NYC subway shooter's firearm trace

Interesting ? I think funny or naive may be better . Maybe a joke is better ,...
Click to expand...
However you slice or dice it, in the recent past, under a Democrat president, the GAO reviewed BATF procedures, found them in violation of the law and forced them to come into compliance. Ideal would be the BATF follows the rules without being forced to--but having the system work as it should to bring them into compliance is still a win.
 
under a Democrat president
Click to expand...

The presidents come and go but the career government employees remain . What I was pointing out has very little to do with the president or any party IMHO . It's about power and they all want it and in many ways random guy high up in XYZ agency has more power then senators or presidents because they have access to the data and don't need the paper trail to get it .
 
The presidents come and go but the career government employees remain . What I was pointing out has very little to do with the president or any party IMHO . It's about power and they all want it and in many ways random guy high up in XYZ agency has more power then senators or presidents because they have access to the data and don't need the paper trail to get it .
Click to expand...
Ok, then leave out the part about the fact that even under a gun-unfriendly executive that the system was functioning as it should to keep the BATF in line. Just take it at face value.

However you slice or dice it, in the recent past, the GAO (made up of career government employees) reviewed BATF procedures, found them in violation of the law and forced the BATF to come into compliance. Ideal would be the BATF follows the rules without being forced to--but having the system work as it should to bring them into compliance is still a win.
 
However you slice or dice it, in the recent past, the GAO (made up of career government employees) reviewed BATF procedures, found them in violation of the law and forced the BATF to come into compliance.
Click to expand...

I did not follow this incident so I don't know all the details . Did the GAO "find" the violations or were they "presented" with evidence from out side sources or in a way they would not have otherwise found that forced them to conclude and remedy the violations ?
 
The report says that they found the violation during a review.

But even if they had been presented with evidence from outside sources, the fact that they acted on it would still be evidence that the system is working.
...I've not seen anything that would indicate the people in charge of any agency or pretty much the government in general care to follow any law or order .
Click to expand...
Now you have. What's odd is that one would think you'd be happy knowing that the system is working--but you seem to want to prove that it doesn't. :confused:
 
John, I would argue that the System is working -- when called & held to account.
It's that last part that when negligently -- or deliberately -- ignored, makes a
mockery of equal protection under the Law.

(And no.... temptation aside I won't go off topic in expansion)
;)



Correct me if in error, but in the subway case I'm told the Feds went from
Serial# --> GLOCK --> Dealer --> Retailer... who had the record of sale.
Bottom up...
 
I would argue that the System is working -- when called & held to account.
Click to expand...
In this case, the system effectively called and held itself to account.

I'm not saying that it always happens that way, that would be as much of a mistake as saying it never does.
 
There's an irony here. Around the time this country was founded, the Congress enacted a couple of laws called the Militia Acts. Adult males were required to register with the militia in their town or county (don't recall just how they were organized). The reason was so that militia commanders would know how many men they had available in time of need. As for firearms, they weren't registered BUT each militia member was required to provide his own rifle, and a basic load-out of twenty round balls and a quarter pound of powder.
Click to expand...

I'm a long way removed from my last American history classes but I seem to remember the number of militia members available was somehow tied to the amount of votes each county was able to submit in elections.
 
Rob228 said:
I'm a long way removed from my last American history classes but I seem to remember the number of militia members available was somehow tied to the amount of votes each county was able to submit in elections.
Click to expand...
No. I provided a link to the Militia Acts but, for those who don't want to bother reading them:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.
Click to expand...

As a further irony, there is still a version of the militia act in force in federal law today, and I suspect that it would surprise a great many anti-2A people today if they were to be informed that, like it or not, they are part of the militia:

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Click to expand...
 
Now you have. What's odd is that one would think you'd be happy knowing that the system is working--but you seem to want to prove that it doesn't.
Click to expand...

I was/am making a broader point , lets say I buy into the GAO found this issue and corrected it . One or two instances of the government running as it was intended is not necessarily a representation of the whole .

Maybe we both are at each extremes of the conversation and the reality is somewhere in the middle . The question to me is , should there be a middle ? With out direct and continued consequences for violating A, B & C it is inevitable people will push to D, E & F .

Do we really believe if this subway guy would have been charged and convicted of any number of his priors the subway shooting still would have happened ? Maybe yes maybe no but it would seem at minimum less likely . Don't we see this countless time in many of this incidents . Red flags or straight up crimes being committed by the shooter well before they take it to the next level ?
 
All that can be said with certainty is that, had the shooter been convicted and become a prohibited person, he could not have LEGALLY bought or possessed a gun.

Beyond that, its all conjecture. i think it quite likely that someone with the intention of committing MURDER (and a history of criminal offenses to boot) would not be stopped by not being able to legally have a gun.

Until, unless someone states that they didn't shoot people because they couldn't legally have a gun, it doesn't matter, and even if they make such a statement, it only applies to them, personally, not to the world at large.

Personally, I only see two ways to stop these kinds of shootings, one is impossible (removing all guns from planet earth) though a lot of people mistakenly think it is possible. and the other is to convince would be shooters that they will be rapidly, physically, permanently and unpleasntly removed from society. And DO THAT to those who are unconvinced and actually commit the crimes.

Probably wouldn't stop everyone, but I'd bet the rate of them happening would go waay down.
 
Maybe we both are at each extremes of the conversation and the reality is somewhere in the middle .
Click to expand...
I'm not at the extreme, in fact that's what I'm arguing against.
...I've not seen anything that would indicate the people in charge of any agency or pretty much the government in general care to follow any law or order .
Click to expand...
That is an extreme position.

My point is that the idea that the system is totally bankrupt is incorrect and there are counterexamples (in this case, one that is directly applicable and easy to find) that prove it.

The system isn't perfect by any means, but neither is it totally bankrupt.
 
Back in the late 60s (possibly early 70s) one of the "counterculture" authors had a saying...

"America is at that awkward point, too late to work within the system and too soon to start shooting the bastards".

I don't think they were entirely right, or entirely wrong. Here we are 40+ years later, still at "that awkward point"..... in so many different ways....

Like most other things (and especially gun ownership) the improper actions of a FEW should NOT be used to characterize the entire group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top