DEA Planned To Monitor Cars Parked At Gun Shows Using License Plate Readers 577
HughPickens.com writes According to a newly disclosed DEA email obtained by the ACLU through the Freedom of Information Act, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives collaborated on plans to monitor gun show attendees using automatic license plate readers. Responding to inquiries about the document, the DEA said that the monitoring of gun shows was merely a proposal and was never implemented. "The proposal in the email was only a suggestion. It was never authorized by DEA, and the idea under discussion in the email was never launched,'' says DEA administrator Michele Leonhart.
According to the Wall Street Journal the proposal shows the challenges and risks facing the U.S. as it looks to new, potentially intrusive surveillance technology to help stop criminals. Many of the government's recent efforts have scooped up data from innocent Americans, as well as those suspected of crimes, creating records that lawmakers and others say raise privacy concerns. "Automatic license plate readers must not be used to collect information on lawful activity — whether it be peacefully assembling for lawful purposes, or driving on the nation's highways," says the ACLU. "Without strong regulations and greater transparency, this new technology will only increase the threat of illegitimate government surveillance." National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam says the NRA is "looking into this to see if gun owners were improperly targeted, and has no further comment until we have all the facts."
According to the Wall Street Journal the proposal shows the challenges and risks facing the U.S. as it looks to new, potentially intrusive surveillance technology to help stop criminals. Many of the government's recent efforts have scooped up data from innocent Americans, as well as those suspected of crimes, creating records that lawmakers and others say raise privacy concerns. "Automatic license plate readers must not be used to collect information on lawful activity — whether it be peacefully assembling for lawful purposes, or driving on the nation's highways," says the ACLU. "Without strong regulations and greater transparency, this new technology will only increase the threat of illegitimate government surveillance." National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam says the NRA is "looking into this to see if gun owners were improperly targeted, and has no further comment until we have all the facts."
planned? (Score:4, Funny)
I had assumed that this has been SOP for decades.
Re:planned? (Score:4, Insightful)
"The proposal in the email was only a suggestion. It was never authorized by DEA, and the idea under discussion in the email was never launched,'' says DEA administrator Michele Leonhar
Sure, just like we never gave guns to cartels, and we have never been monitoring all americans communications either....
Re:planned? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's Psychological Warfare (Score:4, Insightful)
When the government comes out and says anything resembling "planned", "suggested", "considered", etc., it really means that they've been doing it for decades
No matter if the American government has carried out this 'car plate scanning' thing for decades, this announcement by itself is a PSY-OP and this mark the beginning of the government of the United States of America launching PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE on the Citizens of the United States of America
In other words, the government of the United States of America is no longer a government of the People, by the People and from the People --- The government of the United States of America has become a government AGAINST the People
Re:It's Psychological Warfare (Score:5, Insightful)
"Beginning"?
The USA has been doing PSYOPS on it's own citizens a loooooong time. You just noticed this now?! I wonder how surprised you'll be when you finally notice COINTELPRO never really ended; the government has been up to a lot more than PSYOPS...
Re: (Score:2)
They've been at the http://www.indy1500.com/ [indy1500.com] for years. The high tech method before all this newfangled automation was called a autonomous meat sack with a pen and paper. Now that they funnel participants in to buy a ticked they can just slap up a camera and record away.
Re: (Score:3)
I had assumed that this has been SOP for decades.
Given that police use plate scanners routinely to scan parking lots looking for stolen cars, then I have no doubt that they have scanned parking lots of gun shows.
It's the buildup to another run on ammo sales. Scare the faithful about da guvmint, and they buy guns and ammo.
Before we get too far, I'm a gun owner, and enjoy using them.
I'm just not paranoid and insane.
The sad part? (Score:3, Interesting)
This story will probably get more attention than the CIA torture report. More attention than the NSA surveillance scandal. More attention than just about anything that actually _needs_ attention. Why? Gun nuts are paranoid as hell, that's why. Despite having the security of a firearm they're terrified that the government is going to sweep in and take them away for...what reason again? If anything it's in the US government's best interests for their citizens to be shooting each other dead, saves them ammunition on those shiny new NYPD vehicles with FUCKING MACHINE GUN TURRETS. There is absolutely no practical reason that anyone in the NYPD needs an armoured vehicle with a machine gun turret. Tihs is supposedly to help "fight" terror instead of "create" terror. Oh, of course they won't use them against protestors. Of course they won't.
Sometimes I think Americans are just going to sit on their asses and take all of this bullshit until the government actually does pull a Tiannamen Square on some protest, at which point the guns will finally be aimed at the people who truly deserve to have their heads blown off. Politicians.
Re:The sad part? (Score:5, Insightful)
This story will probably get more attention than the CIA torture report. More attention than the NSA surveillance scandal. More attention than just about anything that actually _needs_ attention. Why? Gun nuts are paranoid as hell, that's why. Despite having the security of a firearm they're terrified that the government is going to sweep in and take them away for...what reason again?
Since when does the government need a specific or legal reason? Guns have been taken for many reasons, and prohibited for many more.
Personally, I don't own a gun. But until you actually amend the US Constitution, and break the Bill of Rights even further, it isn't the government's business (or yours) if I have one or not.
Re:The sad part? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The sad part? (Score:5, Interesting)
SCOTUS also said owning slaves was ok. just because SCOTUS says something does not make it constitutional
Huh?
Umm, when SCOTUS said owning slaves was Constitutional, it WAS clearly constitutional. You know, they actually added a Constitutional amendment to outlaw slavery (the 13th) about 75 years after the Constitution first came into effect. Until then, it definitely was constitutional and was explicitly part of the negotiations that went into drafting the original Constitution.
Re:The sad part? (Score:4, Insightful)
but i stand by my statement, just because SCOTUS says something doesnt make it constitutional. not in a world where they can take a 2 sentence simple amendment and decide it doesnt mean what it says, which is that all americans are free to own arms and there is nothing the government can do about it.
Re:The sad part? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The sad part? (Score:4)
That right existed before the Constitution specifically stated that the government cannot limit that right. Its existence has nothing to do with the Supreme Court.
Re:The sad part? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does that apply to the Supreme Court's "right to personal gun ownership"? Because it didn't exist until SCOTUS said it did.
Please read the 9th and 10th amendments. Just because "rights" are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution does NOT mean they aren't real or don't exist. On the contrary, the Constitution was written with the exact opposite default position: if the Constitution doesn't explicitly say the federal government is allowed to do something (including restricting or regulating your rights), it by default does not have that power. Or at least that was roughly the way case law interpreted things until somewhere around 1937-1942.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You aren't responsible for interpreting the constitution.
Given that every US citizen is responsible for upholding the US Constitution, that implies legally leeway in interpreting it as well.
The judiciary is, and SCOTUS is the final authority on the matter. You probably don't want to go around making absolute statements about what is and is not constitutional unless you have a current SCOTUS opinion to back you up, because you start to look crazy.
And what happens when the Supreme Court makes unconstitutional decisions? This is not a hypothetical situation. It's not that hard a thing to stack with people who don't have an interest in fulfilling the job description and that has been attempted [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
I guess you never heard of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Many things were considered constitutional before he rose as a leader to show they were not. He violated many laws to show they were not only 'not fair', but unconstitutional as well. Most people today agree with his power to interpret the Constitution in this regard.
Why don't you?
Re: The sad part? (Score:4, Informative)
The militia is not the government's business. The militia is the People's business, and may be used against a government if it has become tyrannical. (In fact, that's what the people who wrote the Bill of Rights has just finished doing!)
Re: (Score:3)
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
The militia was all free men capable of fighting and who could bring their own arms to the fight. The Founders, as you ought to recall, had just successfully used the "militia" to overthrow a tyrannical g
Re:The sad part? (Score:4, Insightful)
Their role is support the system, with laughably contrived justifications if necessary. Like Bush v Gore, Florida v Reilly, or the recent one where cops aren't bound by the law if they claim ignorance [zerohedge.com] of the law. SCOTUS is frequently 20 pounds of bullshit in a five pound sack.
Re:The sad part? (Score:5, Insightful)
How can the phrase "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" not be considered an endorsement of the right to personal ownership of weapons?
Why turn it into a race riot? Blacks are allowed to own guns too. If the KKK had marched on the state capital bearing rifles, the same gun control proposals would have been introduced. Maybe by a different person, maybe not. Either way, they violate the Second Amendment. When white veterans took up camp outside Washington DC, in peaceful protest, they had their Constitutional rights violated also. So stop with the race baiting.
Actually I just googled that tidbit, and you are wrong on several points. The legislation was already introduced, and the Black Panthers marched in protest against it. Reagan did not introduce the legislation, much less in response to anything. It was named the Mulford Act, after the legislator who introduced it.
As for "the first clause" of the amendment, it is for explanation of the right. A "well regulated militia" is in no way necessary for "the right to keep and bear arms". Actually, you should realize that if you can tell that the amendment is written as two clauses. One part of the text can stand on its own as a sentence. The other part is subordinate to it. They could have easily written "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. They are needed for the people to keep a well regulated militia." Whether the people keep a militia or not, and whether it is well regulated or not, has no bearing on the right to own weapons.
I love how some people only support the parts of the Constitution they agree with, and twist everything else into something it never was.
Re:The sad part? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this modded 'Insightful'?
Because people can read, and pick up nuances others miss.
None of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are absolute rights.
If you had asked the people who signed the paper back then, they would probably disagree with that statement. Of course, we could point to several laws that would prove your point. But those laws eventually were found Unconstitutional.
Or are you saying laws about libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a theater, and inciting violence violate the meaning of the First Amendment?
If the Constitution is amended to allow what is now violations of the Bill of Rights, then those acts would not be a violation of the Bill of Rights;
Which is why I phrased it as "break the Bill of Rights even further", not "violate the Bill of Rights".
they would be explicit exceptions as opposed to the questionable courts judgments on them.
I get your point here, but would not call them "exceptions". Slander laws are not an exception to free speech. Simply put, free speech does not mean slander goes unpunished.
And why isn't it the government's business whether the weapon that you may or may not have is lawfully owned?
There is no concept of a weapon being "lawfully owned" if the government has no authority to pass laws about ownership of weapons. (Some states ban swords and nunchucks. When was the last time you heard of a nunchuck-toting madman?) Since that is what the Second Amendment states, no law outlawing guns or other weapons should pass Constitutional muster. Unless the people of the US decide to further break the Bill of Rights.
Please note, I am not saying that the people do not have the right to break the Bill of Rights. I'm saying that if they want gun control to be constitutional, in the US, that is what they have to do. They have to convince a majority of Americans to accept that amendment. They have to put it to the vote, publicly. Otherwise, neither the government nor you have any business to know if I have a weapon or not.
Re:The sad part? (Score:5, Insightful)
they're terrified that the government is going to sweep in and take them away for...what reason again?
Control. I guess I need to state the obvious, that an unarmed population is easier to control than an armed one. Weapons are just another form of power like knowledge or freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
they're terrified that the government is going to sweep in and take them away for...what reason again?
Control. I guess I need to state the obvious, that an unarmed population is easier to control than an armed one. Weapons are just another form of power like knowledge or freedom.
Only for the crudest forms of control.
But aside from high profile assassinations an individual with a gun is pretty ineffectual. It does however make it easier for governments to justify all other sorts of restrictions. Police are going to maintain their monopoly on force, police militarization and police brutality are both consequences of police escalating against a heavily armed population.
And if things ever really get bad and you need a revolution the thing that really scares governments isn't an armed r
Re:The sad part? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The sad part? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really believe a shotgun will deter the most powerful military machine the world has ever known from doing whatever the fuck it wants to do? Fact is, if they truly wanted to "trample your rights" they would have been trampled already.
Actually, history has proven that no military, no matter how powerful, no matter how brutal, can ever conquer an armed civilian population. It's a lesson the Soviets learned in Afghanistan, one we re-learned in Afghanistan, one everyone learned in Iraq, and one the British learned when their colonies rose up and demanded independence.
Think about it for a moment: the Declaration of Independence was a formal declaration of treason against the Crown, which at the time controlled the most powerful military machine the world had ever known. That open declaration of treason was signed not by a battle-hardened group of freedom fighters with CIA training, but by a group of farmers, doctors, and lawyers. Those same farmers, doctors, and lawyers beat that most powerful military machine in the world multiple times over the course of decades until finally they were left to do as they wished. The Soviets thought that maybe modern technology would make a difference, so they tried carpet bombing the Afghans into oblivion and eventually had to give up and run away. The US thought that maybe more modern technology and better tactics would make a difference, but the Taliban is still there and we're resigned to the fact that they always will be.
You see, so long as a group is willing to fight and die for their cause, and so long as they're sufficiently well armed, it doesn't matter how big and bad your military is. It doesn't matter how many of their fellow citizens they're willing to murder before they decide to turn 'round and shoot in the other direction. So long as people can organize themselves and have the means to exert force, a popular movement is unstoppable. A single guy with a shotgun is no match for a fully equipped military. A fully equipped military is no match for a pissed off populace armed with shotguns, handguns, semi-automatic rifles, and other instruments of war. And the idea isn't to rejoice at the opportunity to live through such a Hellish conflict, but rather to ensure that the government doesn't cross that line into oppression which would trigger such a thing.
I hate to bring it up because I don't think it's a great example of a good David versus a bad Goliath (i.e. the "little guy's" argument and methods leave a lot to be desired in this case), but the Bundy Standoff is most certainly an example of how suddenly government agents who are used to being able to use force to perform their duties get real polite real quick when met with an opposing force of dedicated and armed individuals. That's not to say that the Federal government lacks the resources to do whatever it wants by force at that ranch, but a bloody use of force on American soil has historically created a major backlash among the people (e.g. Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc) and raises the risk that additional incidents like it could spark serious unrest.
Which leaves the government in a challenging position. It can back down and work toward a peaceful resolution that doesn't risk bloodshed, it can tell its agents to use whatever force is necessary to do their job and have huge shootouts broadcast live on CNN, or it can send in Apache gunships to kill everyone who opposes them live on CNN. They (thankfully) elected to go with the least risky option of working everything out peacefully. But can you imagine the social unrest if you'd had CNN broadcasting Federal troops firing on (or slaughtering, as in the crazy overreaction option) American citizens on US soil over a land dispute? There would have been Congressional hearings, investigations, mass resignations, possibly indictments, etc. And if the government didn't do all that and basically told the people to go f themselves, the resulting unrest would be vastly worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The mere situation where they vehemently insist that sporting clubs are a "well organized militia" shows how far it has diverged from anything resembling reality.
you may want to educate yourself on the wording "well regulated militia" Because you are not using it in the proper context. Heres a hint. it has nothing to do with government regulations, and everything to do with owning guns in working order.
Re:It's about entitlement for no work not guns (Score:5, Interesting)
Would it blow your mind to know that current US Federal law defines the militia as "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard"?
Seriously, it's 10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia: composition and classes [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:3)
Yes and PI is 3.11 by law as well. Try again.
I would assume you're referring to the infamous Indiana state senate bill from 1897 in which an amateur mathematician attempted to have the state use his incorrect formulas to "square the circle", as it were. Firstly, that never became law. It was never even voted on in the Senate because after 30 minutes of laughing at the bill for being absurd, it was indefinitely tabled as a waste of time and money.
You also missed the "well regulated", and since gun clubs are opposed to regulation I'd be interested in how you weasel out of that one.
I most certainly did not miss "well regulated". The Oxford English Dictionary from the time that phrase was
Re:It's about entitlement for no work not guns (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
instead of complaining that there are americans fighting hard for the 2nd amendment, maybe we could learn from them and start applying that same want to maintain the rest of the constitution?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny thing about your rant, and many like it. Ever notice how liberal civil rights supporters seem to lose every battle against the government? They are the "smartest of the smart" or "the elite intelectuals" and just can't seem to stop the NSA, or torture, or drone use, and on and on. You would almost think its actually impossible to defeat the government trying to control people.
However, the "stupid, redneck, hick, idiot" has managed to keep the government out of the 2nd amendment. They have been so
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
or are you saying that people who are in the NRA dont care about other things, because I can tell you thats simply not true
How about the ACLU (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The sad part? (Score:5, Insightful)
Civil rights movement included gun rights (Score:2)
You are obviously confusing civil rights (completely unrelated to guns) ...
You are misinformed regarding the civil rights movement. One of the rights the movement fought for was firearms ownership. Blacks were being discriminated against with respect to firearms too. The KKK boys prefer their victims unarmed when they show up.
Why are people modding this down? (Score:2)
> Clearly the NRA is far more successful than the ACLU
The NRA has 10x the membership of the ACLU (5M vs 0.5M), 2.5x the budget of the ACLU ($255M/yr vs $100M/yr) and spends it all on a single issue. No wonder they are more successful.
Re:The sad part? (Score:5, Insightful)
Gun nuts are paranoid as hell, that's why.
And with good reason; this story is yet another confirmation that they are out to get us. I wish everyone would be as paranoid as "gun nuts."
Re: (Score:2)
How is an unimplemented suggestion confirmation of anything? If anything, the fact that the idea was not pursued would confirm that they aren’t out to get us, at least not to the degree that paranoid gun nuts fear.
Re: (Score:2)
How is an unimplemented suggestion confirmation of anything? .
The fact that someone in the government would think it's OK to even suggest such an outlandish infringement of individual liberty is pretty scary.
Yes, it would be scarier if they had actually carried out the suggestion but it's disconcerting enough that people who suggest operations such as these are employed in positions where they can wield authority.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially the DEA, I've been to a few gun shows, not a lot of dopers at them.
Re:The sad part? (Score:4, Insightful)
What percentage of your guns has Obama taken away yet? 10%, 30%, or is it coming up on 100? And there were all those Snowden docs talking about the DHS's double-secret-plus plans to disarm law abiiiiden muricans.
/endsarcasm
The Deep State doesn't give a flying fuck about ammosexuals and how many guns they have. Because 99% of them might talk a good game about fearing an unaccountable police state, only to turn on a dime and excuse cops for murdering citizens and cheering the bombing of the latest Muslim country that's never attacked us. And they couldn't be bothered to get out of bed when Obama signed domestic military detention without trial into law, anymore than the Obamabots did. Even Superman would be amazed at how fast they can strip off their "Don't Tread on Me" tshirts and begin goosestepping.
Re: (Score:2)
The South African Police had those a while back - consider what they thought of the people they were deploying them against and you've got some idea of what the people running the NYPD think of New Yorkers.
Note I wrote "the people running" - so Horse Judges with well connected friends instead of something resembling professional law enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
Gun nuts are paranoid as hell, that's why.
Are you paranoid if people are trying to do exactly what you think they are?
What's sad is you think that is sad (Score:2)
This story will probably get more attention than the CIA torture report.
The reason why it can and should get more attention is that it's obvious even to a three year old such monitoring is wrong, whereas torture is an issue that's very much up in the air as to being reasonable to use - but there's no question the people it was used against were ACTUALLY criminals.
Nothing says "false moral equivalence" more than equating making known terrorists who have been captured in combat a little uncomfortable for a wh
Well, well... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nevertheless, ACLU does step in when other rights (usually 4A and 5A) are infringed in the context of gun ownership, or when gun rights themselves are implemented in a discriminatory fashion (such as various laws restricting the gun rights of non-citizens). On top of that, there's the national ACLU and then there are the state branches, and state ones can and do go beyond what the national one considers worth defending. ACLU of Arizona, for example, has explicitly stated that they do consider RKBA to be an
sensationalist headline (Score:5, Interesting)
so some random brain-fart email was sent, never acted upon, and this gets blown up into "planned to track owners"
If someone wants to have a serious discussion of the decades of problems the DEA has caused legitimate gun owners, and how they've armed murderers and cartel thugs, let's have a different article series. But I doubt anything would be approved as "story" on this site, it's fading into a place where people just cut and paste "news" from other sites instead of writing original material with sources. Just clickbait tabloid trash site now, how sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe it was never acted upon because they found out that NSA is already tracking car plates pretty much everywhere, and got access to the resulting database as part of that inter-agency exchange program we've heard about recently?
So frustrate them by... (Score:2)
Soudns half sensible.. (Score:3)
Keeping an eye on the Mexican cartel's major source of weapons seems like a half-sensible suggestion. And since it's at least half sensible, it's completely unsurprising the DEA decided not to actually do it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you consider 12% to be major then, yes, a major source of Mexican cartel's weapons come from the U.S.
"...out of approximately 30,000 weapons seized in drug cases in Mexico in 2004-2008. 7,200 appeared to be of U.S. origin, approximately 4,000 were found in ATF manufacturer and importer records, and 87 percent of those - 3,480 - originated in the United States." 3,480 of 30,000 is 11.6%.
Source [wikipedia.org]
Of course, another major source of guns used in Mexican crimes came directly from the ATF. The Mexican government
Re: (Score:2)
It might only be 12%, but 3,480 is still a *lot* of guns. Just saying. And yeah, the ATF has made a murderous nightmare even worse and some people should be doing prison time for that one.
OK, so let's rewrite the headline... (Score:2)
DEA Planned To Monitor Cars Parked At Dog Shows Using License Plate Readers
DEA Planned To Monitor Cars Parked At Quilting Shows Using License Plate Readers
DEA Planned To Monitor Cars Parked At Cat Shows Using License Plate Readers
DEA Planned To Monitor Cars Parked At Boat Shows Using License Plate Readers
DEA Planned To Monitor Cars Parked At Jewelry Shows Using License Plate Readers
I didn't say you were paranoid, you must h
Re: (Score:2)
"DEA to monitor cars... period"
Why don't people get it? (Score:2)
Cool (Score:2)
What about the license place recognition software I've got running on the PC in my car that's connected to the camera looking out the front window that's storing the image, plate number and GPS coordinates in a database?
Re: (Score:2)
Intrusive? targeting? (Score:2)
According to the Wall Street Journal the proposal shows the challenges and risks facing the U.S. as it looks to new, potentially intrusive surveillance technology to help stop criminals.
I don't know whether or not to be surprised that the WSJ (owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox "News") would call technology to read license plates of vehicles parked in public lots "intrusive" - or is it just because it's proposed use includes gun shows?
National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam says the NRA is "looking into this to see if gun owners were improperly targeted,
Pun intended?
Anyway, I thought the popular Conservative mantras concerning privacy were (a) there should be no expectation of privacy in public and (b) if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you be ok with this tech being used outside of abortion cliniques?
would you be ok with this tech being used at peaceful protests???
would you like this tech being used at battered womens shelters???
Would you be ok with it being used at...... well you get the point
If you can think of 1, just 1 place where this tech does NOT belong in use, then it should not be used
The Bill of Rights? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have an idea (Score:2)
The drug war is over!!! (Score:3)
" NRA is "looking into this to see if gun owners were improperly targeted,"
I don't know who else would be targeted at a gun show so once the NRA picks up it's batphone you can bet the DEA will be as marginalized as the ATF (understaffed to monitor firearms nationwide, directorless for 7 years, etc), effectively ending the war on drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:not New news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not New news (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the burden of proof is on him after his allegation that this started under the Obama administration.
Re: (Score:3)
The feds have had something of a mutually acrimonious relationship with some of the more enthusiastic personalities you find at gun shows since at least the very early 90's, probably earlier. If, say, Timothy McVeigh wasn't enough to inspire a few zillion man-hours in stakeouts, I'm not entirely sure what would.
The claims of surveillance I find fairly credible; but for it to have started in 2008 would have requ
Re:The DEA is just doing their job (Score:5, Insightful)
First, do please define "sensible gun regulation".
Second, are you aware of how much 'gun regulation' already exists today both in federal, state & local statutes?
You are hard pressed to find a legal consumer good which is more regulated than firearms with regards to it's manufacture, sale, transport and use.
Re: (Score:2)
Same path as meth, crack, coke, and pot come the guns. The DEA is just doing its job, and when sensible gun regulation is passed (bringing the US up with civilized nations like England and Japan),...
How about France? Is France 'civilized'? Do they prohibit the possession of guns too?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope they do not prohibit possession of firearms. They are restricted in a number of ways and concealed carry generally is not allowed. That said there are plenty of fully automatic rifles in the hands of criminals and others. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... [bloomberg.com]
banning something has little effect on the non law abiding. Look at the speed limits in the US they are designed with the assumption that they will be broken by people going about 7% over the posted limit.
Re:The DEA is just doing their job (Score:5, Informative)
You are a liar.
Venezuela's gun murder rate went UP after guns outlawed in 2012, from 68 per 100,000 to 79 per 100,000 in 2013.
Let's talk about another hispanic country that made guns illegal except for those who have signed paper by minister of defense, Mexico. A real crime free paradise there since citizens aren't allowed to have guns, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Except guns are not illegal in Australia! Certain types of guns are now illegal as on 1996, but types of rifles, shotguns, and pistols (for IPCC match shooting, .38 / 9mm or less caliber) are legal. Over 5% of Australians own a gun.
Aussie gun laws. (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You forgot to mention that most "assault rifles" are often easily modifiable into a non-illegal configuration. Have a pistol grip? Quick! Replace it with a thumb-in-hole stock. Have a detachable magazine? Add a bullet button!
Unless the powers that be want to make illegal the Ruger 10/22 and standard hammer, any law seeking to limit access to an assault rifle or weapon that can be used to assault is rather pointless.
Re: (Score:3)
Reading how the events went down http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org] , one person with concealed carry could have stopped that deranged person with history of violence LONG before the body count went to double digits.
Re:Aussie gun laws. (Score:4, Funny)
In the USA, we have bears, cougars, wolves, etc. Guns are essential in rural areas, and we don't (yet) have border checkpoints at the cities (except Manhattan I think)
in AUS, you have spiders, jellyfish, koalas, etc. Not even a bazooka will help you against them.
Re: (Score:3)
Australia's crime rate went up after guns were outlawed in 1996
Yeah and the massacre rate went to .... eer zero.
Anyone who thinks the ban on guns was to stop single murder is quite frankly stupid. There are many ways to kill. The thing that makes projectile weapons unique is that they can be used indiscriminately from a distance at multiple targets.
You want to stab me, you'll have to get close first. I have a fighting chance. .... well you have a fat chance.
You want to stab everyone in the room.
You have a gun and want to do either then you effectively have that power o
Re: (Score:2)
Or a dictator head of state died and things went "apeshit" for a while in 2013? Yes, I admit there may well be reasons that have nothing to do with gun control at play there, but if so then that country is a lousy example to use by the poster to whom I was replying.
Re: (Score:2)
You filthy communist. We do sometimes dabble in exotic european guns, just as we do with club drugs; but that's different.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you, AC, implying that America has stooped so low as to resort to mass imports of cheap south american guns ... to satisfy our craving for firepower?
Taurus?
Not true (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In what country is that balance tipped in favour of the citizen?
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a gun for your personal use (ie you are not a farmer) then I want you watched as a terrorist, because that's exactly what you are
And if you have thoughts like that, I also want you watched as a terrorist, because thats exactly what you are.
Oh, you want to claim the first amendment protects you? funny how you cant count to 2 though....
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you want to claim the first amendment protects you? funny how you cant count to 2 though....
The first amendment guarantees he can say whatever the hell he wants about the other numbered rights, nobody is forcing you to agree with him.
Re: (Score:2)
If the front and back license plates, driver and passengers are going to get tracked in some federal database best to use a federal database that lawyers, the press, politicians and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) cant really question or even know about.
It also hides the requests for optical character recognition, facial recognition system away from the teams of journalists who look deep into state, federal gov and mil procurement databases for just suc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)