Clinton's sneak attack on our right to arms

[steelheart]

Remember this when you go to vote in 2008...

SHH! HILL TAKES AIM AT GUNS
By IAN BISHOP Post Correspondent

April 3, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has quietly stepped up her fight for tighter gun control by signing on to a new push to make public a national database of weapons used in crimes and illegal sales.

Her résumé on gun control, a pet issue among the Democratic Party's liberal base, includes calls for a ban on assault weapons and so-called "cop killer" armor-piercing ammo - yet she hasn't personally taken a lead role in any gun legislation in this Congress.

Her silent shuffle to the left on the lightning-rod issue is sure to rankle the powerful National Rifle Association and gun-loving heartland voters who will decide the 2008 White House race.

But Clinton was so eager to have her name attached to the bill that she called Sen. Bob Menendez out of the blue to co-sponsor it, the rookie New Jersey Democrat told The Post.

She signed on to the bill last week, immediately after Menendez formally filed it, but never touted her support in a press release. So far, Clinton and fellow New York Dem Chuck Schumer are the sole Senate co-sponsors.

The NRA, gun manufacturers and their congressional allies say critics only want the data so they can sue gunmakers.

The NRA's massive political machine is poised to pound on Clinton in gun-obsessed battleground states during a likely 2008 White House race - an onslaught she may have a tough time countering.

Once again, the Democrats show their obsession with citizen disarmament...

 

[Redworm]

With the exception of the lawsuits against manufacturers, which should be eliminated unless they're directly responsible for specific instances, I don't see a problem with a database of weapons used in crimes.

 

[steelheart]

First it's a database used in crimes, then next year it is a database of all firearms... They will never stop.

The "crime gun" database is just a prelude to her true intentions, just like the so-called assault weapon ban was "Clearly just the first step" (their words).

 

[Redworm]

I don't support it but out of curiosity what exactly is the big deal about a national database of firearms? We have a national database of cars because they can be stolen, they are dangerous, and they can be used in crimes. Does a database infringe on your right to keep and bear? I know that it could be used to round up firearm owners but that doesn't necessarily mean it would.

 

[steelheart]

It's not about guns - it's about CONTROL

I know that it could be used to round up firearm owners but that doesn't necessarily mean it would.

So you are trusting "The Government" to not do that, given the tools to do so?????? I would have to say your trust is very misplaced.

Historically speaking, gun registration has always been a prelude to confiscation - we have seen it in multiple examples from around the globe.

There is no other reason for "The Government" to need know who owns guns and how many.

Does a database infringe on your right to keep and bear?

That potential exsists, and "The Government" cannot be trusted with it. They want to see who owns what guns because they can't control what they can't see.

 

[Lord_Nikon]

How is this going to hurt my, or anyone's, RKBA? My guns haven't been used in any crimes. That puts me in the majority.
Slippery slope arguments prove nothing.

 

[steelheart]

Here we go again (attack of the Democrats/leftists)...

Slippery slope arguments prove nothing.

But history does. As I said earlier -

Historically speaking, gun registration has always been a prelude to confiscation - we have seen it in multiple examples from around the globe.

History cannot be denied.

First it's a database used in crimes, then next year it is a database of all firearms... They will never stop.

The "crime gun" database is just a prelude to her true intentions, just like the so-called assault weapon ban was "Clearly just the first step" (their words).

They want to see who owns what guns because they can't control what they can't see...

 

[Lord_Nikon]

But a public registry of guns used in crimes wouldn't show who owns what guns. If I'm not mistaken, the guns aren't returned to the criminal on release from prison.
And anyway, from the language of the initial post, the database already exists. It just isn't available to the public.

 

[steelheart]

As I said earlier...

First it's a database used in crimes, then next year it is a database of all firearms... They will never stop.

The "crime gun" database is just a prelude to her true intentions, just like the so-called assault weapon ban was "Clearly just the first step" (their words).

 

[Lord_Nikon]

So then why aren't we protesting serial numbers?
And as I said earlier...

And anyway, from the language of the initial post, the database already exists. It just isn't available to the public.

 

[Redworm]

So you are trusting "The Government" to not do that, given the tools to do so?????? I would have to say your trust is very misplaced.

Not at all. For starters a database like that should have civilian oversight. Secondly I put no more or less trust in "The Government" than I do in other citizens. It would still remain our responsibility to make sure that this database is used in the capture and prosecution of those who abuse firearms by commited crimes with them and to make sure that it's not turned on us.

Historically speaking, gun registration has always been a prelude to confiscation - we have seen it in multiple examples from around the globe.

You're right but that the two are not inherently mutually inclusive. The latter is not automatically caused by the former; it only happens because it's allowed. I do believe there can be a middle ground here but fighting it with such opposition and refusing to compromise will only hurt the cause of the gun rights advocated.

There is no other reason for "The Government" to need know who owns guns and how many.

Not sure I agree with that. The claim is that most criminals get their guns by stealing them...ok, from where? From legal gun owners right? I doubt that all those illegal guns are being taken directly from manufacturers or retailers. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

Now if your gun is stolen and later used in a crime, wouldn't you want that person caught. Wouldn't it be prudent for law enforcement to know where the gun came from which would assist them in tracking down the criminal? Not much different than when a car is stolen and used in a crime.

That potential exsists, and "The Government" cannot be trusted with it. They want to see who owns what guns because they can't control what they can't see.

Not saying it should. Like I said, civilian oversight would be an absolute necessity (as I think it should be in many other facets of government, up to and including the military and law enforcement).

 

[steelheart]

Guns have serial numbers - all guns. It's a fact and you can't make them vanish. What you do with those serial numbers is the issue here.

 

[Redworm]

It's a fact and you can't make them vanish.

really? I thought serial numbers could be successfully ground down

 

[Lord_Nikon]

steelheart
And what this seems to be doing is allowing the people to find out what serial numbers have been used in a crime. No where in your initial post does it say that it will include names, addresses, etc. You can cry slippery slope all day, but that, and even the fact that it has happened before, doesn't make it true. After all, the examples we love to cite of registry leading to confiscation haven't started with "First they recorded which guns were used in crimes..." One way or the other, I don't see how this starts, or furthers, us down that slope. A database of guns used in crimes and a database of legally owned guns don't have much in common.

 

[steelheart]

The technology exsists to somehow read the stress marks left by the serial number stamping in the underlying steel when a serial number is ground off - this has been possible for some time.

If you want to grind off the serial numbers on your guns - go ahead. Personally, I think it would ruin the beauty of the gun.

Oh, and you would be comitting a felony crime.

For starters a database like that should have civilian oversight.

Which will never be allowed to happen - "The Government" doesn't like "civilian" oversight - why do you think it is practically nonexsistant at present?

Quote:
It would still remain our responsibility to make sure that this database is used in the capture and prosecution of those who abuse firearms by commited crimes with them

Wouldn't it be prudent for law enforcement to know where the gun came from which would assist them in tracking down the criminal? Not much different than when a car is stolen and used in a crime.

Knowing where the gun came from is irrelevant and has no bearing on catching the criminal; the issue is - where is the gun and the criminal now??

After the stolen gun is recovered, the original owner can reclaim it from the police who found it by providing them with a sales receipt or affadavit of ownership. "The Government" dose not need to know about any other guns he/she may own - that is, if catching the criminal and returning the gun to its rightful owner were the goals in the first place.

You're right but that the two are not inherently mutually inclusive. The latter is not automatically caused by the former; it only happens because it's allowed.

Yet it has happened in example after example after example in history. The reason it is "allowed" is because the people who are to be disarmed have no choice - it's a case of "give us all your guns, or we will kill you and then take them." Unless we want to face the same choice some day in the future, we have got to destroy the building blocks that bring about such a situation - like a national gun registry.

 

[steelheart]

And what this seems to be doing is allowing the people to find out what serial numbers have been used in a crime. No where in your initial post does it say that it will include names, addresses, etc. You can cry slippery slope all day, but that, and even the fact that it has happened before, doesn't make it true. After all, the examples we love to cite of registry leading to confiscation haven't started with "First they recorded which guns were used in crimes..." One way or the other, I don't see how this starts, or furthers, us down that slope. A database of guns owned in crimes and a database of legally owned guns don't have much in common.

As I said earlier:

First it's a database used in crimes, then next year it is a database of all firearms... They will never stop.

The "crime gun" database is just a prelude to her true intentions, just like the so-called assault weapon ban was "Clearly just the first step" (their words).

As far as gun registration being used as a tool in government-run gun confiscation, no matter how much you may wish it were not so, it is so. History cannot be denied.

 

[rick_reno]

If you're worried about s/n's and tracking of your firearms - buy guns made before 1899. They work fine and most are exempt from the paperwork associated with modern firearms.

To add fuel to the fire, in 1999 over 150,000 firearms were submitted by law enforcement agencies for tracing by the ATF, that's over 3 times as many in 1993. This growth in trace requests indicates the success of ATF's program to persuade state and local agencies of the strategic value of comprehensive firearms tracing.

There is an excellent paper discussing this here http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/people/faculty/cook/SAN01-11.pdf

 

[steelheart]

Of course the ATF's program to encourage firearms tracing has been successful - government agencies' efforts to crawl up citizens butts is a neverending campaign.

What I'm saying is - where the gun came from is not the concern in solving the crime; where the gun and the criminal are located now is.

Let's say a thug robs a liquor store in Michigan with a gun - whether it is stolen, bought on the street from a crack dealer or was inherited by the thug is of no consequence - where the thug and gun are right now is the salient issue.

Let's say the gun was stolen from the car of its lawful owner in Ohio, then bought by the thug in Michigan - that information will help convict the thug of receiving stolen goods, but is of no use in locating where he is at present.

Saying that a national gun registry will "help solve crime" is nothing more than an excuse to enact a national gun registry. As I said before, "The Government" wants to see who owns what guns because they can't control what they can't see.

And back to my original point -

First it's a database used in crimes, then next year it is a database of all firearms... They will never stop.

The "crime gun" database is just a prelude to her true intentions, just like the so-called assault weapon ban was "Clearly just the first step" (their words).

The antigun/antifreedom bigots in "The Government" also have a history that cannot be denied.

 

[Redworm]

Which will never be allowed to happen - "The Government" doesn't like "civilian" oversight - why do you think it is practically nonexsistant at present?

And thus it's our responsibility to make it happen. Rights without responsibility are useless.

Knowing where the gun came from is irrelevant and has no bearing on catching the criminal; the issue is - where is the gun and the criminal now??

Knowing where something came from is often essential in figuring out where it's gone to. If they have no idea that the gun used in a crime was stolen from your home then it will hinder their chances of tracking down a suspect. Knowing where a gun came from can help investigators narrow down a list of suspects, track multiple victims of the same criminal using the same gun, and aid in the prosecution of said criminal.

Yet it has happened in example after example after example in history. The reason it is "allowed" is because the people who are to be disarmed have no choice - it's a case of "give us all your guns, or we will kill you and then take them." Unless we want to face the same choice some day in the future, we have got to destroy the building blocks that bring about such a situation - like a national gun registry.

Again, history does not inherently determine the course of the future. If lessons from the past are learned a system can be put in place that secures our rights and makes it easier for law enforcement to track down criminals. But fighting it like you are, acting like "the government" is just some sinister organization out to do nothing but oppress you, is not going to help your cause. Refusing to compromise will only hinder your arguments.


Don't get me wrong, I do see your point. I'm just not so sure that the idea as as evil as you make it out to be. Again, rights without responsibility are useless.

 

[steelheart]

If it were only a registry of guns used in crimes, that would be one thing, and maybe not so onerous and dangerous. However, based on the way politicians, bureaucrats and other government functionaries think and operate, my concern is this: It would inevitably lead to a registry of all guns and gun owners because the government would need "more information" to "effectively fight crime."

I have absolutely no faith in civilain control over such a system and such information - "The Government" operates with impunity now and does not submit to the will of the people; why would they do so in regard to an issue so vital to their neverending quest for control as a gun registry??

There's all this talk about Bush and his so-called "Imperial Presidency." Do you really think it will be any less so in years to come? I just don't see it happening. I don't see those who run "The Government" suddenly becoming guilt-ridden and forsaking their ways to return to government within Constitutional constraints.

Ain't gonna happen, no matter how nice it would be. We need to recognize this and plan accordingly, if we want to have any hope of keeping what little freedom and rights we have at present.