Feds Convinced Police To Use License Plate-Scanning Tech At Gun Shows (foxnews.com)

To be fair... by cardpuncher · 2016-10-08 03:43 · Score: 1, Insightful

... of all the "constitutionally protected" activities which may be subject to surevillance, many people outside the USA would consider that there might just be an argument for paying some passing attention to the collection of lethal weapons by people so obsessed by them that they go to shows to drool over them and defend their right to own them on the basis that they might need them to overthrow the government at some point.

Re:To be fair... by Baloo+Uriza · 2016-10-08 03:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

There's also the fact that the mere concept of the 2nd Amendment being an individual right is a recent invention basically paid for by the weapons industry. Gotta create them markets somehow, and what better way than overturn basically 190 years of legal precedent in the courts and sew paranoia about race and the government?

--
Furries make the internet go.
Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-08 04:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

There's also the fact that the mere concept of the 2nd Amendment being an individual right is a recent invention basically paid for by the weapons industry. Gotta create them markets somehow, and what better way than overturn basically 190 years of legal precedent in the courts and sew paranoia about race and the government?
BULLSHIT
Complete, utter BULLSHIT.
Explain why, in the midst of a bunch of amendments clarifying INDIVIDUAL rights, would there be one about a collective right?
Explain how " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" places limits on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's one REASON among many for the right, not a fucking LIMIT.
Remember, everyone, that the first act of totalitarian governments is the taking away of arms from the people. Imagine that - statists like the parent poster want to take the fundamental right to defend yourself away.
Re:To be fair... by reboot246 · 2016-10-08 04:14 · Score: 1

Nice try, but the 2nd Amendment has always been an individual right.

Oh, and the word you were looking for but didn't find is "sow". Thanks for the laugh, though.
Re:To be fair... by ScentCone · 2016-10-08 04:24 · Score: 1, Troll

There's also the fact that the mere concept of the 2nd Amendment being an individual right is a recent invention basically paid for by the weapons industry
No. The Second Amendment was proposed, talked about, debated, and eventually ratified by people who EXACTLY considered it to be about protecting (not creating - you don understand how the Constitution works, don't you?) the individual right to keep and bear arms. There are mountains of letters, transcripts, and explicit explanations from those who created the Bill of Rights to help you understand their thinking about this, as well as other familiar ones (like the freedom to speak, assemble, etc).

The colonists had just lived through the Crown's tyranny in many forms - not least of which was the stationing of soldiers in people's homes and the confiscation of their personal weapons. The official British line was, "We have a well ordered military presence in the colonies, and they are all that's needed to maintain peace and your safety..." and that was the excuse for going farm-to-farm, house-to-house, and confiscating weapons. Of course people who didn't respect British law might still hide them, and of course criminals were thrilled that the population was disarmed, since they personally were not.

The founders considered that entire scenario unacceptable for many reasons. So much so that they went out of their way to explicitly prevent their new government from ever infringing on that personal liberty again (just like they also said that the government could not infringe on freedom of expression or assembly). Much to many of the founders' annoyance, they recognized that there would be a need for a standing military of some sort - at the very least, at the local "militia" level. The Second Amendment doesn't establish a military, or speak to one's qualifications to be in it, or have anything to say about how it is funded or armed ... what it does say, since you obviously can't parse the period language, is essentially this: "Since it looks like we're going to have to have a military at some level, the fact that there will be armed, professionally trained people IN that military does not give anyone in the government the excuse to infringe on the personal right to keep and bear arms."

That was the entire point of the amendment! They didn't want the local rich guy who was funding the county's militia to say, "Hey, I've got twenty guys with some training and muskets, so I think it's best if everyone else in the county is stripped of their weapons - why would they need them?" But just like today, you can't have armed people from the government everywhere you go and in your house to defend you at every moment. Law enforcement comes AFTER you have a need for self defense. The founders didn't have to be geniuses on this topic, just simple rational thinkers.

All of this was and has been obvious since the country was chartered. For a couple hundred years, it went without saying that this was the premise and the reality of the Second Amendment. But more recently, of course, totalitarian-minded nanny-state types have been anxious to make people ever more dependent on the government, since that dependency buys them more power and a guaranteed career in being indispensable and in charge of everyone else. Routinely indicating that things like private gun ownership are horrible, and only more government, more intrusively involved in every day life could possibly be the rational replacement for things like the capability for self defense - that's just part of the larger lefty world view and movement towards a larger, sprawling, ever more powerful government.

Yes, the founders did ALSO talk about the people's right (indeed, obligation) to overthrow a government that has chosen to trash the constitution. But we've never been in that situation to the degree that the pendulum couldn't be pushed the other way through the ballot box. Millions of people who don't like the candidate they'r

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:To be fair... by swb · 2016-10-08 04:31 · Score: 1

To be remotely fair, gun shows can be a great place for people who are collectors to find items for their collections, just like any other flea market type sales event with a specific focus.
Although, IMHO, like collections of anything else the internet has kind of reduced the usefulness of gun shows -- web sites like Gunbroker make it far easier to find very specific models a collector may want.
Re:To be fair... by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2016-10-08 04:55 · Score: 1

I remember back in the fifth grade I wrote a story that had two people arguing. One of them sued the other, but I didn't know how "sue" was spelled, since it certainly wasn't the same as someone's name. I chose to go with "sew" as well, since it matched the pattern of "blew", "new", or "stew".
I'm sure my teacher had the same laugh at my expense as you just did with Baloo. :^)

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:To be fair... by ClickOnThis · 2016-10-08 05:51 · Score: 1

You might enjoy this poem.
Apparently it was adapted from this original.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Re:To be fair... by j-beda · 2016-10-08 06:37 · Score: 2

No. The Second Amendment was proposed, talked about, debated, and eventually ratified by people who EXACTLY considered it to be about protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms. There are mountains of letters, transcripts, and explicit explanations from those who created the Bill of Rights to help you understand their thinking about this, as well as other familiar ones (like the freedom to speak, assemble, etc).
Interesting.
Was the article wrong when it said "From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun. The first to argue otherwise, written by a William and Mary law student named Stuart R. Hays, appeared in 1960."
Was the article incorrect when it stated "There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
I would be interested to have references to the "mountains of letters, transcripts, and explicit explanations from those who created the Bill of Rights" on this issue. I have not been able to find many - do you have any to share?
In some sense, this is accademic - the laws we now operate under are the written legislation as interpreted by the courts - which is how the system is supposed to work. Only the courts are able to make these legal interpretations, and if they are unpopular the only way to change them is to make modifications to the legislation. Constitutional ammendments are at least in theory possible.
Re:To be fair... by BlueStrat · 2016-10-08 07:25 · Score: 2

No. The Second Amendment was proposed, talked about, debated, and eventually ratified by people who EXACTLY considered it to be about protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms. There are mountains of letters, transcripts, and explicit explanations from those who created the Bill of Rights to help you understand their thinking about this, as well as other familiar ones (like the freedom to speak, assemble, etc).

Was the article wrong when it said "From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun. The first to argue otherwise, written by a William and Mary law student named Stuart R. Hays, appeared in 1960."
Apples & oranges.
"Law review articles" =/= "...mountains of letters, transcripts, and explicit explanations from those who created the Bill of Rights..."
If you have an open mind, here's a good place to start regarding how those who created the US Constitution regarded the right of private citizens to own firearms:
http://thefederalistpapers.org...
If you want horrifying levels of violence, death, and chaos in the US, just try banning/heavily-restricting/criminalizing most individual, private gun ownership/possession. It will make the violence from 'Prohibition' and the 'War on (some) Drugs' combined look like elementary school playground spats.
There are nearly enough guns in civilian hands currently to arm every man, woman, and child in the US. Even if everyone was on-board and willingly turned in firearms, it would still be decades before significantly more than half were turned in just due to the sheer numbers involved and the size of the nation, so you'll have some areas gun-free and some not for decades, and criminals will simply go to the places where victims are unarmed.
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:To be fair... by ScentCone · 2016-10-08 07:27 · Score: 4, Informative

Right. The journal (through cherry picking) failing to find Madison explicitly stating the words "personal" or "individual" is an indication of how going-without-saying he and the rest of the framers considered the matter to be, which is of course why the amendment is worded the way it is. He and the other founders structured that simple phrase in a way (through the contemporary language of the time) that couldn't be clearer: It's obvious we're going to need a military, but the right of the people to keep and bear arms can't be screwed with. And before you go off saying "the people" means "the military" or something along those lines, refresh yourself on how the phrase "the people" is used throughout the rest of the founding documents that - by their very nature - are all about describing the things the government cannot do to the people, as individuals.

But if you still don't have the energy to use Google, here are some of the founders talking about how they see the matter - as both the federal, and individual state constitutions were being ratified and as they talked with others on the subject. These guys talked specifically and frequently - in correspondence, in the Federalist Papers, and before congress and their state legislatures - in terms that aren't in any way vague. People with an agenda to revise history and strip away your constitutionally protected rights will, of course, pretend they aren't good enough researchers to read what these men had to say both personally and officially. For example:

"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 the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in 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 band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:To be fair... by j-beda · 2016-10-08 08:27 · Score: 1

I guess I am not totally convinced. Each one of the quotes to me seem to be quotes in support of bodies like the 13 state militias, in contrast to the federal governments' potential standing army, or at least they can be read in that way. To think that they unambiguously support the idea of individual citizens regularly carrying handguns seems a bit disingenuous.
Why did the house adopt the wording “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” if everyone knew that this was a personal rather than collective right? Or was that a fabrication or the author of the article? It certainly seems as though the emphasis here is this wording is on the collective right.
Why did the Tennessee Supreme Court put state in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.” Was that court completely at odds with the understanding in the rest of the country? Was that statement widely criticized at the time?
Is it not the case that four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia?
It does seem as though the emphasis on the individual right vs the collective right has shifted in the last 250 years and that it is not totally clear what the framers meant. More importantly, it is not totally clear what we as a people, right now, should do in terms of regulating the use of firearms. When significan portions of the population are on both sides of an issue, it is a challenge to find a way forward.
Re:To be fair... by j-beda · 2016-10-08 08:35 · Score: 1

There are nearly enough guns in civilian hands currently to arm every man, woman, and child in the US. Even if everyone was on-board and willingly turned in firearms, it would still be decades before significantly more than half were turned in just due to the sheer numbers involved and the size of the nation, so you'll have some areas gun-free and some not for decades, and criminals will simply go to the places where victims are unarmed.
I don't doubt that this is a major issue. Interestingly, the percentage of US citizens who are gun owners seems to be at an historic low, while at the same time the number of guns owned by those who do own guns has increased - about 20% of gun owners seem to be owning more tha 65% of all the guns out there. I guess if we could convince those 20% to dispose of their firearms, that would get us over the 50% mark pretty quick!
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Re:To be fair... by BlueStrat · 2016-10-08 08:43 · Score: 2

Each one of the quotes to me seem to be quotes in support of bodies like the 13 state militias
It is explained in US Code.

10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia: composition and classes
The militia of the United States consists of 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.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Every able-bodied male US citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 are unorganized US militia members (the 'females in the National Guard' thing is a bit confusing) whether they know it or not.
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:To be fair... by Your.Master · 2016-10-08 09:15 · Score: 1

Anybody claiming that the 2nd Amendment isn't confusingly worded has an agenda.
Who are you kidding? Nobody talks like this: "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". You'd fail in English class.
It turns out that the following words also don't mean the same things today as they did when written:
regulated
Militia
security
State
people
"bear arms"
infringed
Every one of those needs to be defined.
Re:To be fair... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2016-10-08 09:30 · Score: 1

Not only that, there were shameful anti freedom of speech laws found constitutional for many decades until as late as the 1960s. Is our erstwhile friend a fan of thise decisions over newer freedom of speech ones?
In the 1910s(?) the court approved a law outlawing pamphlets urging using legal means to resist the draft (for WW I) because speech stepped on Congress' power to raise armies. The opinion author (who came up with the phrase you have no right to falsely shout fire in a crowded theater) disregarded his opinion within a year, andd said he was sorry for it. It wasn't overturned until the 1960s.
And there are some other approved laws he probably wouldn't look to judicial decisions for approval, either.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:To be fair... by BlueStrat · 2016-10-08 09:39 · Score: 1

...about 20% of gun owners seem to be owning more tha 65% of all the guns out there.
But those are the ones who would most resist any disarmament campaign. Besides, there are many gun owners who have weapons that have never been registered, either because it's not required (long guns in most States and home-built firearms) or because they've made a conscious decision to avoid letting the government know whether or not they own firearms or how many/what kind.
To copy the Australian model in the US would require the mass violation of a number of other civil rights covered under the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and a number of others. The government would have to search room-by-room, house-by-house, set up stop-&-search checkpoints, and intrude upon and violate basic human rights in multiple ways to even have a hope of eliminating the majority of civilian-owned firearms.
You'd need to basically suspend the entire US Constitution and declare martial law. That's gonna be...messy...just in and of itself.
The "gun violence problem" in the US is not a problem with guns, it's a cultural/societal problem brought on by Progressive policies over the last 80-100 years that has resulted in the destruction of common moral standards of right & wrong that are the only things that make a people governable by anything less than a tyranny.
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:To be fair... by thegarbz · 2016-10-08 11:16 · Score: 1

Remember, everyone, that the first act of totalitarian governments

And yet the rest of the world is just fine and our governments are far less totalitarian than the "kill a US citizen without due process at the pen wave of the president" government the USA has.
Re:To be fair... by SNRatio · 2016-10-08 11:24 · Score: 1

Complete, utter BULLSHIT

So when was the first time SCOTUS determined it was an individual right? What did they say before then?
Re:To be fair... by ScentCone · 2016-10-08 14:29 · Score: 1

I guess I am not totally convinced. Each one of the quotes to me seem to be quotes in support of bodies like the 13 state militias
If that's how it seems to you, it's because you're still deliberately not reading the words in front of you. There's a reason I saved the last two quotes for last, because they're so succinct. Especially important: while the founders considered states' rights to be vital (another area in which current politics has hugely over-reached), there were some areas considered to sacrosanct that it was worth building nation-wide, at-all-levels-of-government prohibitions against government infringement into the nation's charter. By definition, things cast in that way supersede activity at the state level. Those who were chartering and ratifying the state constitutions were doing so in keeping with the federal constitution - those things had to be in sync. Where they were not, that had to reconciled by either convincing all of the states to see (and thus amend) the federal constitution to suit, or by amending (or differently authoring) the state constitutions. There's zero wiggle room. So when you see authors of the state constitutions (see Henry, in Virginia, for example) being crystal clear about echoing the federal constitution's protection of natural individual rights to self defense through the keeping and bearing of arms, you're getting another view into the very well understood purpose of the second amendment.

When Adams (one of the authors of the Second Amendment) says "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms," I trust you're seeing his reference to 'the United States' (not just Massachusetts), and 'citizens' (not some collective) and 'their own' in reference to peaceable citizens. He's not talking about military units - the entire notion of 'peaceable' applies to those who are not criminals. Adams was a talented and very literal lawyer. He didn't choose those words casually, and if he'd meant to say that he was referring to military units he'd have said so in no uncertain terms. He served in more than one trial where the issue at hand involved friction between military and private people. This is not an area about which he'd have been in any way vague.

Why did the house adopt the wording “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
Because they were REALLY trying to avoid the existence of a long-term, standing army. The prevailing wish among the founders was that there would never be a standing, professional military. They'd had too much of that from the British, and saw what having a life-long military aristocracy did. So they preferred instead to consider the entire nation to be the military, if and when the need should ever arise (think: the draft), though they left room for people like Quakers to opt out of such activity if they had real convictions along those lines. Because they considered a standing army to be anathema, they wanted it to be VERY clear that the only way to have a society that could, should the need arise, be capable with their arms was: to make sure that nobody in government could ever prevent people from owning them. Notice the complete lack of language requiring people to own them, or dictating any sort of skill or militia membership rules ... because that's not what they're talking about. They're simply saying: "Beyond the natural right to own the tools of your own self defense, we have a vested interest in making sure that the government never infringes on citizens' keeping and bearing of arms ... because if the shit hits the fan, we want a society that already knows what the

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:To be fair... by ScentCone · 2016-10-08 14:37 · Score: 1

That would be true if gun-toting Americans obeyed the constitution and learnt military discipline and tactics, which is what the second amendment really means.

The Second Amendment means no such thing and says no such thing. It says that even if we DO have a standing military, that doesn't mean the existence of such can allow the government to infringe on the people's rights to keep and bear arms. As mentioned above, the people wrote the amendment couldn't have been clearer on the subject. The problem here is that you don't know how to read - history, or the amendment itself. You also completely fail to understand the structure of the constitution. That Bill of Rights is all about preventing the government from interfering with your natural rights - not establishing rules about who should be able to own a printing press, or a gun.

Those 2nd Amendment supporters who think a cupboard full of guns will protect them from "evil gubbermint" are seriously deluded.
It doesn't matter what you or they think about that particular topic. That's not what the Second Amendment is about. If you want to keep and bear arms for your own self defense (because the government was NOT structured to keep armed people at your side 24x7 to protect you from harm), or for hunting, or for sport - you have the right to do so, and the founders considered (very wisely) that there would always be people like you coming along saying that they know better when or whether you deserve protection, and use that as an excuse to take that personal right away. They were right - here you are, preaching exactly that.

The current crop of supporters blathering on about "home defense" don't have such rights.
Let's break this down, shall we? If I break into your house and attack you, you don't have the right to try to prevent me from hurting you? Is that REALLY how you think? Be specific.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re: To be fair... by ScentCone · 2016-10-08 14:43 · Score: 1

The failure to state it properly has caused a great deal of harm
No, the people who skew, ideologically, towards an ever-expanding tyrannical nanny state choose to pretend they can't parse plainly written English or that reading the lengthier, plain-English supporting material from dozens of contemporary people (including those who wrote that simple sentence that you're pretending you can't read) are using the theater of that phony misunderstanding to try to shape the relationship between the citizens and government that work for them.

you should get over your psychosis for originalism and stand by something today
Let me guess - you think the First Amendment, as originally written by those who wrote it, is also too quaint, and should be done away with by something a little more "today." No? Yes? Which part of that amendment do you consider no longer applicable because it was written before you were born? Be specific.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:To be fair... by tranquilidad · 2016-10-08 15:31 · Score: 1

First, you can't ignore the preamble to the Bill of Rights which states that the bill of rights is a list restrictions on the government. The list of rights is not a grant of rights to individuals or an empowerment of any level of government. That's why you have language such as "shall not be infringed," or "shall pass no law."
There's a very good article that discuses the history of the 2nd amendment and why it's worded the way it is at constitution.org. English history is quite informative on the 2nd amendment and the definition of a militia because English history was the history of the founders of the country and the authors of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This document also goes over the 10 of 13 colonies that suggested wording related to the 2nd amendment regarding it as an individual right. None of the remaining three colonies provided any suggestion on the wording.
It's interesting that you choose 1876 as the start of your period to discuss the Supreme Court's opinion regarding the 2nd amendment. That promotes ignoring the 1875 United States v. Cruikshank ruling that specifically stated that the right to keep and bear arms would exist even without the 2nd amendment. They ruled in 1875 that the 2nd amendment was a prohibition on the government from infringing on that right. More specifically, that case also addressed individuals having that right infringed.
One of the reasons you may not see many cases regarding the 2nd amendment related to individuals is that gun control is a fairly modern mechanism designed to completely disarm the population. The law over turned in Heller wasn't passed until 1976. Can you point to another, earlier law that completely banned the ownership of handguns in the home that was challenged in court?
Re:To be fair... by tranquilidad · 2016-10-08 15:37 · Score: 1

Bullshit, if you study English history and the Militia Act of 1661 you will start to understand why it's written the way it is.
Anybody claiming the nobody talked that way would fail in history class. You can improve your knowledge of history by reading this paper at constitution.org.
Re:To be fair... by ScentCone · 2016-10-08 16:55 · Score: 1

Fair enough - typed the whole thing in a hurry and without editing, not my preferred method. Yes, the states have powers that aren't specifically set aside for the feds. One of the reasons we really, really need to pay attention to the upcoming election's likely fallout in SCOTUS nominations is that things like states' rights are in a terrible state (pardon the pun). Things like abuse of the Commerce Clause, or Hillary Clinton's promise to pursue making manufacturers liable when criminals use their products ... there are real things at stake here, and it ain't the personalities of the candidates. The SCOTUS is the single most important thing, period. We know the list from which Trump will name members, and we know the types of people Clinton praises for those seats. That topic is a show-stopper for anybody familiar with history and the constitution.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:To be fair... by Cyberax · 2016-10-08 18:38 · Score: 1

Then how about mandatory draft and military training? Why do you want to fondle your guns but don't want to become a part of "well regulated militia"? Remember, some of them even advocated government distribution of standardized weapons.
Re: To be fair... by ScentCone · 2016-10-09 05:26 · Score: 1

Wait, wait, you're pretending that that Amendment is in plainly written English? Fuck no it isn't. Not even for the time. And it doesn't even begin to cover the necessary sentiments. It is ultimately inadequate.
How are you even keeping up with these threads if you can't read plain English? The amendment reads: "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." Let's try to figure out which words, clauses, punctuation, and whatnot you are unable to follow.

"being necessary to the security of a free State" is a clarifying, supporting clause that makes it clear the framers understand the reason that a standing military/militia is necessary (to protect freedom - as always, the emphasis of the Bill of Rights is on individual liberty and restraint of the government). Are you having any trouble seeing how that clause modifies/clarifies the leading clause? No? Good.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Means, just like the first clause and its modifier, exactly what it says. There are no games, no strange considerations for you to misinterpret. As used throughout the Constitution, "the people" refers to each of us - you and me, citizens. Individuals. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That is the most important part, because it says what the government may not do to the people, just like the First Amendment says what the government may not do to the people. The first half of the amendment is there to provide what the framers considered a pre-emptive rebuttal against people who would seek to get around their prohibition against government infringement by claiming that the later establishment of a standing military would somehow negate it.

As for the rest of your rambling, vitriolic ad hominem rant, there's really no point replying to it.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re: To be fair... by ScentCone · 2016-10-09 07:23 · Score: 1

Have you considered talking to a professional about your inability to communicate in a rational, calm manner?

Regardless, if you think the specific list of jurists that Trump has already published is LESS oriented around preservation of the constitution than the sort of people that Hillary Clinton supports for those jobs, then you're simply delusional.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:To be fair... by j-beda · 2016-10-09 07:56 · Score: 1

Thanks ScentCone for the info - I have learned much.

Why did the Tennessee Supreme Court put state in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.” Was that court completely at odds with the understanding in the rest of the country? Was that statement widely criticized at the time?
You're examining their ruling out of context. That ruling didn't address collective vs. individual rights, it was limited to whether or not the prohibited concealed carrying of a Bowie knife by Aymette, who occasionally flashed it for show as he stomped around town looking for a man with whom he'd been arguing. He was convicted for carrying the (then, in Tennessee) illegal knife, and he attempted to get out of that by citing the Second Amendment's somewhat altered junior partner in the Tennessee constitution. The Supreme Court, which SHOULD have used the occasion to reinforce the Second Amendment's primacy in such matters, did as it often does, and ruled narrowly on the matter of whether or not Tennessee's protection of white men keeping and bearing arms did, or did not apply to concealed Bowie knives.
I note that you clipped the actually langue of the court which I put back in above - I don't think you really responded to my questions. While the context of the court's words is interesting, knowing that context does not seem to change the reason I brought it up. The context is important to understand the court's final ruling, sure, but what i am most interested in is that the 1840 language about "bearing arms" seems to clearly make the distinction between using a firearm for hunting ("it would never be said of him that he had borne arms") and in bearing arms as protected by the consistution. Did many (most?) people in the 1840s have this same type of understanding (or is this a "misunderstanding"? If the majority of people think it means one thing, is that the "correct" meaning? If the majority of jurists think one thing, but the majority of the public think the other - which majority is more "important"?)
Re: To be fair... by ScentCone · 2016-10-09 13:30 · Score: 1

So let's figure out a real problem, why you can't admit it is a poorly written choice of expression?
Your strange obsession with pretending you don't understand that the standard use of English was a wee bit different two centuries ago ... what's the problem, exactly? How am I being a "coward" by stopping to give you a remedial explanation on how to parse a sentence that you're saying you think is too tricky for you to understand?

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re: To be fair... by ScentCone · 2016-10-10 02:04 · Score: 1

Wow, you've really got your panties in a twist, don't you? I'm not "defending" anything. I'm explaining what simple words mean, as clearly expressed by the people who wrote them - and in case your agenda makes you feel that you have to pretend that's not the case so you can rant about other things, I also discussed the context in which those words were formed.

We're not in the middle of a constitutional convention where we need to draft new language for a new amendment ... so your strange fetish for scolding me about how I'm not complaining or stamping my feet about how un-liberty-minded the Second Amendment is ... really can't be anything other than a reflection of some misapprehension on your part about reality (to say nothing about totally missing the context of the actual conversation).

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:To be fair... by shutdown+-p+now · 2016-10-10 13:17 · Score: 1

They didn't say much before then, because there were no cases that hinged on the interpretation of the Second where it mattered.
One case that I can think of that was related was US v. Miller (1939). In that case, SCOTUS ruled that a sawed-off shotgun was not legal, because it was not a standard military weapon, and thus was not "particularly suitable for use by militia". Because the weapon itself was found to be out of the scope of the amendment, they didn't have to decide whether the right was collective or individual.
Another was Printz v. United States (1997), which ruled parts of the Brady law unconstitutional. But that actually had very little to do with guns, and mostly about whether the federal government could enact a law that forced state and local LEO agencies to enforce some federal provisions (SCOTUS ruled that it couldn't).
As far as divining the precise meaning of the Amendment itself, and the intent of those who authored it, it's instructive to take a look at state constitutions. Many of them include RKBA provisions, and those that were enacted later than the original Bill of Rights are clearly influenced by it, but often use more explicit language to clearly define the right as individual. Some examples:
"That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." (Kentucky, 1792)
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" (Indiana, 1816)
"That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." (Alabama, 1819)
"Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned." (Maine, 1819)
"Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." (Connecticut, 1818)
"Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic" (Texas, 1836)
"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons." (Colorado, 1876)
"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired" (Washington, 1889)
I think that given all these, there's a clear trend here towards interpreting RKBA as an individual right with self-defense as explicitly valid application. It would be rather surprising if the federal constitution would diverge radically on that.
Re:To be fair... by shutdown+-p+now · 2016-10-10 13:19 · Score: 1

The framers didn't have a problem with privately owned warships, complete with naval artillery; why do you think they would treat handguns differently?
Re:To be fair... by Nikkos · 2016-10-13 00:06 · Score: 1

If you think all these words are confusing, you should really stop.
regulated - this one I'll admit is confusing from modern times. It meant self-organizing. Back in the day a town or village, if there were a need(war), the people would grab their guns and supplies, self-organize, and choose their captains/leaders before reporting for duty. A perfect example of this is Abraham Lincoln, who was elected captain of his first volunteer company that was organized to fight Black Hawk. He was elected by popular vote with no military experience. The company then reported for duty and swore allegiance.
Militia - means the same thing it always has, the media has just turned it into a negative
security - means the same thing, self-protection.
State - means the same thing, self-organized independent grouping of people. See 'nation-state' or 'city-state'
people - means the same thing it always has, the general population.
"bear arms" - again, same thing, the ability to own and use weapons
infringed - unbelivable that his confuses you - means restricted and/or removed.

Re:Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by SumDog · 2016-10-08 03:47 · Score: 1

You can photograph anyone or anything in public. All that bluring of number places is done by tv producers and google maps engineers as more of a general liability protection. It does get into murky waters when law enforcement does it. But if I setup a camera and wrote some software to capture plate numbers and I was doing so from a public road, that is totally legal. I could then sell that info to law enforcement.

Follow the link and consider the source by Baloo+Uriza · 2016-10-08 03:53 · Score: 1, Insightful

Everything Fox News says is a lie. Even true things, once said on Fox News, become lies.

--
Furries make the internet go.

Ghostplate by schwit1 · 2016-10-08 04:01 · Score: 1

http://www.ghostplate.com/mech...

The Road Warrior cover consists of a PDLC membrane. When power is applied, the PDLC membrane switches to a completely transparent state and remains so until the current is suspended.

Denouncing Surveilance by mi · 2016-10-08 04:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement

Even if technically true — the best kind of correct — the same folks, who usually denounce any and all "unwarranted surveillance", are surprisingly silent about this one. Silent or even approving, thus exposing themselves as hypocrites.

But I doubt, this is even technically true — though this monitoring does not, as you say, directly violate the Second Amendment, that's not the accusation. All other objectionable surveillance and recording is usually denounced on the Fourth Amendment grounds — like NSA's snooping of your e-mails or phone-records, it, likely, constitutes an unreasonable search.

Moreover, the very "crime", that this effort was supposed to catch/prevent — transport of the legally purchased guns across the state-lines into areas, where they are illegal — should not be a crime to begin with (unlike the terrorism NSA is after). Any State-laws banning certain kinds of weapons are themselves in violation of the Bill of Rights and ought to be protested and denounced at any opportunity far more noisily than the marijuana prohibition or "gay marriage" inequality.

The purchase and sale of firearms are not protected. What is, is the right to have firearms.

Distinction without difference. You can not have a weapon without buying it first. 3D-printed guns my tail — many States ban even swords and brass-knuckles, hand-made or purchased! Were we to apply this standard to the First Amendment, for example, we'd say, you have the right to speak (to yourself in the shower), but not giving a speech, nor to sell or buy a book or a magazine.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.

Re:Denouncing Surveilance by thinkwaitfast · 2016-10-08 04:26 · Score: 1

I know a few hypocrites who take that label with pride.
Re:Denouncing Surveilance by blackest_k · 2016-10-08 05:11 · Score: 1

American Law and constitution doesn't apply to Mexico the border that was being crossed.
I've seen enough border patrol shows to see that some Americans struggle with that concept entering Canada.

--
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Re:Denouncing Surveilance by Nikkos · 2016-10-08 05:18 · Score: 1

You can not have a weapon without buying it first.
Not correct. You can make any standard firearm at home - rifle, handgun, shotgun, completely legally. You don't need a license unless you start selling/transferring, or if you're making full-auto/destructive device weapons.
And for that matter, states often don't ban the outright ownership of the swords,brass knuckles, etc. Instead the public possession of them is outlawed. In Minnesota, I can own an auto-knife/switchblade.sword. But I can't carry it in public.
Re:Denouncing Surveilance by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2016-10-08 05:31 · Score: 1

But I doubt, this is even technically true — though this monitoring does not, as you say, directly violate the Second Amendment, that's not the accusation. All other objectionable surveillance and recording is usually denounced on the Fourth Amendment grounds — like NSA's snooping of your e-mails or phone-records, it, likely, constitutes an unreasonable search.
Actually, the fourth protects against unreasonable search and seizure, so absent a seizure as in the case of the NSA collecting records, scanning license plates may not violate the fourth. At any rate, the police observing and collecting information in plain view in public would not, IMHO, be unreasonable since you have no expectation of privacy in public.

Moreover, the very "crime", that this effort was supposed to catch/prevent — transport of the legally purchased guns across the state-lines into areas, where they are illegal — should not be a crime to begin with (unlike the terrorism NSA is after). Any State-laws banning certain kinds of weapons are themselves in violation of the Bill of Rights and ought to be protested and denounced at any opportunity far more noisily than the marijuana prohibition or "gay marriage" inequality.
The question is not can certain weapons be banned, but where to draw the line.

--
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Re:Denouncing Surveilance by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-08 06:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Umm the police were monitoring the MEXICAN BORDER and associating that with gun show visits. So please argue that selling guns to Mexican drug gangs should be legal and is somehow protected by our constitution. This is not in any way mass surveillance. It is investigating specific behavior relating to a specific crime. We know US weapons are making their way across the border. This is the police looking at an obvious route. This information is also hard to abuse because as you will likely agree the act of going to a gun show is legal and would be hard to abuse by blackmailing any photographed person at a later time. Contrast this with actual mass surveillance which is directed at no particular crime, collects general activities by numerous people so is likely to capture legal yet compromising behavior and can establish social groups and associations we should be able to keep private such as girlfriends, political meetings, business meetings and such. No real similarity between the gun show photos and actual mass surveillance really. Just a bunch of gun show loons getting excited. Any police corruption would likely be limited to police getting favors from weapon vendors because the predictable reaction of the loons is to buy more guns and ammo when they get baited by this type of news.
Re:Denouncing Surveilance by fahrbot-bot · 2016-10-08 06:19 · Score: 1

it, likely, constitutes an unreasonable search.

Doubt it. Observation of activities in a public space is not "search". As to"unreasonable" I'd wonder more about the use of tax dollars than anything else - unless LEOs have knowledge of a possible threat.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Re: Denouncing Surveilance by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-08 06:56 · Score: 1

Yep, the second you agree nuclear weapons should not be in the hands of known ISIS agents, you agree that the second amendment has limits.
Re:Denouncing Surveilance by HornWumpus · 2016-10-08 06:57 · Score: 2

Not quite true. A zip gun is not a legal gun unless it has a trigger. If you have to hit the end of the nail with a handheld hammer it is illegal. Pinball plunger is similarly not a legal gun ('other gun' in ATF weasel speak).
Also local 'no questions asked' gun buy backs are limited to county residents and have a 3 gun limit (so 'some questions'). 'Profit' is tough to pull off in a worthwhile way, still a $300 dollar stop isn't bad, hit all six locations it's an $1800 day for a $25 piece of black pipe/$25 in caps (careful the parts list makes it look like you're making pipe bombs) and a few hours work
It's still worth it just to bleed the gun buyback programs though. Gotta find a cheap and easy trigger group.
If they removed the county residency requirements you could make a living at it, in many all you need is a utility bill. But faking that makes it fraud, so 'danger Will Robinson'. Perhaps I should creative commons a 'business plan', just as a service. There are others less risk averse that might be all over this.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Denouncing Surveilance by mi · 2016-10-08 08:00 · Score: 1

But I can't carry it in public.
Yep — as I said, that prohibition is in direct violation of the Second Amendment. Emphasis mine:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:Denouncing Surveilance by mi · 2016-10-08 08:08 · Score: 2

Actually, the fourth protects against unreasonable search and seizure
Unreasonable search is unconstitutional by itself — nothing needs to be seized to violate the Constitution.

absent a seizure as in the case of the NSA collecting records
NSA has never seized anything either.

The question is not can certain weapons be banned, but where to draw the line.
Wherever you choose to draw it, any such line will be unconstitutional — unless a new Amendment is passed to clarify the Second.
But, as I pointed out preemptively, the scale/dangerousness of a weapon is a red herring to this debate, because many locales ban not only tanks, bombers, battleships, and nukes, but brass knuckles and swords too.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:Denouncing Surveilance by sudon't · 2016-10-08 08:43 · Score: 1

Speaking as a leftist and a liberal, there is much hypocrisy on the left, particularly on the gun issue, but also on many others. After all, the last thing many so-called liberals want are liberal gun laws. The urge to ban and prohibit is essentially a conservative urge, and antithetical to liberalism. And indeed, gun rights had been a liberal cause since the first gun laws were passed, right after the American Civil War. Now we live in a kind of Reverse-World, where conservatives champion the expansion of rights, and liberals want to curtail liberties, but only for their respective pet causes.
For a number of years now, we've see many so-called liberals calling for bans and restrictions, or advocating the use of taxation as a form of coercion, when it comes to the particular items they don't approve of - everything from soda pop, to tobacco, to guns. And, of course, many liberal lawmakers have been at the forefront of the drug war. Incidentally, the first anti-marijuana laws in the US used taxation in an attempt to make marijuana prohibitively expensive, (because an outright ban would be unconstitutional).

--
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
Re:Denouncing Surveilance by spire3661 · 2016-10-08 10:11 · Score: 1

"At any rate, the police observing and collecting information in plain view in public would not, IMHO, be unreasonable since you have no expectation of privacy in public."

This line of thinking ends where everyone is tracked everywhere, at all times. You need to stop with the blanket 'if its in public, its fair game' that applies to the public, it does not necessarily apply to police at all times everywhere.. Police need actual CAUSE to cast their gaze in this manner, not just fishing. Its one thing to send a patrolman to write down plate numbers, its another to completely automate the process to the point it costs almost no man power.

--
Good-bye
Re:Denouncing Surveilance by Ichijo · 2016-10-08 11:03 · Score: 1

like NSA's snooping of your e-mails or phone-records, it, likely, constitutes an unreasonable search.

If it should be illegal for the police to take photographs of license plates in public, should it also be illegal for citizens to take photos of public infrastructure in public?

--
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Re:Denouncing Surveilance by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2016-10-08 12:49 · Score: 1

absent a seizure as in the case of the NSA collecting records
NSA has never seized anything either.
They collected records, which could be considered a seizure.

--
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Re:Denouncing Surveilance by Charcharodon · 2016-10-08 13:10 · Score: 1

The bans on swords and other weapons are being taken up by a group called "Knife Rights". The hired a bunch of NRA tallent and have been systematically taking down 1-3 State bans on various edge tools/weapons every year or two. So far their only "losses" have been State premptively relaxing standards to get KR to back off and not sue them. This is only delaying the inevitable as Knife Rights will gladely take an easy win and save their resources for the more challenging targets. Once they finish with them they'll be back.
Re:Denouncing Surveilance by mi · 2016-10-08 15:29 · Score: 1

NSA has never seized anything either.
They collected records, which could be considered a seizure.
Not by anyone with a regular English dictionary.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:Denouncing Surveilance by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2016-10-09 01:28 · Score: 1

NSA has never seized anything either.
They collected records, which could be considered a seizure.
Not by anyone with a regular English dictionary.
I see, so if a police officer saw your iPhone on the table in a public park, copied all the data and left it you would not consider that a seizure since no force was involved? Interesting way to let the NSA off the hook.

--
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Re:Denouncing Surveilance by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2016-10-09 01:34 · Score: 1

Actually, the fourth protects against unreasonable search and seizure
Unreasonable search is unconstitutional by itself — nothing needs to be seized to violate the Constitution.
That's an interesting constitutional questions - do the words matter or are they open to interpretation over time. Courts have ignored the "and" for some time, just as cruel and unusual seems to have become cruel or unusual. It seems you agree that the interpretation should change with time, base on your comment. I tend to agree as well, since that allows common sense gun restrictions to be put in place, and would restore the rights of local governments to decide their own restrictions.

--
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Re:Denouncing Surveilance by mi · 2016-10-09 12:01 · Score: 1

Courts have ignored the "and" for some time
No, they haven't. It just does not mean, what you'd like to claim the Founders wanted it to mean. Unwarranted searches are illegal and unwarranted seizures are illegal — that's my reading of the law and its original intent from day one.
And I can prove it too in this case. Suppose, it were legal for the police to search any house without warrants — as long as they haven't seized anything. Then, upon finding evidence of crime, they'd be able to go to a magistrate and — in full honesty and good faith — describe, what they found and obtain a warrant to go back and seize it...
Thus, the stipulation was wrong and searches really are illegal, whether anything is seized or not.

It seems you agree that the interpretation should change with time, base on your comment.
No, I rather dislike the idea of changing the laws by changing the language.

I tend to agree as well, since that allows common sense gun restrictions to be put in place
If the restrictions really were "common sense", you would've had no problems passing a new Amendment to alter/qualify the Second.

restore the rights of local governments to decide their own restrictions
Do you really wish for the local laws to trump the Bill of Rights? Go ahead, state so for the record here...

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:Denouncing Surveilance by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2016-10-10 00:21 · Score: 1

It seems you agree that the interpretation should change with time, base on your comment.
No, I rather dislike the idea of changing the laws by changing the language.

I tend to agree as well, since that allows common sense gun restrictions to be put in place
If the restrictions really were "common sense", you would've had no problems passing a new Amendment to alter/qualify the Second.

restore the rights of local governments to decide their own restrictions
Do you really wish for the local laws to trump the Bill of Rights? Go ahead, state so for the record here...
It's clear that the framers did not intend the 2cd to be a blanket right to own any weapon; even during the earliest days of our country localities controlled weapon ownership with various laws; so it's pretty clear what the intent was. I'd like to see that right returned to local citizens with respect to the 2cd.

--
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Re:Denouncing Surveilance by mi · 2016-10-10 02:20 · Score: 1

It's clear that the framers did not intend the 2cd [sic] to be a blanket right to own any weapon
It is not. Not to me.

even during the earliest days of our country localities controlled weapon ownership with various laws
Warrantless searches were also wide spread, as were the free speech violations.

so it's pretty clear what the intent was
It is, indeed, clear, yes. Only it is not, what you claim it to be. At any rate, the intent only needs to be examined, if the law itself is vague and unclear. Which the 2nd Amendment is not — citizens are to keep and bear arms, or else you will not be able to assemble a militia when the need arises.

I'd like to see that right returned to local citizens with respect to the 2cd [sic].
Go on, start working on the new Amendment. Sneaking in local laws on the subject remains unconstitutional until you do.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:Denouncing Surveilance by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2016-10-10 03:35 · Score: 1

so it's pretty clear what the intent was
It is, indeed, clear, yes. Only it is not, what you claim it to be. At any rate, the intent only needs to be examined, if the law itself is vague and unclear. Which the 2nd Amendment is not — citizens are to keep and bear arms, or else you will not be able to assemble a militia when the need arises.
Except we have a militia already, under the control of district, states and territories control; it's the National Guard. At a Federal level we have the Individual Ready Reserve as well to augment Regular and SELRES forces. At some point, SCOTUS should recognize the well regulated militia part of the second as allowing broader Federal and State regulation of arms than is currently permitted. There is no need to change the second, only its interpretation.

--
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Re:Denouncing Surveilance by mi · 2016-10-10 04:13 · Score: 1

Except we have a militia already, under the control of district, states and territories control; it's the National Guard
This proves nothing about the original intent of the Second Amendment.

At some point, SCOTUS should recognize the well regulated militia part of the second as allowing broader Federal and State regulation of arms than is currently permitted
No, at some point we need a Constitutional Amendment to clarify the Second. SCOTUS interprets the existing law, they aren't supposed to write it — even if they've done that in the past (such as a right to an abortion).
At any rate, all of this has little to do with unwarranted searches such as the surveillance described in TFA, so I'm unlikely to continue this thread.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:Denouncing Surveilance by Coren22 · 2016-10-17 09:54 · Score: 1

Are you sure about that?
In the revolutionary war, many of the cannon and most of the rifles were privately owned. The military of the day actually had worse guns than the militias.
The intent according to the most recent second amendment case that came before the supreme court was that private citizens should not be restricted from owning any arm used by the military. I am not sure how they made the jump from that to that it was ok to restrict automatic firearms and short barreled shotguns, but that was the way it was put in the majority decision.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Re:Gun smuggling? by Mashiki · 2016-10-08 04:04 · Score: 3, Informative

US law enforcement should work for US interests.

Well they do, the problem is that the current government doesn't work for US interests. This is where I'll remind you that the Obama administration was running guns to Mexico, and them ending back up in the US in the hands of criminals or cartel members illegally in the US.

--
Om, nomnomnom...

Re:Wouldn't it be easier and better... by Brymouse · 2016-10-08 04:04 · Score: 1

95% of all vendors at "gun shows" which sell guns are FFL (federal firearms licensee, legal gun dealers). Any gun sold/transfer from an FFL to a regular person (non-FFL) must have a background check and 4473 form completed. The vast majority of people attending gun shows and buying guns thus are subject to background checks.

Now there are the simple collectors of guns which show up and sell from their collection on occasion, or the guys walking around with a gun strapped to their back and a "for sale" sign in the barrel which don't need a background check, but they have become few and far between. Websites like guntrader have become like a craigslist for people who want to sell their guns face to face.

Every time I've bought a gun Face to Face I've done a bill of sale for the gun, and showed my CWP or drivers license. (it's not legal to sell hand-guns to out of state residents with out shipping it to a FFL in their state)

This "gun show loophole" is in reality a hollow argument. If a rational person actually researches the laws, you find out how hard it is to buy a gun with out a background check.

Argument from fear by Okian+Warrior · 2016-10-08 04:07 · Score: 1

... of all the "constitutionally protected" activities which may be subject to surevillance, many people outside the USA would consider that there might just be an argument for paying some passing attention to the collection of lethal weapons by people so obsessed by them that they go to shows to drool over them and defend their right to own them on the basis that they might need them to overthrow the government at some point.

That's an argument from fear, you're basically saying that we should take peoples' rights away because something *might* happen.

It's prudent to look ahead in time to try to predict dangers and other bad situations, but you also need to keep track of the probabilities.

Your argument conflates the *possibility* of future problems with their *likelihood*.

That's fine, it's a valid argument to make, but we have limited resources and a variety of future dangers. There are many, many more likely dangers to which we could give more than "passing" attention, which would improve the American quality of life and general lifespan.

Shouldn't we attend to the big dangers first?

Re:Argument from fear by amiga3D · 2016-10-08 04:28 · Score: 2

You fail to recognize the real problem. Gun ownership isn't a big problem for the government at this point in time. Considering that we're now running somewhere in the neighborhood of 19 trillion in debt and accelerating the train towards it's inevitable derailment. In the future it will eventually come to the point where the government will not be able to pay the interest on the debt that it is amassing and refuses to deal with. When the day comes that they can no longer write those checks they dispense so freely today there will be drastic consequences. In the days of the Great Depression this was a radically different country with faith in God and a solid family structure to fall back on and survive the lean hard times. Those two institutions are largely gone today and a breakdown in society may be inevitable. This in a country armed to the teeth with weapons and ammo and almost a love affair with violence. It's not hard to see where that goes. I'm keeping my guns because I figure I'm going to need them. I foresee a major effort by the next Clinton administration to do something about all that weaponry and since with a Republican Congress it'll be difficult she'll use her SCOTUS appointments, most likely 3 of them, to legislate by the bench. They're not smart enough to figure out that millions, and I mean many millions, of Americans will not surrender their weapons. It'd take an army of brown shirts kicking in doors all across the nation with immense bloodshed to disarm this country. And that's against mostly hard working otherwise honest citizens. Then there's the criminal element that don't give a shit about any laws whatsoever. This isn't Australia and I don't think they get that. It's almost an American principle to distrust the government.
Re:Argument from fear by SNRatio · 2016-10-08 11:33 · Score: 1

It's prudent to look ahead in time to try to predict dangers and other bad situations, but you also need to keep track of the probabilities.
OT, but that's pretty much my response to people who say they are buying a handgun for self defense when, after considering demographics, the odds of someone in their household using the handgun to commit suicide or spousal homicide are higher than the odds of their being shot by someone outside the home.

Shouldn't we attend to the big dangers first?
Absolutely. For the vast majority of readers of this website, attending to the big dangers first pretty means getting all of your cardiovascular risk factors under control before spending dollar one on a gun for self defense.
Re: Argument from fear by amiga3D · 2016-10-08 16:42 · Score: 1

You know, I'd never actually looked at the stats but you are right that the US has more murders per capita than Australia. Just under 4 per 100,000 population versus 1 for Australia according to the UN. Mexico however is running close to 16 per 100,000 and Brazil nearly 25 per 100,000. I did notice however that nearly 1 in every 6 women in Australia experiences rape. I find that to be astonishingly high for such a highly functional and free democracy. Of course we know here that when you go to grab a woman you need to be sure she's not packing any heat. My wife totes a Lady Smith .38 Special. We're a young country so maybe one day we'll get around to disarming our women so they're easier to rape like they are down under.
Re: Argument from fear by amiga3D · 2016-10-09 06:59 · Score: 1

Wrongo buddy. The rape stats I quoted originally were from an Australian newspaper. Here are the ones from the UN.
In Australia the reported rape rate per 100,000 people is relatively high, although it is in a decreasing trend, coming down from 91.6 in the year 2003 [26] to 28.6 in 2010.[27]
28.6 per 100,000 in United States
Strangely, it's a tie. I did notice they include rape in prison which is very high in the US which has a huge prison population. They are sad numbers regardless. I was raised in an era when men were taught to respect women but it appears now that not only do many men not do so many women fail to respect themselves. When I was young we all had guns but no one ever took one to school. The people have changed and not so much for the better.
Re: Argument from fear by amiga3D · 2016-10-09 15:35 · Score: 1

I'm not conflating anything, that's the UN. If you take the man rape out of the equation it's only going to lower the rape stats overall. A lot of the problem is that most countries count rape differently. I read where in some countries if a man has sex with a woman without using a condom and the woman complains about it later they consider it rape. I can't figure that but for sure it makes things difficult when you're keeping stats. I can't seem to catch solid numbers for forcible rape. The kind of rape where a guy catches a girl in a parking lot and drags her off and rapes her. They count that the same as if a girl gets naked fooling around in a car on lovers lane and then once the action gets a little too hot changes her mind. On the one hand it's still wrong but on the other hand that guy probably would never dream of raping a girl but got in a situation where his hormones overloaded his good sense. One's a threat to all women and the other only to ones who get naked with him. I don't know, stats for rape are confusing. Prison rape, date rape, forcible rape, rape where the woman decided a week later she was raped. How to rate that may be impossible.

Re:Wouldn't it be easier and better... by AmiMoJo · 2016-10-08 04:19 · Score: 1

Thanks for explaining that. As you may have guessed I don't live in the US. So basically this stuff about checking for gun smuggling could be done via the 4473 form and border crossing data?

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Re:Wouldn't it be easier and better... by Karl+Cocknozzle · 2016-10-08 04:23 · Score: 1

Most sales at gun shows do require a background check... There is a loophole to avoid them, and that is if you buy from a "private seller," that is, someone who isn't a licensed dealer. In that scenario, if they sell you a gun they legally own they are under no obligation to do any kind of background check and incur no liability if you turn out to be a madman intent on harm.

Originally, private sales were exempted from background checks because they were impractical, but I agree with the notion that sales at shows--whether between two individuals or between dealers and individuals--should always require a check. Maybe a better way to phrase it is "Sales between people that don't know each other should be considered commercial sales by default and require a background check," but I have no earthly idea how you'd write a law that passes constitutional muster and is also practically enforceable, so I think the only real option is to require a background check for all sales, whether they're "private" or not.

--
Who did what now?

Re:Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by PeeAitchPee · 2016-10-08 04:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

And yet, when conducting the same level of automated surveillance in an aerial fashion over an urban area with an insane, war zone-like crime rate, self-styled privacy advocates shit the bed (just read the comments on the Slashdot story a few down from this one). Sadly, what's an acceptable level of surveillance seems to depend on who is being surveilled and upon which side of the fence you sit politically.

Re:Wouldn't it be easier and better... by amiga3D · 2016-10-08 04:29 · Score: 2

As far as I know the number one gun smuggler is the Justice Department.

Anonymous assembly by Okian+Warrior · 2016-10-08 04:29 · Score: 1

That's an argument from fear, you're basically saying that we should take peoples' rights away because something *might* happen.

What right is being taken away here? To not be observed in public is NOT a right. There is no right to not be under surveillance in public that I can find in any Constitution. Do you wish to initiate that right?

The right to assemble anonymously.

Look it up, Supreme court has recorded opinions on this, and Google is your friend.

Re:Anonymous assembly by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2016-10-08 05:31 · Score: 1

There you go again. Using facts and reasoning to back up your argument. These guys hate that.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.

Would it be OK by thinkwaitfast · 2016-10-08 04:30 · Score: 1

to set up License Plate-Scanning Tech in front of marijuana shops in states where it is legal?

Re:Would it be OK by legojenn · 2016-10-08 05:26 · Score: 1

Maybe people should take their licence plate off their cars and toss them in the trunk when they go to places where licence plate readers are being used. It's ridiculous and impractical to have to even consider protecting privacy participating in a legal activity on private property.

--
I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
Re: Would it be OK by DaHat · 2016-10-08 06:13 · Score: 1

Drug smugglers & cartels may not kill with it, but they will kill for it.

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Re: Would it be OK by Kohath · 2016-10-08 06:23 · Score: 1

The government used it to cause Andrew Sadek to be killed.
Re: Would it be OK by bheerssen · 2016-10-08 06:25 · Score: 1

Certainly. You could drop half a ton of the stuff on someone, for example.

--
(Score: -1, Stupid)
Re:Would it be OK by thinkwaitfast · 2016-10-08 06:25 · Score: 1

Duct tape would be a lot easier. It's what I use on my webcam.

Re:Wouldn't it be easier and better... by amiga3D · 2016-10-08 04:33 · Score: 1

Anyone performing illegal activity would have to be a moron to do it at a gun show. There are probably a dozen or more Federal Agents operating undercover at every gun show. If I was trying to buy guns to smuggle that would be the very last place I'd try it. Most of the people at gun shows are collectors or people just browsing.

Re:Wouldn't it be easier and better... by amiga3D · 2016-10-08 04:34 · Score: 1

You know, you don't have to have a reason to own a weapon. It's still okay.

Re: Wouldn't it be easier and better... by TheMeuge · 2016-10-08 04:36 · Score: 1

Somehow none of the antigunners have managed to find and publicize this loophole despite years of trying. If a single leftist reporter hasn't found it, don't you think it's time to relegate it to the status of a myth... like "more guns more crime"?

Re:This government needs *MOAH POWA!!!!!" by amiga3D · 2016-10-08 04:40 · Score: 1

We must pay more taxes so the Jihadists in Iran can get more money to use to fund terrorism against us. It's insane. We pay tax money to fund both sides in the war on ISIS. We funnel money to ISIS through Iran then we use more money to blow up the ISIS army we're funding. It's.....Orwellian.

Re:Gun smuggling? by ravenshrike · 2016-10-08 04:50 · Score: 1

*cough*bullshit*cough* The stated purpose of the program was to track the guns however no attempt was made to do so. Moreover, it was a shittier, greatly expanded version of a Bush program that was explicitly shut down because it didn't work. It's not like the Obama administration was releasing faulty mexican crime gun statistics at the same time this program was going on or anything.

Re: Gun smuggling? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-08 05:06 · Score: 1

Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are all legal.

Only if handled according to the law, they're all regulated. If done against the law, they are illegal.

The ATF should be eliminated as a redundant agency.

Talk to your congressional representation about reorganization of the Federal govt.

I'm sure they will give you the appropriate level of concern. Especially if you can justify a fact-finding mission to a vacation destination.

The desire to police every human activity by every method available is at least as evil as the desires that drive criminal behavior.

So existing in a range from utterly abhorrent to entirely noble? Oh wait, did you not realize you failed to define the desires that drive criminal behavior? Or did you not know I would be of the opinion that those desires encompassed the full spectrum of morality?

You may want to stop and rethink your style of communication, your approach is far less insightful than you may realize. I suppose you could be aware that you are making vapid and shallow comments, but I don't get the sense that you recognize the philosophical absurdity you propound.

Re:Gun smuggling? by Mashiki · 2016-10-08 05:07 · Score: 1

And Mashiki fails to note that they were doing so in order to track the process and thus improve their ability to make arrests.

You mean they were not tracking the process, ignoring informant information, and not doing any arrests. And according to the FOIA requests, the Obama administration went even further and blocked agents from actively perusing investigations against solid leads. Did not inform the Mexican government unlike the Bush administration did, illegally engaged in straw sale purchases, and in the end was so shitty that they "lost" thousands of weapons. Openly discussed and/or blocked ATF lab reports which showed that the weapons that the administration had approved for gunrunning were being used to commit crimes. Which came directly from Holder's office. And attempted to use "executive privilege" in order to block all information on it. Which of course is why it was such a big scandal...unless you watch the US news, in which case they simply brushed it off as nothing. Much like you did, and of course if all that had happened under a Republican president, you would be screaming from the rooftop right now.

But much like Yeland Lee(who was gunrunning as well FYI also a democrat), the only difference between the two is that no one in the Obama administration actually went to prison over it.

--
Om, nomnomnom...

Re:Wouldn't it be easier and better... by Koby77 · 2016-10-08 05:11 · Score: 1

An ID and background check is already required for the licensed dealers who sell at gun shows.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

If you buy a firearm from a licensed dealer at a gun show, the dealer still must process a background check of the purchaser.

Also 35% of attendees are LEO, not undercover by raymorris · 2016-10-08 05:24 · Score: 1

Aside from the ATF agents officially working the show, at least 35% of the attendees will be law enforcement of some type. Cops carry a gun (and often another backup gun) 24/7 and are required to have regular training, so they tend to be interested in the topic.

I used go own a gun forum for a certain brand of firearm. I'd say about 35%-40% of members were LEO. Wherever gun people gather at the range, the gun shop, the forum, a gun show, a training class - many of the people there are cops.

Re: Wouldn't it be easier and better... by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2016-10-08 05:45 · Score: 1

And I'd imagine by recording the license plates, it may help them track down individuals who are likely selling weapons without a license. If you have the same guy showing up at every gun show in a given area, and he doesn't have an FFL or doesn't work for and FFL, he either *really* loves gun shows or is an illegal dealer.

And if you record every car at several newspaper office, and find out the same car went to all of them, and the owner of that car didn't go to journalism school, you can conclude he really loves divulging national secrets, or is an illegal reporter.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.

Re:What's the problem, really? by DaHat · 2016-10-08 05:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

Gun shows are often exempt from requirements to conduct background checks on people who buy a gun.

False.

Gun shows are not exempt, nor are FFLs conducting business there (who are given an occasional OK to do business in a location other than their normal spot).

Private citizens who are not otherwise prohibited from buying/selling/owning a firearm are free to buy/sell in most locations. Parking lots, living rooms, gun shows. (Granted there may be state requirements as to the requirement of a background check for private transactions, and many transactions are prohibited when both persons are not in their state of residence (without a bg check)).

All that's needed is that you buy from a private individual (not a dealer).

Which again, is nothing unique to a gun show.

So if I had a history of being mentally unstable or had a criminal conviction and wanted to buy a gun anyway

Most reports of mental health issues are not enough to get added to a DB which a NICS check will pick up on and prevent the purchase.

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans

Re:Wouldn't it be easier and better... by DaHat · 2016-10-08 06:05 · Score: 1

Not without a lengthy delay at the border.

The ATF is prohibited from creating a searchable DB from 4473 data, so in order to know if you recently purchased, you'd have to ask a few FFLs to go through their bound books... or rely on a state based DB which may contain this info (some states collect data on all purchases, some on only certain kinds of arms, most simply don't exist).

In the event a firearm is turned up, you can ask the manufacturer to look it up, they will point you to the distributor and then the first gun store that sold it... beyond that tracking gets tricky without lengthy time looking at bound books of 4473's in a given area.

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans

Re:Wouldn't it be easier and better... by DaHat · 2016-10-08 06:11 · Score: 1

so I think the only real option is to require a background check for all sales, whether they're "private" or not.

Which becomes impractical automatically because how to you show a month, a year or a decade from now that the firearm you have was legally purchased? You either require the buyer keep their 'receipt' to prove it (god help you if you ever lose that piece of paper (which of course could never be counterfeited)) or you require some sort of database to be implemented which tracks all legal transactions after the start of the DB... which still doesn't account for the hundreds of millions of firearms already in circulation.

Again, how do you prove or disprove ownership a week or decade ago?

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans

Re:Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by PopeRatzo · 2016-10-08 06:19 · Score: 1, Insightful

Conceptually, our government was never designed to have so many government agents or taxes doing these activities on or against the citizens.

It also wasn't designed NOT to have big government and taxes.

This is what you get for turning the Founding Fathers into religious figures and the Constitution into religious text. We should have had at least half a dozen constitutional conventions since 1789.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

It's the surveillance, not the thing surveilled. by goodmanj · 2016-10-08 06:34 · Score: 1

If you're upset that plate scanners are being used for mass surveillance, that's fine. If you're upset that plate scanners are being used for mass surveillance of a legal activity you really care about, you're part of the problem.

Don't make me quote Martin Neimoller at ya.

Re:Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-08 06:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

Its a question of resource commitment. When surveillance was expensive, both in cost and manpower, law enforcement naturally had to limit their monitoring to only the big fish and the big crimes. Having a couple of cops on a stakeout is expensive. Having a police helicopter track a fugitive is very expensive. And so on.

What we are seeing now is that the cost of throwing up a few thousand cameras and drones is (relatively) cheap. The military hardware from the Iraq drawdown is also putting a lot of previously expensive toys in the hands of the local cops. And then to tie it all together, we have Homeland Security, the FBI, ATF, etc, etc. all putting their resources together to capture anything and everything. Suddenly there are no resource constraints, and no natural restrictions on privacy invasion. That's what's changed.

Citizens aren't being hypocritical for criticizing some forms of surveillance over others. They just haven't caught on to the systemic changes yet. The bigger picture hasn't developed fully. Once it does, people will start protesting in a more coordinated fashion.

Re: Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-08 06:51 · Score: 1

What the actual fuck? Are you an ELIZA chat bot? Or do you filter your posts through Google translate into Japanese and then back into English?

The Bill of Rights yields an undefined result by SeattleLawGuy · 2016-10-08 06:56 · Score: 1

Any State-laws banning certain kinds of weapons are themselves in violation of the Bill of Rights

State-laws banning certain kinds of weapons can be perfectly Constitutional, but if they try to ban other kinds of weapons they're arguably not.

First of all, the Bill of Rights was *designed* to prevent the federal government from intruding on the power of the states. It was not designed to prevent individual states from passing their own laws. The battles at Lexington and Concord were fought when the Redcoats moved to seize gunpowder stored by *the militia*, after all. The idea was some federal government sitting in Pennsylvania shouldn't be able to dictate to a random village in Massachusetts that it can't have guns. That doesn't mean that a local militia can't decide all the guns need to be stored in a central location in town, for example, or that crazy uncle Bob can't have his own cannon.

It has only been expanded to apply to the states (and protect you from things like unauthorized search and seizure) by Supreme Courts that had to decide over decades that "due process" meant respecting a series of rights that happened to mostly line up with ones mentioned in the Bill of Rights. They had to do that because state after state abused its power. You can argue it has gone too far, although truthfully it remains one of the most thoughtful, deliberative, and cautious part of the entire federal government.

But it's more than that. Assume the second amendment applies. It's still undefined. It's like you write a function that can take inputs in the range 1 through 9. Now somebody invents 10 (the handgun). Now they invent 100 (the machine gun). Now they invent 1000 (the tank). Now they invent 1,000,000 (the nuclear bomb). Now they invent 10,000,000 (the hydrogen bomb). Now they invent infinity (a genetics lab). They violate the assertions that were preconditions of running the program and calling BillofRights(). In this context, absolute claims that the Bill of Rights requires these things be treated the same way as numbers one through ten are absurd.

--
Real lawyers write in C++

Re:vote trump or lose your guns with just 911 by Tesen · 2016-10-08 06:58 · Score: 1

vote trump or lose your guns with just 911 to hopefully make it in time to save you

It is about time you people stop using the tired old rhetoric that some jackbooted individual is just going to turn up one day and take your guns away out of the blue due to no fault of your own. It ain't going to happen. There are enough of us progressive / liberal types that are gun owners (I own multiple) that believe in our 2nd amendment to keep our party in check.

Re:What's the problem, really? by unixcorn · 2016-10-08 07:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's not a loophole. You don't need a gun show for a private purchase, it's your right as an individual and you can do it anywhere. That said, most gun shows today are cognizant of the media frenzy over their labeled "loophole" so the promoters no longer allow tables to be rented to private collectors. That means most transaction on the floor of the show will go through an FFL and background check.
Certainly there may be folks walking through the show with a weapon for sale privately, but let's face it, it's not easy for a private individual to carry too many.
I would also like to comment that as Americans, it is our duty to make sure we don't sell to someone who has nefarious tendencies. As an FFL, I am happy to log and transfer a weapon for a private sale. It literally takes minutes for the background check. If I was a private seller, I would gladly pay the transfer fee to know there was a paper trail, for my own liability.

Re: Wouldn't it be easier and better... by HornWumpus · 2016-10-08 07:08 · Score: 1

Back on topic. CA is one of the states that requires all transfers to go through a dealer. There are NO anonymous gun sales at CA gun shows.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re: Conspiring to commit a crime by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-08 07:09 · Score: 1

This is why I donate to the ACLU and not the NRA - even as a firearm aficionado with a large collection.

Re:Wouldn't it be easier and better... by HornWumpus · 2016-10-08 07:12 · Score: 2

They have been caught with a searchable database of 4473 data multiple times, ordered to delete the database and data by federal judges. Then caught again with the database still containing data from earlier incidents (based on sale date). Nothing happens to anyone.

They likely got smart and have the Brits maintain the database for them now.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:Wouldn't it be easier and better... by DaHat · 2016-10-08 07:35 · Score: 1

Yup, though given the 4473's remain with the FFL, the ATF would need to spend a good bit of time 'inspecting' and scanning the bound books to build such a thing, regardless of where it is stored.

Easier to work with states which require reporting of all transactions.

--
Help Brendan pay off his student loans

Re:Gun smuggling? by ravenshrike · 2016-10-08 08:05 · Score: 1

BULLLSHIIIIIT!

The Bush era program, Operation Wide Receiver was a quarter the size in scope, made actual attempts to track the guns with tracking devices, and was shutdown explicitly because it failed miserably.

Just like 1960 by JimSadler · 2016-10-08 08:46 · Score: 4, Informative

In 1960 I noticed a KKK meeting going on in a field. I parked my car and went to watch the clown show. Men in trench coats were writing down car plate numbers as well as taking pictures of the cars and plates. Oddly for the FBI to be seen doing that is more discouraging to free speech and free association than doing it on the sly. Local folks might have chased the clowns out of the field if they were not frightened to park and get their plates recorded or maybe photos of their faces taken. Watching an event never implies that one approves of an event.

Re: Conspiring to commit a crime by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-08 09:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is why I donate to the ACLU and not the NRA - even as a firearm aficionado with a large collection.

But when it comes to defend the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the ACLU counts 1, 3, 4, 5,....

Which is why I'll never give them a fucking dime.

Re:Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by harvey+the+nerd · 2016-10-08 10:19 · Score: 1

They're not religious figures, some of us agree more with their logic than you.

Our failures have usually been failures to adhere to principle and earlier law. e.g the Civil War combined both sides' worst factions' legal abuses (expanding slavery's presence and reach, even with bounty hunters going North, and exorbitant tariffs really for private purposes). Also the funny money business has clearly been problematic.

Re:Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-08 10:45 · Score: 1

And yet, when conducting the same level of automated surveillance in an aerial fashion over an urban area with an insane, war zone-like crime rate, self-styled privacy advocates shit the bed (just read the comments on the Slashdot story a few down from this one). Sadly, what's an acceptable level of surveillance seems to depend on who is being surveilled and upon which side of the fence you sit politically.

By scanning plates at gun shows, they ARE surveilling the "urban crime" you mentioned, just further up the supply chain.

Re:Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by PopeRatzo · 2016-10-08 10:48 · Score: 1

They're not religious figures, some of us agree more with their logic than you.
Our failures have usually been failures to adhere to principle and earlier law

You can hardly blame anyone, since the Founding Fathers didn't adhere to their own "logic" and "principles".

This is why, if you're really going to have the consent of the governed, you've got to give those people a way to provide consent (ie: constitutional conventions). The world is very different today than in 1789.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by Jack9 · 2016-10-08 11:09 · Score: 1

> You can photograph anyone or anything in public

Ironically, copyright prohibits sale in a large number of cases. Did you catch a billboard in your photo? Whoops.

Relevant: http://www.wipo.int/export/sit...

--

Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.

Re:What's the problem, really? by golodh · 2016-10-08 11:15 · Score: 1

@DaHat

See e.g. here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and here: http://www.governing.com/gov-d...

Some states don't require background checks {see http://www.governing.com/gov-d...

It's clear that gun shows are venues that concentrate and facilitate non-dealer gun sales. Therefore (despite nitpicking that doesn't affect the essence of the issue) the net effect of gun shows really is to facilitate gun sales that bypass background checks. That alone makes them eligible for police scrutiny.

Therefore it's reasonable for e.g. the FBI to trace people who attend such shows.

I agree that there are mental health issues that won't cause a red flag in a NICS check. I believe this should be reviewed more carefully. It's not as if the existing oversights mean that it's the way things should be.

Re:Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-08 11:22 · Score: 1

No they're not. These types of guns won't be involved in the "urban crime" problems. These guns are involved in a completely different problem for the government: the citizen who values their freedom and would defend themselves from tyranny, should the time come.

Look at all the effort that goes into surveilling or smearing anyone or any group who would live off the grid, promote independence, defy unconstitutional acts of the government, or attract attention to the REAL problems in society, like the banking system, federal reserve, political corruption, cronyism, or the military industrial complex who want war for the sake of profit. Compare this to the pathetic efforts that go into resolving urban crime problems, which amounts to "well that didn't work, let's do more of the same".

Look how quickly they will infiltrate and tarnish the reputation of groups like Occupy or those ranchers, manipulating the appearance and the story so that the public sides with the government instead. Now contrast that with BLM or the protesters at Trump rallies. They do nothing about those, indicating their approval of the acts.

No, the government wants carte blanche to do whatever they want, and an armed populace is a hindrance to that. This is not about petty thugs.

Re:What's the problem, really? by golodh · 2016-10-08 11:33 · Score: 1

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

There are really excellent reasons to view this possibility to sell guns between citizens as a loophole.

Think of it this way: it's illegal so to sell prescription drugs (say Oxycontin) outside of licensed retail channels shops (chemists, apothecaries) especially if it's between private persons. Notwithstanding the fact that prescription drugs of course aren't illegal in and by themselves. Just like firearms.

As you say, the NICS is a simple process. Besides it's the absolute rock-bottom minimum safeguard against the unhinged and nefarious stocking up on guns. Can you think of any reason why it shouldn't be mandatory for gun sales between private citizens?

Unfortunately your assertion that "the media frenzy" of their loophole confirms my ideas about the refusal of of gun-show organisers to take responsibility. Only the threat of public denouncement seems to be influencing their stance. Not their sense of responsibility or their conscience.

If they were at all serious about the need to conduct background checks they would have welcomed a statutory obligation to have such checks in place.

Re: Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-08 12:18 · Score: 1

Yeah the 2nd amendment protects the government's right to have an army, just like the 1st protects the government's right to have a press.

Re:Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by Charcharodon · 2016-10-08 12:56 · Score: 1

The problem being is the same government protects the right to photograph anything in public also make it illegal to operate a vehicle on the road without a license plate as well as cover up your face in public. If you could do either the cameras wouldn't do them a whole lot a good.

Re:Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by fche · 2016-10-08 12:58 · Score: 1

we need license plate & facial recognition monitoring of abortion clinics too

Re:Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by Charcharodon · 2016-10-08 13:02 · Score: 1, Insightful

Never see that many black people at gun shows. The 3-4% of the population that are black males commit 55% of the homicides and 75% of the property and violent crime. Most of those people steal their weapons or get them from legal owners (friends/familiy members), they don't buy them at gun shows.

The plate scanners are hunting for the strawman purchasers, free types and as a general list of who is armed. A gun owner in 2016 is most likely a gun owner up until they die. A few years of scanning plates will give them a pretty detailed gun registry they've been drooling over for decades.

Re: Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by Charcharodon · 2016-10-08 13:05 · Score: 1

If by government you mean "State Government" yes. It is the right of the States (A free State) to have a militia and the armed citizen to man it.

The Federal government's military powers comes from else where in the Constitution.

Re:Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by AHuxley · 2016-10-08 14:01 · Score: 1

AC freedom of assembly, freedom of association is protected, even to enjoy yet another constitutionally protected activity.
Talking about plate readers and long term databases, reporting it is then freedom of the press and freedom of speech and after speech.
The US has so many really good protections against gov overreach and tyranny thanks to its past with direct rule.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"

Re:vote trump or lose your guns with just 911 by tranquilidad · 2016-10-08 15:46 · Score: 1

Already happened

Secretary Clinton thinks the Heller case was decided incorrectly and implied she would appoint justices to correct that mistake. The only question decided in Heller was whether the 2nd amendment protected the right to keep an operational handgun in the home for purposes of self-defense.

Re:This government needs *MOAH POWA!!!!!" by amiga3D · 2016-10-08 16:03 · Score: 1

There's no wrestling with it you dipshit. It just runs over you.

Re:Gun smuggling? by ravenshrike · 2016-10-08 16:25 · Score: 1

You might want to pull you head out of Obama's ass. I realize you like the taste of his prostate, but that's no excuse.

http://www.theblaze.com/storie...

Second, Wide Receiver, though flawed, was more of a gun-tracing operation than a gun-walking program. Gun-tracing involves putting specific safeguards in place to track firearms, such as RFID chips perhaps with video or aerial surveillance. Gun-walking is what happened in Fast and Furious, where ATF agents sold thousands of guns without a reliable way to recover them, apparently just hoping for the best.

Some of the guns from Wide Receiver were implanted with RFID chips and were actively tracked electronically. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in Phoenix also implemented aerial surveillance tactics in an attempt to follow the weapons.

However, problems reportedly arose due to poorly implanted RFID chips which were forced into the guns, bending the antennas and decreasing their effectiveness. Cartels and straw purchasers also eventually came up with creative ways to shake tracking maneuvers and overhead surveillance, such as driving in loops for hours until surveillance planes had to refuel.

Those in charge of Fast and Furious took no similar steps to strengthen their chances of recovering walked guns other than recording the serial numbers before watching them disappear in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

In fact, ATF agents involved in Fast and Furious have previously testified that they were ordered to stand down and not track the weapons even when interdiction was possible and instead “took notes” and let the guns walk across the Mexico border. Watch some of ATF whistleblower John Dodson’s Congressional testimony:

You are, however, correct that most of the guns were not recovered. Which is exactly why it was shut down. They tried something, it failed miserably, they stopped.

Re: Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-08 16:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

This country was founded after a revolutionary war that was started over aerious rights violations. Those rights violations, which are well documented, look minor in comparison to the ones going on today.

Unlike the colonists, we do have a method of changing that short of violence. We have not done so and our government seems hell bemt on making sure we don't. That is not going to end well.

Re: Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by Lenny369 · 2016-10-08 17:40 · Score: 1

Actually it was. Obviously you have never read the federalist papers.

Re: Gun smuggling? by Mashiki · 2016-10-08 19:22 · Score: 1

This is why you have no credibility. Stupid shit.

Says the AC who can't actually answer to any of the questions, but tries to deflect. Note that in your other "case" that people were prosecuted for it...oh of course not. Which is why you show yourself as an actual partisan hack.

--
Om, nomnomnom...

Congrats: 99.99% off-topic by cellocgw · 2016-10-09 00:39 · Score: 1

First of all: this is a story about surveillance, not about the 2nd amendment. Go whine about sidearm ownership somewhere else.

Second: Once again, somehow the concept of "arms" gets limited to rifles and pistols. Why do you all forget to bitch about not being allowed open-carry crossbows, or about not being allowed to set up a battery of TOW or FOG-M missile launchers in your back yard? Do you really think even your 37 semi-automatics (with the hack installed to make them fully automatic) are a match for one round from an M-1 tank?
"Defense against the government military" indeed.

--
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw

Re:Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by harvey+the+nerd · 2016-10-09 04:00 · Score: 1

The modern application of principle has never been more important, we can easily wind up with a permanent malange of dystopian elements from the modern classics' nightmares. Most of the younger readers here have grown up in an indoctrinated society that they can't even understand the falsities of modern myths.

Re:Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-10-09 04:27 · Score: 1

But without very strong AI, you're just drowning in data you can't process without significant manpower. I believe this is plaguing US intelligence agencies even as we speak.

--
Ezekiel 23:20

Re:EU travel warning -- READ by harvey+the+nerd · 2016-10-09 04:50 · Score: 1

The globalists' war on cash tolerates these modern highwaymen.

Re:Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by PopeRatzo · 2016-10-09 04:51 · Score: 2

Most of the younger readers here have grown up in an indoctrinated society that they can't even understand the falsities of modern myths.

I don't find the argument that "people were better in 1789 than they are today" very compelling. Either you believe in the consent of the governed or you don't.

Maybe one of the reasons for that "indoctrinated society" is that there are no longer any consequences for citizenship in the form of meaningful participation. Voting for candidates that are pre-chosen for their wealth every four years is not meaningful participation. And primary elections don't matter because every single candidate has already been chosen in a "money primary" at $5000/plate dinners.

We need a constitutional convention when the amendments are longer than the original document. For example, do you believe "money=speech" would pass muster in a constitutional convention? How about an absolute "right to bear arms"? Or how about "states can draw their legislative maps based on what's best for the party in power"?

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re: Gun smuggling? by eric_harris_76 · 2016-10-09 14:11 · Score: 1

Only if handled according to the law, they're all regulated. If done against the law, they are illegal.

Well, yeah. By definition.

The first rule of Tautology Club is the First Rule of Tautology Club.

Aiding fugitive slaves was a violation of the Fugitive Slave laws.

So, did you have an actual point? Maybe you were kidding, and I missed the joke. There are so many earnest dolts on the Internet, it's hard to tell them from those who mock them.

--
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.

Re:Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by Agripa · 2016-10-09 17:17 · Score: 1

Even then, gun trade shows aren't constitutionally protected. The purchase and sale of firearms are not protected. What is, is the right to have firearms. How you get them is up for debate...technically speaking...

The purchase, sale, and production are protected insofar as government may not discriminate against them. Cities have found this out when they refuse to allow firearm sales within their boundaries like any other commercial establishment and are the receiving end of a lawsuit.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Re:Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by rickb928 · 2016-10-10 04:00 · Score: 1

Technically speaking.

The debate over whether your right to own a gun is infringed by the government's unreasonable restrictions on sales is yet to be had, because the government hasn't yet quite invoked unreasonable restrictions on sales.

But tracking gun owners in states where gun registration is not required is, de facto, registration. And if they are asking to do this to spot cross-border smugglers, then perhaps some restrictions on how the data is used, and how long it is retained.

And that, my friends, is pointless. The government will ignore and violate any such restrictions. They just will, either by 'legalizing' it under intelligence law, or running it as a covert program, and we will not know unless someone blows the whistle, and then only if they survive.

We need to regain control, or at least that which we had some time ago.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.

Re: Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by Charcharodon · 2016-10-10 06:34 · Score: 1

Nice projection of how you feel onto me. Though your analysis is correct in my haste to post I did not proof read.

Let me fix it. The demography that is responsible for 55% of the homicides and 75% of the violent crime is the black male population between the ages of 14 to 30 years old. That group make up approximately 3-4% of the US population.

That is a fancy way of saying "Not all black males commit crime" of course when you put it that way that makes the problem even more concentrated (worse). So what percentage of that 3-4% are the ones committing the crime? 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/10?

It's not racist to point out the hard numbers of what is going on. (Don't like it then go bitch to the FBI. They are the ones keeping track.)

You can't start coming up with a solution until you know what the problems are and who is involved.

Re:Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by shutdown+-p+now · 2016-10-10 12:54 · Score: 1

Given the current uber-polarized environment, I find it doubtful that it would be possible to even arrange a convention, much less that it would actually agree on anything worthwhile.

And in a non-polarized environment that was more common in the days of yore, constitutional amendments were passed and ratified without the need for a convention. I mean, we're at, what, 27th right now? Disregarding the BoR, this makes it 17 amendments in 230 years, or a new amendment every 13 years. For something as fundamental as the constitution, it sounds like a reasonable rate of change.

Re: Conspiring to commit a crime by shutdown+-p+now · 2016-10-10 12:58 · Score: 1

ACLU is honest about what they do - they defend "civil liberties", and they don't consider 2A to be one. So they don't promote it, but they don't oppose it either. They're just neutral on it.

Given that, why would you care about their lack of pro-2A stance when deciding whether to support or not their activities to protect the other assorted freedoms? It would be like refusing to eat in your local Chinese restaurant because they don't have pro-2A posters. You don't go there for your gun rights - you go there for food. Similarly, you don't go to ACLU for gun rights - you go to them for freedom of speech, privacy etc.

So this whole "never give them a fucking dime" thing is utterly absurd. In my experience, most people who voice it, when you actually push them on it, admit that they hate ACLU for other reasons - for example, because they want Christianity to be a privileged religion in US, and don't like the fact that ACLU fights for the complete and unambiguous separation of church and state, or because they're anti-abortion and don't like ACLU's pro-choice stance.

Re:Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by PopeRatzo · 2016-10-10 13:10 · Score: 1

Given the current uber-polarized environment, I find it doubtful that it would be possible to even arrange a convention, much less that it would actually agree on anything worthwhile.

Maybe you're right. But I seem to recall some pretty uber-polarized environments in American history (even some which led to the Constitution being amended). I seem to recall that there were some pretty rancorous times in the 1880s.

It's been what, some 24 years since the Constitution was last amended? And if I recall correctly, it took over 200 years for that one to be ratified (proposed 1789, ratified 1992).

As I said, when the amendments are longer than the original document, it's time for a revision, and let the chips fall where they may. You never know - people may step up and start to take it more seriously than the current political shit-show if they know there is really something at stake.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:What's the problem, really? by shutdown+-p+now · 2016-10-10 13:23 · Score: 1

The "net effect" is negligible in the age of the Internet. I made several non-FFL, background-check-free gun purchases myself, and not a single one of them was at a gun show. It was always some guy I got in touch with online, and then met at some convenient and easily accessible location - e.g. a gun range relatively close to both of us. With specialized platforms like GunBroker and ArmsList, with their thousands of listings and the ability to easily filter, gun shows cannot compete.

About the only reason I can think of to go to a gun show is to find some hot deals, e.g. when someone is dumping their stock (not just guns, but also, and more likely, ammo and other consumables). But these usually come from FFLs.

Re:Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by shutdown+-p+now · 2016-10-10 13:32 · Score: 1

The country was polarized many times before, but it was always on one or two specific issues. For example, they had to hammer out a compromise on slavery when writing the original Constitution, and then there was that whole debate over whether federal legislature should be one-person-one-vote or one-state-one-vote.

But, because the scope of those were limited, even when they couldn't find agreement there, they could still compromise on many other things. Like, there was widespread acceptance for the need for something like the First and the Second Amendments among all factions, even as they argued about the precise wording and its implications. Some things didn't get included because the parties couldn't agree; but ultimately they could agree on enough to hammer out the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which is quite a lot.

I guess it would be accurate to say that back then, they disagreed on "issues". In today's US, the disagreement is only nominally on issues, and in reality mostly just partisan. As soon as Democrats adopt some policy or another, Republicans immediately oppose it, regardless of what they thought about it before. On the other hand, when Trump came and basically rewrote the Republican platform, most of them just fell in line. And while Republicans are definitely the party of "my way or the highway" these days, I have to point a finger at many Democrats as well - I've seen plenty of people argue against e.g. gun rights not on the basis of any rational arguments, but simply on the basis of "let's stick it to them rednecks".

So if it comes to the convention, I expect the same thing - anything that comes from the left will be opposed by the right regardless of what it actually is about, "on principle".

Re:Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by PopeRatzo · 2016-10-10 14:52 · Score: 1

So if it comes to the convention, I expect the same thing - anything that comes from the left will be opposed by the right regardless of what it actually is about, "on principle".

That's OK, too. A Con-con is a long process, and I honestly believe that if the stakes were significant, Americans would rise to the occasion.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Con con = Com com by harvey+the+nerd · 2016-10-11 07:26 · Score: 1

At this point, a Con-con is likely to produce Com-com. No, thanks.

Re: Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by Charcharodon · 2016-10-11 10:31 · Score: 1

You made no points of your own, you made no counter points to mine. Name calling and ad hominine attacks is not an argument. You didn't bother even checking the FBI website and responding with any sort of numbers to correct my "inaccurate facts".

In other words you are not worth wasting any more time on.

Re: Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by AutodidactLabrat · 2016-10-15 19:36 · Score: 1

No, it is a RIGHT of Congress to federalize for any reason or none at all, and Article 1 REQUIRES that all Militia shall be disciplined as CONGRESS shall dictate
I take it you have selective reading disorder
Try reading Article one section 8. It will tell you about the militia purpose to REPEL INVASION, PUT DOWN INSURRECTION (yep, including secession) for the FEDERAL government.

Re:Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by Coren22 · 2016-10-17 09:29 · Score: 1

Perhaps before quoting amendment numbers, it might do to look up the amendment you are referring to.

You say fourth, but it appears you might be railing against the fifth. The fourth amendment covers illegal search and seizure. The fifth covers locking people up without due process. Now, the government has done exactly nothing to destroy the fourth, except to people who can't read English sentences.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Re:Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement by Coren22 · 2016-10-17 09:39 · Score: 1

I have a hint for you, the militia consists of every man between 17 and 45.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Also, no, the second amendment does not give the right just for the militia, it gives the right to all men (I am assuming human, but wouldn't be surprised if it was only males), with the reason being to be able to form a militia on need.

Perhaps you should learn to read before you go calling bull on others.

For the ability to climb mountains, I bought hiking boots.

This does not mean that I only use my hiking boots for climbing mountains, it means that is one reason I bought hiking boots.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Slashdot Mirror

Feds Convinced Police To Use License Plate-Scanning Tech At Gun Shows (foxnews.com)

148 of 277 comments (clear)