Just call us all soccer moms


PDA

rock jock
February 12, 2003, 10:40 PM
That is my response to this whole Glock/BF mess that has become a lightening rod for every piece of invective I can imagine. Folks with too little information are not thinking through this issue and are responding with 9 parts emotionalism and 1 part logic, just like Sarah Brady and her ilk when questioned about CCW laws, or the .50 BMG. We need to start discussing this rationally, or we risk looking like buffoons.

A few facts on the BF system discussed on 60 Minutes:

1. It is NOT registration of handguns. BF information will be tied to a serial number. Your name is NOT in the BF database. If LE wants to trace a gun, they must follow the serial number to the wholesale distributor, then to the dealer, then to you. Guess what? That capability already exists! Right now, if a stolen gun is found, Joe FBI agent can go to Glock and follow the exact same ownership chain to find you now as he would under the BF system (unless of course you bought the gun used, and then the BF system wouldn't apply to you anyway).

2. It is not a violation of our rights anymore than the existing system as it exists right now. See above. Your name is to be found nowhere in the BF database. They cannot start confiscating guns based on the proposed BF system. If Mr. JBT decided to confiscate every Glock owner's handguns and consulted the proposed BF database, he would find......what? Names of gunowners? No. Dates of sale? No. No, he would only find a make, model, and serial number. He would then go to Glock and get....what? A name? No. He would get a distributor, who would then give him a dealer, who would then look in his records (you know, the little yellow 4473 forms you guys have been filling out for years) and say "Joe Shmoe bought this gun in 2004 and here is his address". This information is, again, already available.

We can all agree that this system is a BAD IDEA because it is not accurate enough, too easy to defeat, costs too much, and likely will result in almost no reduction in crime. These are the arguments we should be using, not the paranoid ramblings that are posted now. Should Paul Januzzo have voiced his opposition based on these arguments? Probably, but perhaps he has a different take on the issue. Should we criticize him for not intelligently opposing BF on 60 Minutes? Sure we should. BUT, Glock does not deserve the level of vitriole that is being heaped upon it now, and theycertainly haven't done or said anything that warrants a boycott.

And finally, I'll say this again: If some of you are so doggone angry with Paul Januzzo that you feel it necessary to sell your Glock, then put your money where your mouth is and offer it to me. And, I would expect that you be more than happy to offer it for less than market value since it is so terribly repugnant.

If you enjoyed reading about "Just call us all soccer moms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
DeltaElite
February 12, 2003, 10:45 PM
Serial numbers are the real problem.
Eliminate serial numbers, the original gun registration measure. :p

The BF is a nothing issue, unless you are looking to make issues out of nothing. IMHO.
Let the antis have their fun, we know it won't work, they aren't smart enough to see that it won't work.

J Miller
February 12, 2003, 10:57 PM
My dislike for this ballastic database idea comes from the fact that it is a very expensive, unusable, waste of time.
Guns change from the moment they start being used. They are modified, fire lapped, polished, throated, by their owners. All of this causes changes to the markings left on the cases and bullets.
A brand new (insert brand or gun here) that has been tested with a round of ( insert brand of ammo here) will not show the same marks on the next bullet in 500 rounds, let alone 5000.
Different brands and types of ammo will be marked differently by the same gun.
Wasted money, wasted time. It is just more useless government regulation that will have only bad consequences to the end user of all guns.

Oh, as for what the Glock dude has to say, who cares. He has no more power to influence my opinion that does anbody else.

No, I don't own a Glock. I am not defending them or any body else.

St. Gunner
February 12, 2003, 11:13 PM
Rock and Delta,

That it is useless is not my problem, never has been. It is the fact that they know it is useless, studies abound about the guns used in crimes, most are stolen in the first place. What I see is giving them a piece in the puzzle they need and so badly want, the ability to say the system is broke because of private transfers. Thus they can close all the loopholes they have been complaining about.

Its like giving child porn to the neighborhood pedophile in the hope he will leave your daughter alone. All it does is wet his appetite and make your daughter more vulnerable to his predatory drive.

Don't underestimate these people, they are not messing around, their ideas seem stupid and chidlike to us, but some are dedicated and commited to the cause. They play this like a huge chess game always thinking ten or so moves ahead. The antis have made good on putting the best of these players in positions to lead the rest. If they are pushing for things like this, their is another motive, you can bet your collection on it.

NO I don't own a Glock,never have, never will. Don't like them, never have liked them, and that dislike comes not from the company policy but the gun itself. Oh and a hint of American pride:D

Do I think a boycott is justified, I started mine years ago when they first came here so I really don't know. But I do know that this life is to entangling to become entertwined with anyone who is not 100 percent watching your back, and I think at the present it appears Glock is not. We have enough to worry about rights wise in the current climate that we don't need the added burden of having to babysit Glocks future actions. If they shriveled up and faded away and you only saw them in the duty belt of the men in blue, I wouldn't be to upset. But them like I said, I started out biased against em for a number of reasons, none political, none rights related.

rock jock
February 12, 2003, 11:26 PM
What I see is giving them a piece in the puzzle they need and so badly want, the ability to say the system is broke because of private transfers.
They already say that, hence their calls to close the nonexistant "gunshow loophole". And believe me, I don't underestimate them. I just see our efforts being directed in the wrong way here.

CZ-75
February 12, 2003, 11:31 PM
Divide and conquer.


Januzzo should have never given the interview.

I was going to make the point that Gunner did, that this is merely a pretext for greater action in the future. When this BF SCHEME comes up lacking, the antis will cry that guns should be registered, since this didn't work. Perhaps they will order microengraving done on the breechface first, though, to imprint a serial # on every case fired (sure this would be expensive and passed on to the consumer).

I say that the heat should remain on, not because such a move by Glock has tactical significance, but that it plays into the larger anti-gun strategy.

Airwolf
February 12, 2003, 11:35 PM
I posted this in the long Glock thread before I saw this one, but think it may be more appropriate here.

Speaking for myself I’ve only been involved with all this (firearms/RKBA) since just after 9/11 opened my eyes.

The Internet has provided a crash course in the decades long erosion of the rights of all citizens and gun-owners in particular.

There is plenty of historical information to indicate that those that would deprive us of the Second Amendment (and the rapid demise of all the rest) have made it perfectly clear that they will take things one step at a time. To nibble away at our rights until we become the impotent minority.

One only has to look to England and Australia to see the results of that strategy.

I think the whole Glock/BF issue has touched a nerve with many people. It has with me.

Glock has a near fanatical status among its devotees. One only has to look at the threads at GlockTalk to see that some cannot fathom that their beloved company would possibly do this. Given how far Glock is already in bed with law enforcement and the feds, and knowing that large corporations in this day and age will take profits over principals any day of the week it’s not difficult to understand the furor that this has triggered in many.

I say that it’s long past time to stop acting defensively and time to respond aggressively to those that would infringe on us. Glock has been caught in with their hand in the cookie jar. They have basically said “oh, we don’t do any fingerprinting and we don’t give any data to anyone”. The links that I’ve posted show otherwise.

We are in time of great uncertainty. This country and others have been threatened by people and organizations that make no secret of their wish to see us utterly destroyed. And yet, when faced with multiple, undeniable threats there are still those voices that keep crying out for our disarmament and forfeiture of rights that are part and parcel of what makes America, America.

Many gun-owners and those that believe in the fundamental “rightness” of the American system as founded, have reached the end of our collective ropes over this wholesale encroachment of our RIGHTS as clearly stated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

We have for too long allowed those that would compromise and destroy our rights set the tone and the rules for the battle. We react to their moves. Many of us, being good, decent people try and reach a compromise. We are fundamentally uncomfortable with pushing our beliefs and ideas on others.

The problem is we compromise with people and groups that only see our compromise as a foothold, a pause before the next battle to infringe our rights, not as a victory and a place to stop.

No more compromise. No more give a little to get a little.

That’s a joke: "Give a little to get a little".

Name one thing that gun-owners have gotten in return nationally since NFA 1934? Before you say CCW remember that has been a state level issue and some would say that we have perverted a right into a state sanctioned privilege anyway.

All that has happened is that the anti's have presented 10 things they wanted restrict or ban, we fought until they agreed to only 6. History has shown us that they will be back with laws against the other 4 very shortly.

Time to draw the line and start gaining lost ground back.

Boats
February 13, 2003, 12:20 AM
Emotionalism?

Head over to GT and you will undoubtedly find that scores of posters have obviously put way more effort into thinking BF through than has GLOCK Inc. and several of its hardest core apologists.

What is remarkably stupid about Glock's corporate position is how cocksure it is. Yeah, it will NEVER EVER happen that BF will move beyond an anonymous serial number. Yeah, um, sure. It is INCONCEIVABLE! INCONCEIVABLE! that BF would ever be extended to legacy firearms. Yessiree!

Never underestimate the twisted fantasies of a gun-grabber, let alone actively aid and abet their agenda. Glock is ultimately run by foreigners who'd sell you out for one more police contract. Lest you think me nativist, I applaud Beretta's consistent approach to opposing smart gun technology and extortion by municipalities. Not bad for a closely held company owned by some Italians.

Life is too short for incredibly ugly guns made by a company run by a band of corporate parasites who could step right into roles with the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's 1984.

Is your automatic defense of the indefensible the end result of your consumption of the official doublespeak concerning our collective knee-jerk thoughtcrime that Glock doesn't really have our best term interests in continued freedom at heart?

Well, I suppose it is true that some folks only have the critical thinking skills of the average follower of the late Jim Jones. Glocksters are called Kool-aid drinkers for good reasons.

Glock is expendable--my freedoms are not. That is ruthlessly cold logic, utterly devoid of any sentiment or emotion.

(edited for a grammatical error)

Azrael256
February 13, 2003, 01:56 AM
Serial numbers are the real problem.
Eliminate serial numbers, the original gun registration measure. I don't think that is necessarily a wise idea. Any mass produced product that has moving parts needs a serial number, particularly something that is subjected to the kinds of stress that a gun endures. I do, however, believe that a serial number should be used only to allow the manufacturer to identify QC issues and to ensure that the proper parts are distributed for the proper gun.

Drjones
February 13, 2003, 02:31 AM
I could not possibly agree more with Airwolf and Boats.

Bravo, gentlemen, bravo!

To the initial post:

I will NOT support in any way, shape, or form, any individual or organization who feels too differently from this man:
http://nramemberscouncils.com/caspecial/la50banbarrett.shtml

fallingblock
February 13, 2003, 03:59 AM
Glock is being duplicitous on this one:uhoh:

If we value our rights, why compromise:)

There are other manufacturers who have not (yet) taken Glock's position. They should have the business before Glock.;)

El Tejon
February 13, 2003, 06:58 AM
Any law that CAN be abused, WILL be abused.

meathammer
February 13, 2003, 07:55 AM
Ballistic Fingerprinting is not going to be used to create a Gun Registry Database? Yeah, sure, just like your Social Security Number is ONLY used for Tax purposes, right? :rolleyes:

Oracle
February 13, 2003, 08:21 AM
I'm with Rockjock and Deltaelite, as I think this is a non-issue. I think those who are putting all the blame on Glock for this are being dishonest as well. ALL gun manufacturers who sell in those states that require a shell casing to be provided to the State for "ballistic fingerprinting" purposes are doing the same thing that Glock is doing, cooperating with a governmentally-produced ballistic fingerprinting scheme. So, all those people who are boycotting Glock, are you going to start boycotting Beretta, HK, Colt, Kimber, and all the other manufacturers who provide that shell casing to the governments that require them, because they are "cooperating in a ballistic fingerprinting scheme"? If not, then you're a hypocrite.

Also, Glock's representative never said that he was really in favor of the BF scheme, he just said that he to show that it would either work or not work. If Glock comes out with a press release down the line that says, after due diligence, consideration, and exploration, we've found that it doesn't work, and can't really be used as a legitimate form of gun identification (for the reasons that have already been stated), what would you say then? That would set the anti-gunners back even further, and might even close the whole issue.

Boats
February 13, 2003, 08:42 AM
I am beginning to wonder if I should just use the headbanger "smiley" and be done with it. :banghead:

Yes, other companies are submitting fired cases for weapons shipped to NY and MD, but to the best of my knowledge, Glock is the only one engaged with the BATFE in trying to implement a system to go nationwide. As I understand it, other manufacturers sample fire a portion of their weapons, include cases and then specially mark products "FC" and prohibit distribution of non FC stock to NY and MD. No one else I have ever heard of test fires every weapon sold and images it for a test of the BATFE/FBI combined BF database and then sells same to the end user no matter where he/she lives. Heck, in Maryland I understand that only a small handful of handgun manufacturers even bother with the civilian market between BF and integral lock requirements. Too bad.

The difference between Glock and everyone else producing handguns is their willing assistance in the creation of a "viable" national BF database of their own products. Congratulations. If you own a Glock manufactured and purchased since the implementation of their assistance program with the FedGov, you didn't need live in New York or Maryland to have your weapon's firing characteristics imaged into a federally accessible database.

Hopefully you sleep better at night knowing that someday you might be a top 10 match for a nearby gun crime you didn't commit and you get the pleasure of a visit from agents who'd like to "borrow" your pistol for a little while for further testing. Oh and by the way, would you mind dropping by for a polygraph while you're at it?

Suckers. Hook, line and sinker.

NewShooter78
February 13, 2003, 09:06 AM
Boats and Airwolf got it right. And how can we not be at least somewhat emotional about it? We are all vested in this issue one way or another. To not be emotional about it would ensure the further errosion of our rights. And personally this issue with Glock has nothing to do with idealism and everything to do with corporatism and the all mighty dollar.

cordex
February 13, 2003, 09:24 AM
I'm with Rockjock and Deltaelite, as I think this is a non-issue.
Proposed multi-billion dollar waste of money with numerous other drawbacks is non-issue?

Not concerned at all about "false positives"? As El Tejon said, "Any law that CAN be abused, WILL be abused." Seems like a wonderful way to start harassing gun owners and get very broad search warrants.

"Non-issue" my rear end.

seeker_two
February 13, 2003, 09:42 AM
Guns change from the moment they start being used. They are modified, fire lapped, polished, throated, by their owners. All of this causes changes to the markings left on the cases and bullets.

And how long will it be until lawmakers make it illegal to "modify" any firearm that has been BF'd?...:scrutiny:

Or possess a firearm that has NOT been BF'd?...:what:

Name one thing that gun-owners have gotten in return nationally since NFA 1934?

The time for compromise is over. Time to hold the line...:cuss:

DeltaElite
February 13, 2003, 10:03 AM
Sure BF is a huge waste of money, but the govt will do it, regardless of what the people want, since the govt does not act for the people, it acts for it's own "best interest".
FWIW, I am not compromising, I just don't see that we have any control over what our govt does anymore. I am a bit pessimistic.

Serial numbers are only for the tracing of guns.
ATF requires serial numbers to track guns and it is a crime to alter them.
Serial numbers are the first step towards registration, yet people accept them without comment. If there are no serial numbers, than registration would be impossible, as would BF tracking.
BF has people all upset, when it is useless and can be altered easily on each gun that is manufactured. Alter a serial number on a gun and it is a felony.

Can anyone tell me when a gun does not require a serial number, other than being so old that it is from the pre serial number era?

JohnBT
February 13, 2003, 10:07 AM
"If Mr. JBT decided to confiscate every Glock..."

Why am I being dragged into this? I don't even own a Glock.

Mr. JBT

Carlos Cabeza
February 13, 2003, 10:08 AM
No Compromise !

QUOTE BOATS:
Glock is expendable--my freedoms are not. That is ruthlessly cold logic, utterly devoid of any sentiment or emotion.

I bought a Ruger that had a fired shell casing included with the firearm. The salesman said " If we lived in certain states I would have to send this to XYZ agency for BF indentification. I really didn't think too much of it and I threw it away when I got home.
Later at the range and several other places I go to shoot I went through hundreds of rounds. I try to pick up shell casings because I don't like to litter and maybe I'll take up reloading someday, but I bet I missed a few like most people do. Who thinks that shell casings from a common round like 9mm wouldn't be picked up and used by the BG to throw the investigative team off ? If doubt existed, wouldn't that be used in court to complicate and possibly aquit a murderer ? I prefer sound and proven methods of investigative policework. No mention of a huge taxpayer burden on a system that is clearly flawed. I want my taxes and government reduced not made more restrictive and controlling.
A Glock is a fine weapons if you occasionally feel the need to
throw it down the street and it still need to work, but the position of the further erosion to my constitutional rights by the implementation of a nationwide ballistic fingerprint system
WILL NEVER BE ACCEPTABLE ! NEVER !

Americans are a unique people, let us preserve those rights that make us AMERICANS.........................

Don Gwinn
February 13, 2003, 10:20 AM
I'd say Glock learned from the S&W debacle. I tried to tell people that there would be consequences to that.

If you recall, Glock came about this close >< to joining S&W in the agreement. At the last minute, they didn't. I believe it was even said at the time that it was Paul Januzzo who decided this, but he may have just been the spokesman.

Regardless, what lesson did Glock learn from that? There were two:

1. They learned that Glock didn't really get much of an advantage in terms of sales to the American public for holding out and acting in that public's best interest. Gun owners talked a good game, but there was not much in the way of an actual award involved even though they did the right thing.

2. They learned that S&W had some bumpy times for awhile after they caved, but after that they were welcomed back into the fold with open arms without actually changing the harm they'd done, and now the joy over their return is widespread and tumultuous.

Given those two clear lessons, it was only a matter of time before another gun manufacturer was presented an opportunity to sell out and jumped at it. Glock, being fairly dependent on police contracts, was the logical choice in this case because a BF system is so widely supported among chiefs and the FOP.
In other words, we did it to ourselves.

RayK45
February 13, 2003, 10:58 AM
BF has people all upset, when it is useless and can be altered easily on each gun that is manufactured. Alter a serial number on a gun and it is a felony.
Can anyone tell me when a gun does not require a serial number, other than being so old that it is from the pre serial number era?


I can tell you when a gun does not require a Ballistic Fingerprint! It’s to late to do anything about
serial numbers, but the time to do something to stop BF is right about now!

I love it when people get all upset over useless idiotic gun laws, nothing wrong with that!

If this silly BF thing fly’s that’s two points for the anti’s right? If they can pull off yet another
ridiculous law, what do they have in store for us around the corner?

DeltaElite
February 13, 2003, 11:19 AM
The serial number thing is sarcasm, I guess that wasn't clear. ;)

The BF thing is gonna happen, I don't believe we can prevent it anymore than we did the Crime Bill of 94.
The NRA is useless, but consistently so.

Neither the Republicans or the Democrats are our friends in the 2a.
Both will continue to allow the slow erosion of the 2a, they just allow it at different rates.

RayK45
February 13, 2003, 11:57 AM
I see.....sarcasm My bad. I though it was an attempt to divert attention from the gist of the subject.

The 94 Crime Bill is not over yet!;)


As for the NRA and political parties comment, another direction change or sarcasm?:neener:

DeltaElite
February 13, 2003, 12:10 PM
I am sincere about my feelings towards the political parties and the NRA, they are all pretty useless, IMHO.

I will be good now. :D Honest. ;)

RobW
February 13, 2003, 01:10 PM
Just a reminder: EVERYTHING the gungrabbers are forcing has NOTHING to do with security but with CONTROL! Control over everyones life. That's their "Endlösung", to tell everyone how to behave, how to live their lives, no matter how they behave themselves (speaking about preaching water and drinking wine).

These are just steps to total suppression (see world history) if we let it happen.

Vote for the right people!

If you enjoyed reading about "Just call us all soccer moms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!