Great article. I’ve pasted a couple of excerpts but you should read the whole thing.

Inside the Federal Bureau Of Way Too Many Guns
by JEANNE MARIE LASKAS
http://www.gq.com/story/inside-federal-bureau-of-way-too-many-guns

There’s no telling how many guns we have in America—and when one gets used in a crime, no way for the cops to connect it to its owner. The only place the police can turn for help is a Kafkaesque agency in West Virginia, where, thanks to the gun lobby, computers are illegal and detective work is absurdly antiquated. On purpose. Thing is, the geniuses who work there are quietly inventing ways to do the impossible.

—-

Say there’s a murder. Blood everywhere, a dead guy on the floor. The cops come in with their yellow tape, chalk line, the little booties, cameras, swabs, the fingerprint dust. One of them finds a gun on the floor. The gun! He lifts it with his pinkie, examines it, takes note of the serial number. Back at the station, they run a trace on the gun. A name pops up. It’s the wife! Or: It’s the business partner! It’s somebody’s gun, and this is so exciting because now they know who did it.
Except—no. You are watching too much TV. It doesn’t work like that.
“Think,” says Charlie Houser, a federal agent with the ATF. We’re in his office, a corner, and he’s got a whiteboard behind him where he’s splashed diagrams, charts, numbers.
The cops run a trace on a gun? What does that even mean? A name pops up? From where? There’s some master list somewhere? Like, for all the guns all over the world, there’s a master list that started with the No. 1 (when? World War I? Civil War? Russian Revolution? when?), and in the year 2016 we are now up to No. 14 gazillion whatever, and every single one of those serial numbers has a gun owner’s name attached to it on some giant list somewhere (where?), which, thank God, a big computer is keeping track of?

“People don’t think,” Charlie tells me. He’s a trim guy, 51, full lips and a thin goatee, and he likes to wear three-piece suits. They fit loose, so the overall effect is awkward innocence, like an eighth grader headed to his first formal. “ I get e-mails even from police saying, ‘Can you type in the serial number and tell me who the gun is registered to?’ Every week. They think it’s like a VIN number on a car. Even police. Police from everywhere. ‘Hey, can you guys hurry up and type that number in?’ ”

So here’s a news flash, from Charlie: “We ain’t got a registration system. Ain’t nobody registering no damn guns.”
There is no national database of guns. We have no centralized record of who owns all the firearms we so vigorously debate, no hard data regarding how many people own them, how many of them are bought or sold, or how many even exist.
What we have instead is Charlie.

—-
I want to ask about the microfilm—microfilm?—but it’s hard to get a word in. He’s already gone three rounds on the whiteboard, scribbling, erasing, illustrating some of the finer points of gun tracing, of which there are many, in large part due to the limitations imposed upon this place. For example, no computer. The National Tracing Center is not allowed to have centralized computer data.
“That’s the big no-no,” says Charlie.
That’s been a federal law, thanks to the NRA, since 1986: No searchable database of America’s gun owners. So people here have to use paper, sort through enormous stacks of forms and record books that gun stores are required to keep and to eventually turn over to the feds when requested. It’s kind of like a library in the old days—but without the card catalog. They can use pictures of paper, like microfilm (they recently got the go-ahead to convert the microfilm to PDFs), as long as the pictures of paper are not searchable. You have to flip through and read. No searching by gun owner. No searching by name.
—-

Did you find it strange that the first picture, that of the head of the search office, shows him in his office and yet wearing a sidearm.

sibeen said:

Did you find it strange that the first picture, that of the head of the search office, shows him in his office and yet wearing a sidearm.

Not particularly.

sibeen said:

Did you find it strange that the first picture, that of the head of the search office, shows him in his office and yet wearing a sidearm.

i too noticed that. i theorized that there might be elements in the public sphere who see even a computerless bureau as a threat.

An interesting read.
The number of guns in America is staggering.

“Hitler and Stalin, like every dictator who perpetrated genocide during the 20th century, assiduously confiscated guns before starting the genocide,” wrote gun-rights activist Dave Kopel in a recent NRA publication.

Good thing America’s gun culture is averting mass killings. Oh, wait…..

ruby said:

An interesting read.
The number of guns in America is staggering.

“Hitler and Stalin, like every dictator who perpetrated genocide during the 20th century, assiduously confiscated guns before starting the genocide,” wrote gun-rights activist Dave Kopel in a recent NRA publication.

Good thing America’s gun culture is averting mass killings. Oh, wait…..

John Howard just never got around to starting the genocide I guess.

ruby said:

An interesting read.
The number of guns in America is staggering.

“Hitler and Stalin, like every dictator who perpetrated genocide during the 20th century, assiduously confiscated guns before starting the genocide,” wrote gun-rights activist Dave Kopel in a recent NRA publication.

Good thing America’s gun culture is averting mass killings. Oh, wait…..

It’s complete crap anyway. The Nazis loosened gun ownership regulation for Aryan Germans.

dv said:

ruby said:

An interesting read.
The number of guns in America is staggering.

“Hitler and Stalin, like every dictator who perpetrated genocide during the 20th century, assiduously confiscated guns before starting the genocide,” wrote gun-rights activist Dave Kopel in a recent NRA publication.

Good thing America’s gun culture is averting mass killings. Oh, wait…..

It’s complete crap anyway. The Nazis loosened gun ownership regulation for Aryan Germans.

Americans seem to like to be led around by people that spout complete crap.

dv said:

ruby said:

An interesting read.
The number of guns in America is staggering.

“Hitler and Stalin, like every dictator who perpetrated genocide during the 20th century, assiduously confiscated guns before starting the genocide,” wrote gun-rights activist Dave Kopel in a recent NRA publication.

Good thing America’s gun culture is averting mass killings. Oh, wait…..

It’s complete crap anyway. The Nazis loosened gun ownership regulation for Aryan Germans.

Trump is pro gun, so things look set to stay the same on that front.

dv said:

ruby said:

An interesting read.
The number of guns in America is staggering.

“Hitler and Stalin, like every dictator who perpetrated genocide during the 20th century, assiduously confiscated guns before starting the genocide,” wrote gun-rights activist Dave Kopel in a recent NRA publication.

Good thing America’s gun culture is averting mass killings. Oh, wait…..

It’s complete crap anyway. The Nazis loosened gun ownership regulation for Aryan Germans.

The Nazis were pushing guns into the hands of the masses towards the end of the war, including arming twelve-year-olds with bazookas etc.

dv said:

ruby said:

An interesting read.
The number of guns in America is staggering.

“Hitler and Stalin, like every dictator who perpetrated genocide during the 20th century, assiduously confiscated guns before starting the genocide,” wrote gun-rights activist Dave Kopel in a recent NRA publication.

Good thing America’s gun culture is averting mass killings. Oh, wait…..

It’s complete crap anyway. The Nazis loosened gun ownership regulation for Aryan Germans.

well, they usually give people in armies guns. helps em do their job.

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

ruby said:

An interesting read.
The number of guns in America is staggering.

“Hitler and Stalin, like every dictator who perpetrated genocide during the 20th century, assiduously confiscated guns before starting the genocide,” wrote gun-rights activist Dave Kopel in a recent NRA publication.

Good thing America’s gun culture is averting mass killings. Oh, wait…..

It’s complete crap anyway. The Nazis loosened gun ownership regulation for Aryan Germans.

Trump is pro gun, so things look set to stay the same on that front.

get worse

ruby said:

dv said:

ruby said:

An interesting read.
The number of guns in America is staggering.

“Hitler and Stalin, like every dictator who perpetrated genocide during the 20th century, assiduously confiscated guns before starting the genocide,” wrote gun-rights activist Dave Kopel in a recent NRA publication.

Good thing America’s gun culture is averting mass killings. Oh, wait…..

It’s complete crap anyway. The Nazis loosened gun ownership regulation for Aryan Germans.

Americans seem to like to be led around by people that spout complete crap.

Years of mass media story telling has made the masses detached from reality

German kids learning how to use a machine gun.

ruby said:

dv said:

ruby said:

An interesting read.
The number of guns in America is staggering.

“Hitler and Stalin, like every dictator who perpetrated genocide during the 20th century, assiduously confiscated guns before starting the genocide,” wrote gun-rights activist Dave Kopel in a recent NRA publication.

Good thing America’s gun culture is averting mass killings. Oh, wait…..

It’s complete crap anyway. The Nazis loosened gun ownership regulation for Aryan Germans.

Americans seem to like to be led around by people that spout complete crap.

The nation evolved around snake oil salesmen and freak shows.

“We ain’t got a registration system. Ain’t nobody registering no damn guns.”

That comes as a shock.

“That’s been a federal law, thanks to the NRA, since 1986: No searchable database of America’s gun owners.”

Time to change the law.

“The number of guns in America is staggering.”

How many in Canada? I’ve heard it said that in Canada there’s a higher per person gun ownership than America, but much less gun crime.

I wonder if it would be legal to build and store the database overseas?

mollwollfumble said:

How many in Canada? I’ve heard it said that in Canada there’s a higher per person gun ownership than America, but much less gun crime.

Nooo. US has nearly four times as many guns per capita than Canada.

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

mollwollfumble said:

“We ain’t got a registration system. Ain’t nobody registering no damn guns.”

That comes as a shock.

“That’s been a federal law, thanks to the NRA, since 1986: No searchable database of America’s gun owners.”

Time to change the law.

“The number of guns in America is staggering.”

How many in Canada? I’ve heard it said that in Canada there’s a higher per person gun ownership than America, but much less gun crime.

It’s about a quarter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

“We ain’t got a registration system. Ain’t nobody registering no damn guns.”

“That’s been a federal law, thanks to the NRA, since 1986: No searchable database of America’s gun owners.”

Americans do not want crime traced back to them if they use guns

freedom

party_pants said:

I wonder if it would be legal to build and store the database overseas?

Maybe, but a CIA precedent might result in the ruling that the court cannot prevent a data base overseas but it can prevent it being used in courts or investigations in America.

AwesomeO said:

party_pants said:

I wonder if it would be legal to build and store the database overseas?

Maybe, but a CIA precedent might result in the ruling that the court cannot prevent a data base overseas but it can prevent it being used in courts or investigations in America.

Yeah, but you don’t tell them that bit. They only have to provide the bit of paper at the end of the process, not explain how they found that one.

party_pants said:

AwesomeO said:

party_pants said:

I wonder if it would be legal to build and store the database overseas?

Maybe, but a CIA precedent might result in the ruling that the court cannot prevent a data base overseas but it can prevent it being used in courts or investigations in America.

Yeah, but you don’t tell them that bit. They only have to provide the bit of paper at the end of the process, not explain how they found that one.

Defence is a bit smarter than that, it will be found during discovery and disallowed.

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

“We ain’t got a registration system. Ain’t nobody registering no damn guns.”

That comes as a shock.

“That’s been a federal law, thanks to the NRA, since 1986: No searchable database of America’s gun owners.”

Time to change the law.

“The number of guns in America is staggering.”

How many in Canada? I’ve heard it said that in Canada there’s a higher per person gun ownership than America, but much less gun crime.

It’s about a quarter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Apart from the lower numbers, of course, Canada has the basic common sense gun control measures you’d expect in any well run country. Psychiatric and criminal background checks before buying a gun are mandatory in Canada. There is a central registration and licensing body. You can’t carry the gun on you unlocked: if you’re transporting it you have to have it in a locked container in the vehicle. Semi-automatic weapons are restricted to five rounds.

Ta for info on Canada gun ownership.

Would be a good idea to build a database overseas.

Also good would be a way of auto-searching the PDF files.

Remember someone of some note being booked for gun possession when he was seen taking a rifle from the boot of a car and going to an interview in a building, I think there was a tyre company involved.
Anyway it was a sporting rifle and he was taking it to show someone.
I don’t know how that all ended up but there were a shed load of subplots within enigmas and law suits flying everywhere.

Peak Warming Man said:

Remember someone of some note being booked for gun possession when he was seen taking a rifle from the boot of a car and going to an interview in a building, I think there was a tyre company involved.
Anyway it was a sporting rifle and he was taking it to show someone.
I don’t know how that all ended up but there were a shed load of subplots within enigmas and law suits flying everywhere.

I think you’d need to be more specific.

What is behind the American obsession with guns, but more importantly the power of the NRA?

Is the NRA controlled by the gun manufacturers with financial support and kick-backs?
Is it being manipulated by organised crime?

There must be large sums of money involved to infiltrate the minds of politicians, plus build the organisation to lobby them and sway the public. So who and/or what is behind this hugely influential organisation?

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Remember someone of some note being booked for gun possession when he was seen taking a rifle from the boot of a car and going to an interview in a building, I think there was a tyre company involved.
Anyway it was a sporting rifle and he was taking it to show someone.
I don’t know how that all ended up but there were a shed load of subplots within enigmas and law suits flying everywhere.

I think you’d need to be more specific.

Yes.

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Remember someone of some note being booked for gun possession when he was seen taking a rifle from the boot of a car and going to an interview in a building, I think there was a tyre company involved.
Anyway it was a sporting rifle and he was taking it to show someone.
I don’t know how that all ended up but there were a shed load of subplots within enigmas and law suits flying everywhere.

I think you’d need to be more specific.

Yes.

Was it an American? Were they a celebrity?

Was it on the series finale of Breaking Bad?

30 and humid, very humid.

Tau.Neutrino said:

30 and humid, very humid.

well as I’m wondering

Has weather got to do anything with US shootings, is there any correlation?

things like temp and air pressure?

PermeateFree said:

What is behind the American obsession with guns, but more importantly the power of the NRA?

Is the NRA controlled by the gun manufacturers with financial support and kick-backs?
Is it being manipulated by organised crime?

There must be large sums of money involved to infiltrate the minds of politicians, plus build the organisation to lobby them and sway the public. So who and/or what is behind this hugely influential organisation?

Some criticism. In 2011, the VPC’s executive director, Josh Sugarmann, said: “Today’s NRA is a virtual subsidiary of the gun industry. While the NRA portrays itself as protecting the ‘freedom’ of individual gun owners, it’s actually working to protect the freedom of the gun industry to manufacture and sell virtually any weapon or accessory.

Although:

In 2010, the NRA reported revenue of $227.8 million and expenses of $243.5 million, with revenue including roughly $115 million generated from fundraising, sales, advertising and royalties, and most of the rest from membership dues. Less than half of the NRA’s income is from membership dues and program fees; the majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising. The NRA has said that less than 5% of its funding comes from the firearms industry, with the majority coming from small donors.

Can it be so simple and straightforward?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

30 and humid, very humid.

well as I’m wondering

Has weather got to do anything with US shootings, is there any correlation?

things like temp and air pressure?

I wonder if US shootings and air pressure have anything to do with each other?

or whether it can be discounted

Has there been any study into how emotions are effected by air pressure, humidity and temperature?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Has there been any study into how emotions are effected by air pressure, humidity and temperature?

yes there have been studies

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651091/
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/11/09/weather-can-change-your-mood/

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Has there been any study into how emotions are effected by air pressure, humidity and temperature?

yes there have been studies

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651091/
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/11/09/weather-can-change-your-mood/

It still would be interesting to see air pressure details for US shootings

but I guess they might not record that information

ie what if shootings are found to take place during high pressure weather

or whether it can be discounted

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

What is behind the American obsession with guns, but more importantly the power of the NRA?

Is the NRA controlled by the gun manufacturers with financial support and kick-backs?
Is it being manipulated by organised crime?

There must be large sums of money involved to infiltrate the minds of politicians, plus build the organisation to lobby them and sway the public. So who and/or what is behind this hugely influential organisation?

Some criticism. In 2011, the VPC’s executive director, Josh Sugarmann, said: “Today’s NRA is a virtual subsidiary of the gun industry. While the NRA portrays itself as protecting the ‘freedom’ of individual gun owners, it’s actually working to protect the freedom of the gun industry to manufacture and sell virtually any weapon or accessory.

Although:

In 2010, the NRA reported revenue of $227.8 million and expenses of $243.5 million, with revenue including roughly $115 million generated from fundraising, sales, advertising and royalties, and most of the rest from membership dues. Less than half of the NRA’s income is from membership dues and program fees; the majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising. The NRA has said that less than 5% of its funding comes from the firearms industry, with the majority coming from small donors.

Can it be so simple and straightforward?

To follow the reasoning of Tau. the population of the USA in 2014 was 318.9 million and there are estimated to be one psychopath per 100 people, which would make 3,189,000 psycos in America. The NRA had around 5 million members in 2013, so despite all the American psychopaths being members, there are presumably some reasonably normal people too, although probably with vested interests.

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

What is behind the American obsession with guns, but more importantly the power of the NRA?

Is the NRA controlled by the gun manufacturers with financial support and kick-backs?
Is it being manipulated by organised crime?

There must be large sums of money involved to infiltrate the minds of politicians, plus build the organisation to lobby them and sway the public. So who and/or what is behind this hugely influential organisation?

Some criticism. In 2011, the VPC’s executive director, Josh Sugarmann, said: “Today’s NRA is a virtual subsidiary of the gun industry. While the NRA portrays itself as protecting the ‘freedom’ of individual gun owners, it’s actually working to protect the freedom of the gun industry to manufacture and sell virtually any weapon or accessory.

Although:

In 2010, the NRA reported revenue of $227.8 million and expenses of $243.5 million, with revenue including roughly $115 million generated from fundraising, sales, advertising and royalties, and most of the rest from membership dues. Less than half of the NRA’s income is from membership dues and program fees; the majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising. The NRA has said that less than 5% of its funding comes from the firearms industry, with the majority coming from small donors.

Can it be so simple and straightforward?

We may be going the same way, with the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia having amassed a bit of money…..$34 million give or take a couple of dollars-

Shooters war chest, wonder what they’ll do with that…

Id rather keep guns out of politics.

PermeateFree said:

What is behind the American obsession with guns, but more importantly the power of the NRA?

Is the NRA controlled by the gun manufacturers with financial support and kick-backs?
Is it being manipulated by organised crime?

There must be large sums of money involved to infiltrate the minds of politicians, plus build the organisation to lobby them and sway the public. So who and/or what is behind this hugely influential organisation?

The principal of free and ready access to weapons is supported by a great many American citizens. Whilst they may not agree with all the positions of the NRA they do recognize that the NRA is the most powerful advocate of this principal. I’m sure the things you mentioned are in play, but the NRA derives its power from the support of these citizens. In other words, it’s the “obsession with guns” you mentioned which empowers gun advocacy.

As to the obsession itself, the reasons are multi-faceted but largely overwrit by the desire for a high level of self determination.

Many Americans see a fundamental difference between their democracy and similar democracies like Australia, UK, Canada etc in that for these latter countries democracy is a thing which was granted to the population by the ruling class rather than taken from the ruling class by force of war. Any abrogation of gun rights viewed from this mindset is seen as a submission to authority which is in profound contrast to the foundation of American democracy.

esselte said:

PermeateFree said:

What is behind the American obsession with guns, but more importantly the power of the NRA?

Is the NRA controlled by the gun manufacturers with financial support and kick-backs?
Is it being manipulated by organised crime?

There must be large sums of money involved to infiltrate the minds of politicians, plus build the organisation to lobby them and sway the public. So who and/or what is behind this hugely influential organisation?

The principal of free and ready access to weapons is supported by a great many American citizens. Whilst they may not agree with all the positions of the NRA they do recognize that the NRA is the most powerful advocate of this principal. I’m sure the things you mentioned are in play, but the NRA derives its power from the support of these citizens. In other words, it’s the “obsession with guns” you mentioned which empowers gun advocacy.

As to the obsession itself, the reasons are multi-faceted but largely overwrit by the desire for a high level of self determination.

Many Americans see a fundamental difference between their democracy and similar democracies like Australia, UK, Canada etc in that for these latter countries democracy is a thing which was granted to the population by the ruling class rather than taken from the ruling class by force of war. Any abrogation of gun rights viewed from this mindset is seen as a submission to authority which is in profound contrast to the foundation of American democracy.

In reality though if the US military decided to take over the citizens guns would do very little to stop them.

esselte said:

Many Americans see a fundamental difference between their democracy and similar democracies like Australia, UK, Canada etc in that for these latter countries democracy is a thing which was granted to the population by the ruling class rather than taken from the ruling class by force of war.

That’s the myth, but the reality is that the ruling class owns American democracy more than it does in other nations, and are able to do so because of wedge issues such as gun control.

Cymek said:

esselte said:

PermeateFree said:

What is behind the American obsession with guns, but more importantly the power of the NRA?

Is the NRA controlled by the gun manufacturers with financial support and kick-backs?
Is it being manipulated by organised crime?

There must be large sums of money involved to infiltrate the minds of politicians, plus build the organisation to lobby them and sway the public. So who and/or what is behind this hugely influential organisation?

The principal of free and ready access to weapons is supported by a great many American citizens. Whilst they may not agree with all the positions of the NRA they do recognize that the NRA is the most powerful advocate of this principal. I’m sure the things you mentioned are in play, but the NRA derives its power from the support of these citizens. In other words, it’s the “obsession with guns” you mentioned which empowers gun advocacy.

As to the obsession itself, the reasons are multi-faceted but largely overwrit by the desire for a high level of self determination.

Many Americans see a fundamental difference between their democracy and similar democracies like Australia, UK, Canada etc in that for these latter countries democracy is a thing which was granted to the population by the ruling class rather than taken from the ruling class by force of war. Any abrogation of gun rights viewed from this mindset is seen as a submission to authority which is in profound contrast to the foundation of American democracy.

In reality though if the US military decided to take over the citizens guns would do very little to stop them.

Stop spoiling the American dream Cymek.

Cymek said:

In reality though if the US military decided to take over the citizens guns would do very little to stop them.

Which is why the NRA advocates for free and easy access to weapons, the idea being that the easier they are to get the more people will own them.

I don’t think anyone believes civilians could take on the US military with any real success regardless of the number of fire arms available, but it is a lot more difficult for an uppity government or military to attack 20 million armed citizens than it is 20 armed citizens.

esselte said:

Which is why the NRA advocates for free and easy access to weapons

No, the NRA advocates free and easy access to weapons because they are a front for the weapons industry. This isn’t exactly a secret.

dv said:

esselte said:

Which is why the NRA advocates for free and easy access to weapons

No, the NRA advocates free and easy access to weapons because they are a front for the weapons industry. This isn’t exactly a secret.

I imagine that those most often killed by guns (baring accidents) are what many people considered less valuable.

Trump is softening his stance on gun control.
Yesterday in a wide ranging interview on NPR he said he was open to the idea of banning the sale of semi-automatic rifles to registered Muslims.

dv said:

esselte said:

Which is why the NRA advocates for free and easy access to weapons

No, the NRA advocates free and easy access to weapons because they are a front for the weapons industry. This isn’t exactly a secret.

Better if I had said “this is why the NRA advocacy for free and easy access to weapons has the support of a large number of Americans”?

Peak Warming Man said:

Trump is softening his stance on gun control.
Yesterday in a wide ranging interview on NPR he said he was open to the idea of banning the sale of semi-automatic rifles to registered Muslims.

Saints be praised.

There was an episode of ‘Cops’ that summed it all up for me.

Police attended a ‘shots fired’ call. Found that an old lady had ‘thought’ there was ‘ a prowler’ in her backyard’. So, she’d got her .45 pistol out of the drawer, and whanged off six or seven rounds into the dark, and nothing in particular.

Cops investigated, found no signs of anyone having been there then loaded her gun for her again, and gave it back to her. No charges etc. recorded.

The comments of neighbours who’d had big fat bullets whizzing around their premises were, apparently, not sought.

Moreover, setting up a central firearms registry and even allowing them to use computers would not be a limitation on access to firearms.

dv said:

Moreover, setting up a central firearms registry and even allowing them to use computers would not be a limitation on access to firearms.

Information is power.

dv said:

Moreover, setting up a central firearms registry and even allowing them to use computers would not be a limitation on access to firearms.

Brings me back to my OP of who is behind these actions and why.

mcgoon said:

There was an episode of ‘Cops’ that summed it all up for me.

Police attended a ‘shots fired’ call. Found that an old lady had ‘thought’ there was ‘ a prowler’ in her backyard’. So, she’d got her .45 pistol out of the drawer, and whanged off six or seven rounds into the dark, and nothing in particular.

Cops investigated, found no signs of anyone having been there then loaded her gun for her again, and gave it back to her. No charges etc. recorded.

The comments of neighbours who’d had big fat bullets whizzing around their premises were, apparently, not sought.

It is the single biggest threat to the security of most Americans.

The control of information is something the elite always does, particularly in a despotic form of government. Information, knowledge, is power. If you can control information, you can control people. ——Tom Clancy
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/knowledge_is_power.html

dv said:

mcgoon said:

There was an episode of ‘Cops’ that summed it all up for me.

Police attended a ‘shots fired’ call. Found that an old lady had ‘thought’ there was ‘ a prowler’ in her backyard’. So, she’d got her .45 pistol out of the drawer, and whanged off six or seven rounds into the dark, and nothing in particular.

Cops investigated, found no signs of anyone having been there then loaded her gun for her again, and gave it back to her. No charges etc. recorded.

The comments of neighbours who’d had big fat bullets whizzing around their premises were, apparently, not sought.

It is the single biggest threat to the security of most Americans.

What? ‘Prowlers’, or old ladies with gats that will bring down a horse?

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Moreover, setting up a central firearms registry and even allowing them to use computers would not be a limitation on access to firearms.

Brings me back to my OP of who is behind these actions and why.

Would make sense.

cf marijuana legalisation. The people who lost out where those whose living it was to ship the stuff from Mexico.

mcgoon said:

dv said:

mcgoon said:

There was an episode of ‘Cops’ that summed it all up for me.

Police attended a ‘shots fired’ call. Found that an old lady had ‘thought’ there was ‘ a prowler’ in her backyard’. So, she’d got her .45 pistol out of the drawer, and whanged off six or seven rounds into the dark, and nothing in particular.

Cops investigated, found no signs of anyone having been there then loaded her gun for her again, and gave it back to her. No charges etc. recorded.

The comments of neighbours who’d had big fat bullets whizzing around their premises were, apparently, not sought.

It is the single biggest threat to the security of most Americans.

What? ‘Prowlers’, or old ladies with gats that will bring down a horse?

Uncontrolled firearm use by American citizens is.

It all comes back to poor sentence construction.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution 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.”

The intention clearly was that ‘arms’ would be ‘borne’ as part of a well-regulated militia, contributing to the security of a free state.

Gun-rights people see the first half of the sentence as a separate matter, and foucs on the latter half, ignoring the comma after ‘Arms’ and any significance it might impart as part of the whole statement.

If it had been phrased something like:

“Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms as part of a well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.”

then a lot of dodgy arguments would have been stillborn.

mcgoon said:

It all comes back to poor sentence construction.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution 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.”

The intention clearly was that ‘arms’ would be ‘borne’ as part of a well-regulated militia, contributing to the security of a free state.

Gun-rights people see the first half of the sentence as a separate matter, and foucs on the latter half, ignoring the comma after ‘Arms’ and any significance it might impart as part of the whole statement.

If it had been phrased something like:

“Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms as part of a well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.”

then a lot of dodgy arguments would have been stillborn.

When you have a substantial portion of the American population believing the bible is a literal interpretation of the word of god, you have problems before you start

mcgoon said:

It all comes back to poor sentence construction.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution 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.”

The intention clearly was that ‘arms’ would be ‘borne’ as part of a well-regulated militia, contributing to the security of a free state.

Gun-rights people see the first half of the sentence as a separate matter, and foucs on the latter half, ignoring the comma after ‘Arms’ and any significance it might impart as part of the whole statement.

If it had been phrased something like:

“Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms as part of a well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.”

then a lot of dodgy arguments would have been stillborn.

Militia could easily become lynch mob

Cymek said:

mcgoon said:

It all comes back to poor sentence construction.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution 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.”

The intention clearly was that ‘arms’ would be ‘borne’ as part of a well-regulated militia, contributing to the security of a free state.

Gun-rights people see the first half of the sentence as a separate matter, and foucs on the latter half, ignoring the comma after ‘Arms’ and any significance it might impart as part of the whole statement.

If it had been phrased something like:

“Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms as part of a well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.”

then a lot of dodgy arguments would have been stillborn.

Militia could easily become lynch mob

‘Militia’ is what we have in Australia – the Defence Force Reserves.

Under proper regulation and supervision, citizens can join the Reserves, and ‘bear arms’ in circumstances that the elected government deems appropriate, and subject to Australian and international law.

That was the intention of the second amendment.

As for the idea that the ‘common people’ wrested freedom from the elite in the American revolution:

many of the American ‘founding fathers’ were prominent businessmen, and they objected to taxation impinging on their profits.

‘No taxation without representation’ was the cry, but even after the Revolution was won, and the American government established, the same vested interests struggled for years to deny that government any capacity to raise funds to pay for its own operation – especially fighting hard to prevent the US govt from being able to impose taxes. They preferred that it be funded by voluntary contributions from State governments, the same State governments over which they exerted a great deal of influence.

‘No taxes at all for our little club’ would have been a more honest slogan.