainees often remained in custody for months after the CIA determined that they did not meet the MON standard. CIA records provide insufficient information to justify the detention of many other detainees." -Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program
And once again, we see that the most voluble proponents of the necessity of the Second Amendment to allow the citizens of the United States to stop their government from engaging in tyranny and oppression are also the most voluble proponents of government tyranny and oppression, as long as it's directed towards others.

Re:The DEA is just doing their job

[thegarbz]

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.
You want to stab everyone in the room. .... well you have a fat chance.
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 drug war is over!!!

[CaptainLard]

" 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.

Re:The drug war is over!!!

[CrimsonAvenger]

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.

You say that like it would be a bad thing....

Re:The drug war is over!!!

[CaptainLard]

Yes and no. Ending a hugely expensive and unsuccessful program is a good thing. Allowing a special interest to essentially shut down an agency designed to monitor/regulate it is a bad thing.

Re:The drug war is over!!!

[CrimsonAvenger]

Allowing a special interest to essentially shut down an agency designed to monitor/regulate it is a bad thing.

Well, if the "war on drugs" goes away, the need for the DEA will go away with it, I hope. Not sure what they'd be doing otherwise, and I have no moral objection to shutting down a part of the government that no longer has a useful function.

Re:Why the DEA??

[AHuxley]

Yes Operation Fast and Furious
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:It's about entitlement for no work not guns

[khallow]

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.

Re:Own a gun? Then I want you watched.

[ganjadude]

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

Re:It's about entitlement for no work not guns

[I'm New Around Here]

If you can't accept that people spoke differently centuries ago, there's little hope of educating you about anything before the 1970s.

It's Psychological Warfare

[Taco Cowboy]

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

Re:It's Psychological Warfare

[Endymion]

"Beginning"?

The USA has been doing PSYOPS on it's own citizens a loooooong time. You just noticed this now?! I wonder how surprised you'll be when you finally notice COINTELPRO never really ended; the government has been up to a lot more than PSYOPS...

Re:It's Psychological Warfare

[ultranova]

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

What announcement would that be? ACLU requested information and the government complied. For your theory to be correct, ACLU would need to be working for the US government, which seems highly unlikely.

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

No, it's of the People. Every member of US government was voted there by the People. And they're doing what their voters want them to.

For all the talk about two-party system, campaign contributions and such, the fact remains that Depublicrats stay in power because the People want them to. They are not bloodthirsty tyrants stomping their jackboots on their subjects faces; at the absolute worst they're conmen. For good or ill, US citizens are firmly in control of their country's destiny, and deserve all the blame - or credit - for anything their country does, to themselves or anyone else.

Re:It's Psychological Warfare

[davydagger]

What announcement would that be? ACLU requested information and the government complied. For your theory to be correct, ACLU would need to be working for the US government, which seems highly unlikely.

and the government gave the ALCU something. You're assuming the ALCU is an all knowing, all powerful agency. It is not. It is sorely underfunded, and underpowered. Your assumption suggest that the ALCU can reliably get passed all tradecraft by US intelegence. Laughable at best.

No, it's of the People. Every member of US government was voted there by the People. And they're doing what their voters want them to.

by "people", you mean "people" like citizens united, and not flesh and blood people. I mean in every nation on earth they've voted in their leaders with the exception of Saudi Arabia and the Maladives.

For all the talk about two-party system, campaign contributions and such, the fact remains that Depublicrats stay in power because the People want them to. They are not bloodthirsty tyrants stomping their jackboots on their subjects faces; at the absolute worst they're conmen. For good or ill, US citizens are firmly in control of their country's destiny, and deserve all the blame - or credit - for anything their country does, to themselves or anyone else.

No, we have a system that for all intents and purposes does not respond to the will of the people, and the people have virtually no say on what issues are brought up, or not brought up.

Re:It's Psychological Warfare

[Coren22]

But CCP makes Eve Online, they couldn't possibly be evil.

Re:Own a gun? Then I want you watched.

[I'm New Around Here]

But aybiss would force every to agree with himself, or be treated as a terrorist. So what's the difference?

Re:The DEA is just doing their job

[Selur]

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.

Re:It's about entitlement for no work not guns

[Loki_1929]

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

Token troll argument

[Rujiel]

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?

Re:Token troll argument

[AK Marc]

That's not how language works. They were planning it, but not planning to do it. It's the difference between planning what one would do if they won the lottery, and planning on rigging the lottery.

Re:It's about entitlement for no work not guns

[khallow]

Well, how are you going to have a well regulated militia if nobody knows anything about guns except what they learn from the movies?

Re:The DEA is just doing their job

[Zontar The Mindless]

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.

Re:The DEA is just doing their job

[Zontar The Mindless]

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.

Too Late

[ErstO]

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.

Army from same population as civilians ...

[drnb]

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.

Re:Own a gun? Then I want you watched.

[Zontar The Mindless]

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.

Re:simple solution

[Zontar The Mindless]

Fear of what devices designed to kill people might do in the hands of some self-styled loony "militiamen" is hardly irrational.

Re:It's about entitlement for no work not guns

[dbIII]

you may want to educate yourself on the wording "well regulated militia"

Which gun club propaganda do you wish me to read for the sake of re-education Comrade?

Re:What world do you live in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you USian's so conveniently forget the second largest army in the world which assisted you (the French)?

What a load of BULLSHIT.

[denzacar]

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.

Re: What a load of BULLSHIT.

[khallow]

You want to fight off an army - get an army and A BUNCH OF ALLIES.

That stuff grows on trees, amirite?

The problem with this is that you need to build that army and obtain those allies. For the case of the US, there were already a lot of people who both had served in a military before and who had easy access to firearms. That was the basis of the eventual US army. And the US obtained allies in large part because they had success on the battlefield. While it may have been possible to obtain that in the absence of prevalent ownership of firearms, I strongly doubt the US would exist now, if firearm ownership wasn't so widespread in the first case.

It's also worth noting that there are several decisive battles that were fought mostly with privately owned firearms, such as the Battles of Saratoga (which prevented the British from breaking up the northern US) and the Battle of King's Mountain (which was the first in a series of defeats that eventually crippled the British presence in the southern US and drove the British to eventual, final defeat at the siege of Yorktown).

So sure, a bunch of guys with guns isn't going to do much against an army (unless they're really numerous), but an army with weapons and a basic level of competence is going to fare better than one without that.

Re:The DEA is just doing their job

[dargaud]

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.

Re:It's about entitlement for no work not guns

[Loki_1929]

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.

Gun control didn't help Australia here

[MikeRT]

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?

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.

Re:Gun control didn't help Australia here

[thegarbz]

I like that you said not important enough. At G20 president Obama arrived with what I can only describe as the biggest over compensated penis extension in the world. Heck he brought his own stunt double to an incredibly peaceful country most of who are great supporters of his. He did not leave the designated zone except for one trip to the university which he did under a motorcade big enough it shut the highway down as it drove through.

In the mean time Chancellor Merkel you know that "unimportant" most powerful woman in the world and arguably the current most powerful person in Europe went out of the secure grounds with a whole one body guard and joined the locals in a pub in Caxton street for a few beers.

If you need to be so paranoid about the people and your system is so fragile that it exclusively depends on you then you aren't doing a very good job as a leader.

Interesting side note, John Howard on his morning jog was given a hug by some trades man who was holding a massive screwdriver. The media was taking the piss comparing what would have happened if that was Bush instead of our Prime Minister, and in true Australian fashion the Chaser brothers (political satirists) were waiting for John Howard the following week and gave him a hug while brandishing a huge medieval battle axe.

Gun Show or Walmart Customers?

[dcw3]

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.

Monitoring the legal

[Lord Bitman]

"Why are you monitoring perfectly legal activities?"

"To help stop criminals"

The cost of freedom

[Sqreater]

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.

Re:The DEA is just doing their job

[dywolf]

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.

Re:Why the DEA??

[dywolf]

Because, while gun nuts like to pretend that criminals will just "magically get guns and ignore all laws", guns don't actually just magically pop into existence.

and it's well known that many of the purchases that occur at gun shows are straw purchases, people buying guns in an area of lesser regulation to traffic in an area of higher regulation. Its the primary source of black market weapons, weapons that come into the hands of drug dealers and other criminal enterprises.

Re:The DEA is just doing their job

[Ksevio]

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.

planned?

[kent_eh]

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.

Re:For once the gun owners are targeted...

[moeinvt]

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.

Risking death? That death can be delivered quickly

[dfenstrate]

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.

Re:simple solution

[moeinvt]

Fear of what devices designed to kill people might do if they were exclusively in the hands of government thugs and criminal thugs is hardly irrational.

There is no such thing as "gun control". There is only the idea of limiting firearms possession to a couple of small groups of people.

A. Government
B. Criminals

And we all know that these two groups of people are so responsible, trustworthy and benevolent that we should trust them with the exclusive privilege of firearms ownership.

I'd much rather have the militiamen than the John Wayne-wannabes in the ATF, DEA and other armed government agencies.

Saw this originally in WSJ and was more scared by

[mpercy]

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...

Re:It's about entitlement for no work not guns

[khallow]

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.

Re:What world do you live in?

[Totenglocke]

Because they didn't show up until late in the war?

And there's the reason for the 2nd Amendment

[mpercy]

"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)

Re:Risking death? That death can be delivered quic

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Totally messed up.

[jedidiah]

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.

Re:Totally messed up.

[Nonesuch]

I know you're trying to be funny, but for the last couple of years both organizations have gotten together to oppose the NSA, and domestic spying in general. They have other mutual enemies, including New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. And on gun rights, the NRA and state-level ACLU organizations are often both on the same side of an issue, it's primarily the national ACLU that has taken a strong stance against individual firearms rights.

Re:What world do you live in?

[kilfarsnar]

Why do you USian's so conveniently forget the second largest army in the world which assisted you (the French)?

Because we're Americans and don't need no help from no one! And we're fairly ignorant as a result of an educational system that only concerns itself with preparing people to enter the workforce, not educating a well rounded citizen. There is a reason I have had the same sig for so long...

Drive around pretty much any part of NYS

[mpercy]

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.

Re:The DEA is just doing their job

[Builder]

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.

Re:What world do you live in?

[operagost]

Because they only allied with us because we'd had some success, which wouldn't have happened without, you know, being able to fight some battles with guns and cannons?

Clearly have not bought a gun

[mpercy]

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.

Zero?

[mpercy]

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.

Re:The DEA is just doing their job

[Patent Lover]

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.

Re:Why the DEA??

[mpercy]

More like Operation Fearless.

http://www.jsonline.com/watchd...

ATF agents running an undercover storefront in Milwaukee used a brain-damaged man with a low IQ to set up gun and drug deals, paying him in cigarettes, merchandise and money, according to federal documents obtained by the Journal Sentinel.

Hours after a machine gun was stolen from an ATF agent's vehicle in September, police had four men in custody. But the gun vanished.

ATF agents let a man armed with a gun and threatening to shoot someone walk out of their storefront sting operation in Milwaukee last summer, failing to arrest him or take the weapon, the Journal Sentinel has learned.

ATF agents have lost track of dozens of government-issued guns, after stashing them under seats in their cars, in glove compartments or leaving them on top of their vehicles and driving away, according to reports obtained by the Journal Sentinel.

Open carry has nothing to do w/ this

[Rujiel]

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.

Re:Why the DEA??

[mpercy]

Heck, ATF agents lose dozens of guns every year...

http://www.justice.gov/oig/rep...

Over the 59-month period we tested, 76 weapons and 418 laptop
computers were lost, stolen, or missing from ATF. ATF's rate of weapons
loss per month has nearly tripled since Treasury's 2002 audit...

We also found serious deficiencies in ATF's response to these lost,
stolen, or missing items. ATF staff did not report many of the lost, stolen, or
missing weapons...

Re:The DEA is just doing their job

[ai4px]

How're those gun free zones in France working out? Did you see the video a few weeks ago of a guy standing in the street calming reloading? My goodness, how on earth did he get an AK47? In france? really? The falsehood here is that the dreamers think that the bad guys will give up their guns (and -gasp- even have faith that the government can lock them up if they are caught). In case you didn't know it the trend these days is for the prisons to reclassify violent offenders as nonviolent so they can be released. The prison system is full of non-violent offenders and to ease overcrowding, they want to release the ones they can. This leads to the public scratching their heads wonder why the recidivism rate is so high. So do you actually think putting people in jail for having a gun is going to work?

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.

Re:simple solution

[mpercy]

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey, "The Right to Arms," Abbey's Road [New York, 1979])

wikipedia:

Edward Paul Abbey (January 29, 1927 – March 14, 1989) was an American author and essayist noted for his advocacy of environmental issues, criticism of public land policies, and anarchist political views. His best-known works include the novel The Monkey Wrench Gang, which has been cited as an inspiration by radical environmental groups, and the non-fiction work Desert Solitaire. Abbey was born in Indiana, Pennsylvania on January 29, 1927 to Mildred Postlewait and Paul Revere Abbey. Mildred was a schoolteacher and a church organist, and gave Abbey an appreciation for classical music and literature. Paul was a socialist, anarchist, and atheist whose views strongly influenced Abbey.

It is happening

[mpercy]

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.

Re:It's about entitlement for no work not guns

[MooseTick]

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?

Re:It's about entitlement for no work not guns

[ganjadude]

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)

Re:It's about entitlement for no work not guns

[ganjadude]

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

Re:It's about entitlement for no work not guns

[ganjadude]

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

Re:Own a gun? Then I want you watched.

[ganjadude]

ok, and what recourse do the people have in other countries if say, a dictator takes over??? in america, we know what can happen

Re:simple solution

[ganjadude]

a gun is not "designed to kill people" it is designed to discharge a projectile at anything on the other end of the barrel. If a person chooses to point it at a person, thats on the person, not the gun

No more sense than redefining pi

[dbIII]

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.

Re:No more sense than redefining pi

[ganjadude]

the only one redefining words here are those claiming "well regulated" means that the government has the right to regulate the people o nthis topic.

Re:No more sense than redefining pi

[dbIII]

Or somebody else capable of setting up a militia.
It's there in plain English even if you want to pretend that in days of old no meant yes and people spoke in modern weasel instead of the language that everyone can read when they pick up something by Franklin, Jefferson etc.

Re:It's about entitlement for no work not guns

[dbIII]

about read the founders words themselves

Looks crystal clear - National Guard.

Re:It's about entitlement for no work not guns

[dbIII]

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.

Re:What world do you live in?

[AK Marc]

So, does that include the States in 1776? How about Afghanistan in the '80s? Today?

Re:The DEA is just doing their job

[AK Marc]

Guns were never outlawed in Venezuela. Sales were stopped. There's a difference.

Re:simple solution

[AK Marc]

An irrational fear is the fear of being kidnapped by aliens. It's not irrational to fear death by firearm in the USA.

Re:Risking death? That death can be delivered quic

[I'm New Around Here]

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.

Re:Failsauce

[I'm New Around Here]

There is a difference between "free speech" and "words falling out of your mouth". The word "apple" is not speech; without some important context, it is a single word. The sentence "Everyone should eat apples for health." is speech.

However, it isn't just about whether a sentence was spoken. Telling lies about someone is not regarded as free speech, even though it may be words spoken as sentences.

That is what smothers your post in your proverbial failsauce. The fact that you can't tell the difference between something that is simply sounds produced by human mouths, and something that is meant to convey a person's views and beliefs.

To apply that nuance to physical weapons is nonsensical. A sword is 'an arm' in the 'armament' sense of the word. So is a bow and arrow, a slingshot, a rifle, and a Bradley tank. Your argument would mean that since paperclips can be used as a weapon, the government cannot take away my paperclips.

But fine, let's go with your interpretation. All laws against slander, libel, shouting "fire", etc, are hereby judged Unconstitutional. As are all laws infringing on the right to keep and bear all types of weapons. All this hypocrisy is removed once and for all.

Honestly, I would not mind that tradeoff. Would you?

Re:It's about entitlement for no work not guns

[dbIII]

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.

Re:It's about entitlement for no work not guns

[ganjadude]

if thats your answer, clearly you are wearing mud covered glasses. The national guard is one of MANY options.

Re:The DEA is just doing their job

[Agripa]

Alcohol, motor vehicles, blunt objects, prescription medication.

Re:It's about entitlement for no work not guns

[ganjadude]

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.

Re:simple solution

[ganjadude]

you have a higher chance of being hit by a car than shot in most places, its an irrational fear

Re:It's about entitlement for no work not guns

[Loki_1929]

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.

Re:simple solution

[AK Marc]

Yes, getting killed by car is common. That just means people have an irrational non-fear of cars, not that a fear of getting shot is irrational.

Re:It's about entitlement for no work not guns

[khallow]

Then I suggest the TEC-9. It'll be awesome for your YouTube video.

Re:The DEA is just doing their job

[rubycodez]

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

I'm sick of having this shit pushed on me

[dbIII]

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.

Re:I'm sick of having this shit pushed on me

[ganjadude]

im pushing you on falsehoods? bahahhaha

look, when you grow up, and educate yourself on a simple meaning of a simple sentence that is the basis of our country, Ill gladly get back into the debate with you. but until you understand what "well regulated" in the time of the writing of the constitution means, any conversation with you is utterly worthless

Re:I'm sick of having this shit pushed on me

[dbIII]

but until you understand what "well regulated" in the time of the writing of the constitution means

I can read fucking Chaucer and understand it and you can too with a couple of days of effort. Everybody on the street who isn't a "we need guns to overthrow the government and the government has to let us have them" nut can understand that it means something like the National Guard, because it's in modern English, and you counter-revolutionary nuts understand it too but just pretend not to for your own convenience.

The reality is that a voting block of a handy bunch of extremists was available so the Republicans pandered to them and pretended to believe the extreme defacement of the Constitution they clustered around. I get that you've shat on the Constitution - just do not expect me to like it or or join you in the act.

Please read before activating parrot mode

[dbIII]

for the last time "well regulated" does NOT mean regulated by the government in any way whatsoever.

Did you even read:

clearly meaning a trained militia

Re:Please read before activating parrot mode

[ganjadude]

who does the training? who says the training is good enough?

and no, it does not mean a trained militia, it means any able bodies male over 17 who has a gun in working order. (meaning it fires when the trigger is pulled) Thats it, nothing more

Re:Please read before activating parrot mode

[dbIII]

So what keeps a bunch of males over 17 "well regulated" apart from some sort of organization? I don't know why you keep on pretending I mean the organization is government unless you don't understand what I've written so many times above. English? Do you speak it? Or are you just pretending not to so that you can ignore it when I point out flaws in your ridiculous argument.
This is getting old, you don't believe this shit either and I'm sick of being treated as a gullible idiot. Even the people in politics are merely granting it lip service as the price of getting a large number of supporters.

This is exactly what I meant above about a diversion from reality. We both know this shit is not real yet you keep banging on about it and hope I'm stupid enough that I will fall for some linguistic weasel trick.

Re:It's about entitlement for no work not guns

[ganjadude]

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.

Re:simple solution

[ganjadude]

oh... ok that must be it.

start the presses, we need to make sure everyone is more scared of cars than guns!!! (actually, im sure environmentalists would LOVE that)

Re:simple solution

[AK Marc]

Seriously, it's a well documented problem. Most people think that they are above average. They think that crashes will happen to "someone else". This causes risk-taking behavior because humans can't process low-probability risk. The probability is low, but the exposure is high.

That you also don't understand the risks doesn't mean they are somehow wrong.

So

[gzuckier]

Take the bus. Too much effort to save America from tyranny? Sheesh.