Will secret databases ensure safe gun ownership? [Archive]

heikediguoren

12-13-2006, 06:20 PM

The short version:

Should suspected terrorists have the right to bear arms?

The long version:

This question occurs as an afterthought to recent disclosure of the Automated Targeting System, a database that the Homeland Security Department uses to assign and check risk assessments of travelers who enter and exit the United States. (For reference, http://www.startribune.com/722/story/848821.html links to a sample article).

Homeland Security spokespersons have claimed that maintaining this extensive pool of secret information will make the country safer by enabling the United States to better track suspected terrorists. The data, however, may have additional application: preventing insurgents from acquiring firearms.

At present, high explosives and their precursors have come under intense scrutiny, owing to the danger that a militant antinational might purchase demolitions equipment and use it to attack a public institution. However, as the recent alleged attempt by Derrick Shareef to acquire a pistol and grenades (as detailed in http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/couriernews/news/166427,3_1_EL09_A4JIHAD_S1.article) shows, commonly available weaponry remains an avenue for those who desire to achieve political change by attacking civilians. Though a typical gun retailer will not carry such exotic devices as grenades, it will certainly have 9mm semiautomatic pistols, and will gladly sell them to those of appropriate age and clean background check.

If Homeland Security makes the ATS' data available to weapons merchants, however, a shop's owner can identify potential terrorists and refuse to sell guns to them. This will make antinationalists less able to arm themselves and build insurgencies.

Possible political contentions include worries that citizens will lose their privacy and the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Legislators must decide, then, whether all citizens ought to have the freedom to bear arms, or only those whom the government does not consider a threat to national security.

DoctorDoom

12-13-2006, 06:43 PM

This is a back door route to confication. Can one imagine terrorists using "9mm semiautomatic pistols"? Terrorism by definition requires mass death or injury. 9 MM sidearms don't have the power lusted for by terrorists. Bomb belts, grenades, large explosives, chemical or bio weapons, and other such large-scale devices are the preferred media for generating terror.

If the asswipes want to neutralize one-man terrorists, arm the civilians. If Abu bin Goatrapin whips out his S&W, ten guys draw their Glocks and erase the prick.

Legislators must decide, then, whether all citizens ought to have the freedom to bear arms ...Amendment II (1791)

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.

What's to decide?

Rhino

12-13-2006, 07:55 PM

Will secret databases ensure safe gun ownership?Should suspected terrorists have the right to bear arms?1. Those are two different questions.

2. Databases would have no effect.

3. The situation you refer to with Derrick Shareef was an unlawful purchase that would never have gone through any database.

4. Terrorists could get guns even if we had a thousand databases.

5. Read the Constitution. Legislators don't have the right nor authority to decide whether citizens have the right to bear arms.

heikediguoren

12-14-2006, 01:17 AM

9 MM sidearms don't have the power lusted for by terrorists.

Bodyguards accompany VIPs at public gatherings because handguns pose a risk of political destabilization. Add a telescopic sight procured from a hunting supplies depot, and the potential for social disruption becomes enormous, even if the militant has no recourse to infectious agents or nerve gases. Therefore, dismissal of the danger presented by lead and gunpowder seems myopic.

But with the ability to track the movements of those with motive to threaten the republic, law enforcement and business can cooperate to ensure that they will not acquire means and opportunity.

If the government has the duty to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens, it may not simply arrest them for traveling to certain countries. But it may share its knowledge of their activities with those are debating whether or not to sell them killing devices.

DoctorDoom

12-14-2006, 01:46 AM

Bodyguards accompany VIPs at public gatherings because handguns pose a risk of political destabilization.Irrelevant. The issue is terrorists using handguns for terrorist acts. Sidearms are not per se weapons of terrorism. At most they might be used to assist in carrying out terrorist activities.

On 9/11, what were the weapons of terrorism? Were they the devices used to hijack the planes, or were they the planes themselves?

Any laws that violate the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens are by definition themselves illegal. They serve no purpose other than registering legal gun owners for future confiscation. Ask the citizens of NOLA. Or Canada. Or Australia. Or England. Or Nazi Germany.

Rhino

12-14-2006, 07:49 AM

But it may share its knowledge of their activities with those are debating whether or not to sell them killing devices.Who says they don't? They wouldn't share the information with a gun dealer for security reasons, but NICS can deny a sale without giving a reason. It also can trigger an alert to antiterrorism personnel. All that is really moot however, since terrorists are extremely unlikely to buy guns via a licensed dealer, and even if they did, they'd almost certainly use a false identity to do so. This proposal of yours would result in the same useless wild goose chase that registration does, it would track only those we are not worried about, those who obey the law.

The_Elucidator

12-14-2006, 08:00 AM

Bodyguards accompany VIPs at public gatherings because handguns pose a risk of political destabilization.

Horse ca ca! Handguns do not pose a risk of political destabilization, terrorists do. A handgun by itself poses no threat!

The_Sonarman

12-14-2006, 08:03 AM

Should suspected terrorists have the right to bear arms?
First, define what a "suspected terrorist" is. Under a future Democratic President, anyone not belonging to the DNC Gestapo would be considered a "suspected terrorist".

If Homeland Security makes the ATS' data available to weapons merchants, however, a shop's owner can identify potential terrorists and refuse to sell guns to them.
Once again, what constitutes a "suspected terrorist"? This is a great way of banning firearms ownership in the future. Just funnel the entire NRA membership list onto the future "Suspected Terrorist" Black List. I can easily see Chucky Shumer and Friends doing precisely that. Further, they'd funnel any of their political enemies onto that list, such as contributors lists for the RNC.

If this is anything like the "Flying Black List" fiasco:
a. there is no identification of who puts a name on the list
b. there is no way to get one's name off the list

"Suspected Terrorist". Nice, ugly legalistic phrase. Not "convicted criminal", who are already banned from firearms ownership. Just "suspected" terrorists. Just "suspected" terrorist.

As always, when searching for a small group of people, oppress the 99.999% majority. Best for everyone to learn the words to Die Fahne Hoch now and beat the Christmas Rush.

Maggie_T

12-14-2006, 08:08 AM

Guys, don't expect gunphobic liberals to accept your words of wisdom.

Since everybody has already dealt succintly and clearly with the two questions posed by Heiniken, all I can add is that databases ALWAYS end up in confiscation. That's how it started in England. They started that way, then they came up with the excuse that people who did not hunt did not have a right to bear arms (I swear, I'm not making this up). Now they poor bastards cannot even bear squirt guns and everybody is at the mercy of criminals.

Liberals seem to find it impossible to get it through their thick skulls that a criminal who wants to get a gun WILL get a gun, regardless of how many "laws" the gunphobes belch out. The only ones who suffer from gun-control are law-abiding citizens. Period.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I tried to explain that to the usual numbskulls. :sulk:

Lazarus

12-14-2006, 08:10 AM

Horse ca ca! Handguns do not pose a risk of political destabilization, terrorists do. A handgun by itself poses no threat!And to expand this concept, anyone wishing to do mayhem has an almost infinite source of tools at his disposal... Will we establish a secret gasoline database in order to prevent a terrorist from making a gasoline bomb?

As 'lucid says, the gun is not the threat - the terrorist is the threat... But, the more we focus on the gun itself, the more we move toward a dictatorial government where common citizens are denied gun ownership... And when this right disappears, the government ceases to be the servant and becomes the master... This is why the founding fathers specifically added the 2nd amendment - In order for the people to defend themselves against their own government...

The_Elucidator

12-14-2006, 08:10 AM

First, define what a "suspected terrorist" is. Under a future Democratic President, anyone not belonging to the DNC Gestapo would be considered a "suspected terrorist".

You hit the nail squarely on the head Sonar! Under BJ Billy anyone who believed in the 2A as an individual right or you just lived in Texas, Idaho or Montana you were considered a suspected terrorist.

Maggie_T

12-14-2006, 08:13 AM

Exactly. Just like anyone who was not standing on a corner with a tin cup in his hand, begging, was considered a "rich guy, (IOW, highly taxable)" according to Blow Job Billy.

Maggie_T

12-14-2006, 08:14 AM

And to expand this concept, anyone wishing to do mayhem has an almost infinite source of tools at his disposal...

Including - but not limited to - boxcutters.

Lazarus

12-14-2006, 08:16 AM

...Liberals seem to find it impossible to get it through their thick skulls that a criminal who wants to get a gun WILL get a gun, regardless of how many "laws" the gunphobes belch out. The only ones who suffer from gun-control are law-abiding citizens. Period...But in truth, Maggie dear, its the law-abiding citizens who ARE the target of the Leftists... Because its the free man who is armed and able to defend himself who is the biggest threat to the Leftist and his utopian socialist world...

If the Leftists can disarm us, they can herd us into cages... The question of armed criminals then becomes a minor aberation that is easily dealt with...

Maggie_T

12-14-2006, 08:21 AM

But in truth, Maggie dear, its the law-abiding citizens who ARE the target of the Leftists... Because its the free man who is armed and able to defend himself who is the biggest threat to the Leftist and his utopian socialist world...

You are perfectly right, of course, Laz. That is the gunphobes' ultimate intent. They just disguise it as "protecting the citizen." Protecting the citizen, my @#$%^&!

If the Leftists can disarm us, they can herd us into cages... The question of armed criminals then becomes a minor aberration that is easily dealt with...

Quite. Also, don't forget that criminals are one of the left's protected species, as well as a large part of democrats' constituency.

DesertFox

12-14-2006, 08:29 AM

Bodyguards accompany VIPs at public gatherings because handguns pose a risk of political destabilization. Wrong. A bodyguard accompanies a VIP to protect the life of the VIP. JFK got kilt. The country remained stable. RFK got kilt. The country remained stable. MLK got kilt. The country remained stable. John Lennon (a VIP) got kilt. The country remained stable. Ronald Reagan got shot. The country remained stable.

You're batting .000, dude. Add a telescopic sight procured from a hunting supplies depot, and the potential for social disruption becomes enormous, even if the militant has no recourse to infectious agents or nerve gases. To date I've never seen a bodyguard on duty with a telescopic sight. Nor a terrorist with a telescopic sight for a handgun. For that matter, I've never even heard of a telescopic sight for a handgun.Therefore, dismissal of the danger presented by lead and gunpowder seems myopic. Therefore, I'm afraid you're howling at the moon. Nobody's dismissing anything, but you're presenting a chimera.

But with the ability to track the movements of those with motive to threaten the republic, law enforcement and business can cooperate to ensure that they will not acquire means and opportunity. A data base enables tracking of movements how? It doesn't. Radar, yes; cameras, yes; men on the ground, sure; bugs attached to the perp, by all means. All these methods enable one to track the movements of somebody. But a data base is just a list of names. Use a different name, which terrorists and other criminals can be counted on to do regularly, and you're home free.

You might wanna consider thinking thru what you say, before you hit the submit button. This post of yours makes no sense at all.

Maggie_T

12-14-2006, 08:43 AM

Nobody's dismissing anything, but you're presenting a chimera.

The usual basis for every liberal mantra.

A data base enables tracking of movements how? It doesn't. Radar, yes; cameras, yes; men on the ground, sure; bugs attached to the perp, by all means. All these methods enable one to track the movements of somebody. But a data base is just a list of names. Use a different name, which terrorists and other criminals can be counted on to do regularly, and you're home free.

(shaking head) I swear, liberals must be alergic to reason, logic, and common sense. Got to love the bastards ... as comic relief, I mean.

Rhino

12-14-2006, 08:46 AM

A workable definition of "terrorist" really makes no difference. Even if they managed to come up with such a definition, a database would still do no good, as explained earlier.

Rhino

12-14-2006, 08:54 AM

On July 17, 2005, based on a recommendation from the Government Accountability Office, the NICS Section assumed total oversight of all background checks (federal and state) that descriptively match the subject of a National Crime Information Center Violent Gang and Terrorist Organization File (VGTOF) record. In 2005, the NICS Section processed 239 valid VGTOF-matched transactions of which 205 were proceeded. Of the 239 VGTOF-matched transactions, 19 were denied based on federal prohibitive criteria that was obtained through routine research and processing.http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/ops_report2005/html/ops_report2005.htm

Problem solved. It's already being done, as I suspected.

Ant

12-14-2006, 08:55 AM

Of course! Everybody knows criminals/terrorists always buy their guns from reputable sources who'll add their names to this database.

Ant

12-14-2006, 09:01 AM

But in truth, Maggie dear, its the law-abiding citizens who ARE the target of the Leftists... Because its the free man who is armed and able to defend himself who is the biggest threat to the Leftist and his utopian socialist world...

If the Leftists can disarm us, they can herd us into cages... The question of armed criminals then becomes a minor aberation that is easily dealt with...

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

There is no socialist utopian plot. It's simple incompetence and stupidity coupled with the "do something" disease.

In other words: "My constituents are concerned about gun violence. I must DO SOMETHING! (or at least appear to do something even if what I do has no effect or has a negative effect)"

Maggie_T

12-14-2006, 09:09 AM

LOL. Exactly, Ant! About your previous post, that is.

But never underestimate the imbecility of liberals, especially in large groups.

heikediguoren

12-14-2006, 11:48 AM

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/ops_report2005/html/ops_report2005.htm

Problem solved. It's already being done, as I suspected.

Thank you. That will suffice to answer the original post.

Patrick Henry

12-14-2006, 01:14 PM

Will secret databases ensure safe gun ownership?

No

DoctorDoom

12-14-2006, 02:51 PM

But never underestimate the imbecility of liberals, especially in large groups.Or ...

<table align="center" bgcolor="white" bordercolor="#CCCCCC" border="4" cellpadding="8"><tr><td><div align="center"><b><font face="Times New Roman" color="navy" size="7">~~ LIBERALISM ~~</font><br><br><font size="5"><i>Never underestimate the power of<br>stupid people in large groups.</i></font></b></div></td></tr></table>

Beowulf

12-14-2006, 04:57 PM

Of course! Everybody knows criminals/terrorists always buy their guns from reputable sources who'll add their names to this database.
No kidding and Libs STILL think that all of the guns need to be taken away. Rather than punish law abiding citizens which is standard Liberal protocol, how about cracking down on these illegal arms black markets and holding accountable those who choose to sell them this way. While we're at it, let's hold accountable the shooters too. Instead, Libs want a blanket ban on guns.

They can have mine....bullets first!

Beowulf

12-14-2006, 05:02 PM

You hit the nail squarely on the head Sonar! Under BJ Billy anyone who believed in the 2A as an individual right or you just lived in Texas, Idaho or Montana you were considered a suspected terrorist.

Oh yeah, good point, Elucidator! Texas and Idaho. BJ Clinton did real well in handling the Branch Dividian in Waco and Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Those two catastophes are another major blunder of his presidency.

Maggie_T

12-15-2006, 06:53 AM

No kidding and Libs STILL think that all of the guns need to be taken away. Rather than punish law abiding citizens which is standard Liberal protocol, how about cracking down on these illegal arms black markets and holding accountable those who choose to sell them this way. While we're at it, let's hold accountable the shooters too.

But ... but Beo ... that would infringe on criminals' right to bear arms. You know very well that it's only redneck conservatives that are dangerous. Criminals are just victims of society. :(

They can have mine....bullets first!

They can have mine ... only if the pry it from my cold dead hands. :flame:

Air-Warrior

12-15-2006, 07:14 AM

I have Dem friends who don't vote when an anti-gun nut runs for office. These Georgia buddies of mine are better shots than me and make that deer burger taste better than any hamburger I've eaten.

Maggie_T

12-15-2006, 08:34 AM

I have Dem friends who don't vote when an anti-gun nut runs for office.

That's because they are democrats, not liberals. It's liberals who are gunphobic, therefore, freedom-phobic.

Don't let them fool you when they squwak about 'freedom to f*** anything that walks.' They tend to confuse freedom with license. Liberals detest freedom because it comes with personal responsibility and accountability. And you know how allergic they are to that.

No, liberals were born to be slaves, and they deserve to be slaves. Only problem is they want to drag me into servitude as well. If it wasn't for that, I'd have no objection to the bastards.

DesertFox

12-15-2006, 08:37 AM

:yeahthat: :claps:

Well said, Mags.

DoctorDoom

12-15-2006, 08:48 AM

From the Authoritative Liberal Dictionary:

freedom (n):

a: the right to do whatever a liberal likes to do; see HEDONISM, SELF-GRATIFICATION, AMORALITY

b: the right to deny others their right to do anything that liberals don't like; see ELITISM, SUPERIORITY, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, OBNOXIOUS PAINS IN THE ASS

The_Elucidator

12-15-2006, 10:08 AM

Oh yeah, good point, Elucidator! Texas and Idaho. BJ Clinton did real well in handling the Branch Dividian in Waco and Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Those two catastophes are another major blunder of his presidency.

Yep...While Saddam was violating the NFZ and Osama was busy planning 9/11, BJ Billy with the aide of Wes "Send in the tanks" Clark were making sure that the Branch Dividian's couldn't carry out another horrific attack at the shooting range! :rolleyes: And had the Gubmint not thwarted the ominous threat at Ruby Ridge there is no telling what kind of disaster might have loomed over Idaho...

Meanwhile back at the WTC,,, oops, not there anymore...

But back to the topic at hand, we can expect the gun grabbing mantra to start all over again and you can bet the farm the Libs will use "terrorism" as a way to grab 'em. Look at what happened to Tank Johnson DT for Da Bears. He didn't possess a "Firearm ID Card," You can bet your butt that if Osama Obama gets elected from FIB country that we all will possess a "Firearm ID Card." Book it!