Common sense shot down by NRA’s goobers

Status
Not open for further replies.

GSB

Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2003
Messages
800
Today, Carl takes time out from his one-man jihad against the Walt Disney Corporation to return to his other neurotic obsession, the NRA.

http://www.oscnewsgazette.com/index.php?option=news&task=viewarticle&sid=7256

Common sense shot down by NRA’s goobers
28 Nov 2003
Carl Hiaasen Miami Herald

If you’re a prosecutor or a police officer in Florida, here are some names to remember:
Juan-Carlos Planas, Carl Domino, Ken Sorensen, Mark Mahon, John Quinones, Mike Davis, Curtis Richardson, Lorraine Ausley, Don Davis, Dennis Ross, Jeffrey Kottkamp, Kevin Ambler and Gaton Catens.


These are not friends of law enforcement.

These are state legislators who are trying to make it as difficult as possible to trace the ownership of guns found at crime scenes. Every pistol-packing felon in Florida should write these knuckleheads a thank-you note.

Last week, the House Judiciary Committee — on which the above-named politicians serve — OK’d a bill that would ban police from maintaining computerized lists of gun sales and owners for more than 30 days.

If passed by the Legislature next spring, the law will strip authorities of an important crime-solving tool for no other reason but politics.

Currently, Florida police keep databases of firearm-sales records from pawn shops and some gun dealers. When one turns up at a crime scene, or in a suspect’s possession, its origin can be traced by typing the serial number into a computer.

The paranoid droolers at the National Rifle Association have long opposed police efforts to computerize gun records, saying it’s an iron-fisted step toward totalitarianism.

According to the NRA’s propaganda, which reads like The National Lampoon, the same government that can’t locate thousands of visa violators (including terrorists) is somehow capable of tracking down and confiscating every lawfully owned firearm in America.

To peddle this loony Orwellian fantasy, NRA lobbyists in Florida dredged up a couple of goobers named Dennis Baxley and Lindsay Harrington, Republican legislators from Ocala and Punta Gorda, respectively.

Propaganda

Baxley and Harrington “co-sponsored†the anti-cop bill that went to the House panel. As originally penned by the NRA, the legislation invoked the names of Adolf Hitler and Fidel Castro as examples of despots who espoused gun controls.

Get a load of Baxley: “We’re at a point in our history where the government is trying to slowly take away our rights, piece by piece, and I'm trying to stop that. By accumulating all this (gun) data, it could fall into the wrong hands. And that could be a treacherous thing.â€

Don’t bother to ask him in what way a sales receipt for a .38 Special might be put to nefarious use, and into whose evil hands it might fall. And don’t ask if he can name a single instance when it’s happened, because he can’t.

Not even Marion Hammer, the NRA’s hatchet woman in Tallahassee, provided lawmakers with one example of a law-abiding citizen being “harassed†or “abused†because of computerized sales data.

Police, however, can tell lots of stories about crimes being solved because they were able to swiftly track the ownership of a weapon.

One recent example: Pawnshop sales records helped detectives connect a Miami Beach man accused of shooting three of his neighbors with the gun used in the attack.

The notion that firearms buyers have a constitutional right to anonymity is a fiction promoted by the NRA, and one consistently not embraced by the courts.

The government already keeps track of the land we own, the people we marry, the children we have and the money we make. Most reasonable citizens don’t have a problem providing their names when pawning or purchasing a handgun.

But the NRA fuels its recruiting with rabid fear, not facts, and there’s no shortage of hayseed politicians who are eager to take its money and go rant for the cause.

It’s impossible to overstate the brainless lunacy of the proposed law, which would penalize police departments up to $5 million for keeping computerized gun lists.

Yet, at the same time, law-enforcement agencies would be allowed to obtain the very same firearms sales and ownership information — but only on paper. What is now a 30-second piece of keyboard detective work would become an all-day chore, requiring manual reviews of thousands of records.

Only negative results

Obviously, the intent of the law is to discourage gun-tracking by police, especially in busy, understaffed departments. The result will be more unsolved crimes, less evidence upon which to prosecute violent criminals, and more acquittals in court.

And Republicans claim to be the law-and-order party?

Every armed robber, carjacker and gang-banger in Florida will sleep easier, if Rep. Baxley and the others get their way.

(Carl Hiaasen is a columnist for the Miami Herald. Readers may write to him at: 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, Fla., 33132)


Edited to remove an incorrect email addy for Mr. Hiaasen in the original article copy. Those crazy copy editors!
 
Last edited:
These are not friends of law enforcement.

Of course, a politician who fights against warrantless searches, no-knock raids or police infiltration of anti-war protesters is defending fundamental civil liberties.

But those who like guns? Why those mean, nasty gun nuts. Shame on them. Shame!
 
My emailed response:

======================

Greetings,

You wrote: "These are not friends of law enforcement. These are state legislators who are trying to make it as difficult as possible to trace the ownership of guns found at crime scenes."

I suppose that you would view a legislator who opposed warrantless searches, no-knock raids on drug dealers, and police infiltration of anti-war protest groups as concerned about the government violating our fundamental liberties. But somehow you think that a politician who believes gun ownership to be an important right is simply selling out to The Gun Lobby. Some people think that the right to bear arms is just as important as our other civil liberties, and that it must be defended with just as much vigor as you would defend your right to speak and publish your thoughts.

In our effort to fight crime we could implement GPS tracking of all private vehicles; we could have roadblocks and checkpoints in inner-city neighborhoods; we could have concentration camps for drug users. Any of these suggestions might work at reducing crime - but that wouldn't make them constitutional, or moral.
 
According to the NRA’s propaganda, which reads like The National Lampoon, the same government that can’t locate thousands of visa violators
(including terrorists) is somehow capable of tracking down and confiscating every lawfully owned firearm in America.

If the "visa violators" had valid addresses like the owners of the lawfully owned firearms, it would be simple to track them down. These people actually believe this is a valid comparision?
 
Carl is an Idiot with a capitol "I"....

First, the "loony Orwellian fantasy" is coming true on a daily basis, just as Baxley said. Our rights to mind our own damn business and keep others OUT of our personal business have been whittled down to nothing in recent years. The list of examples by far exceeds the number of times some gun tracking method has resulted in arrest and conviction.

Under NO circumstances do we need or should we have a big shared list of U.S. guns and their owners... Australia should be a good enough reason why.
 
Last edited:
And don’t ask if he can name a single instance when it’s happened, because he can’t.

What about all those poor people in California who received letters from the attorney general's office about their SKSs a few years back?
 
"The government already keeps track of the land we own, the people we marry, the children we have and the money we make."

And this is a Good Thing why? :confused:


"Most reasonable citizens don’t have a problem providing their names when pawning or purchasing a handgun."

Really? We do? News to me....oh wait, I forgot. I'm a developmentally challenged, knee-jerk anti-authoritarian. :rolleyes:
 
The government already keeps track of the land we own, the people we marry, the children we have and the money we make. Most reasonable citizens don’t have a problem providing their names when pawning or purchasing a handgun.
According to this, he thinks reasonable people are those who don't support a right to privacy and implies that those who do are unreasonable.
 
OK, you and I know that we can name lots of places where registration lists are being or have been used to hunt people down and/or enforce gun bans:

California
New York
Chicago/Cook County
England
Australia
And so on. . . . .

So, the question is begged: did the NRA rep really not mention any of this? Or is the columnist telling a bald lie?

Honestly, I could believe either one without stretching much.
 
The government already keeps track of the land we own, the people we marry, the children we have and the money we make. Most reasonable citizens don’t have a problem providing their names when pawning or purchasing a handgun.

If they only just wanted my name. (I would still have a problem with this).

In some cities and counties (ex. Fairfax) in Vriginia the following information is required to be listed on a "Firearms Purchase Application:"

Name
Date of Birth
Place of Birth
Race
Sex
Social Security Number (SSN)
Home Address
Home Phone
Occupation
Employer / Address
Name of Dealer
Address of Dealer
Phone Number of Dealer

The request for the Social Security Number is a flat-out violation of Federal Law since there is no privacy statement on the form that explains how complying with such a request for SSN, if made by a State or local government, is optional, the use to which the SSN will be put, and the consequences for failure / refusal to provide the SSN. Fairfax won't process the form if any field is left blank.

To the best of my knowledge, these records are public and held for years as well. So that any criminal interested in identity theft has a treasure trove of ready victims right at the local courthouse.

All of this is an intrusion to the fundamental right to privacy, as is the repugnant business of having to apply for government permission to exercise a fundamental Constitutional right.

Reasonable citizens object to these signs of a growing police-state.
 
Common sense shot down by NRA's goobers: An opinion from Israel

Dear Sir!

I have received from an American associate of mine a link to your Osceola News Gazette article. I am finding it hard to believe, in all honesty, that somebody would actually write what you wrote. I will only address a few of the most prominent mistakes in your article:

For example, you write:

"According to the NRA’s propaganda, which reads like The National Lampoon, the same government that can’t locate thousands of visa violators (including terrorists) is somehow
capable of tracking down and confiscating every lawfully owned firearm in America."

The exact reason that the US government cannot locate visa violators cannot do so is because they aren't registered by definition. You think that if the government had lists of all names and addressess of these visa violators they wouldn't even need to look.

"Don’t bother to ask him in what way a sales receipt for a .38 Special might be put to nefarious use, and into whose evil hands it might fall. And don’t ask if he can name a single instance when it’s happened, because he can’t."

Really? Well, I can quote several cases where gun registration led to gun confiscation or to abuse of people's rights. Let's start at recent times - when FBI operatives conducted searches at the homes of hundreds of law-abiding citizens because gun shop records pointed to them buing rifles shooting the same type of ammunition used by the D.C. snipers.

In Israel, in 2001 (if I recall the year correctly) the government seized without compensation 60,000 firearms because their owners, and I quote "fell back on their license renewal".

In the United Kingdom, gun registration resulted in confiscation of guns both in 1988 (autoloading rifles) and in 1997 (handguns). In Australia, in 1996, gun registration resulted in the confiscation of 660,000 guns.

In more ancient times, Germany enacted a gun registration law in 1928. In 1933-38, it was used to confiscate arms from Jews and other undesirables (like socialists, union activists, and so on). One of the relatively-unknown details of Kristallnacht is that it was followed by confiscation of EVERY firearm belonging to a Jew - a culmination of 5 years of gun confiscation. You know - we all know - how this impacted the future fate of my people.

I could give more examples of government abuses due to gun control. I will just say this: according to many civil rights and history experts, most of the world's worst genocides would not have happened if not for gun control. It is now estimated that these genocides killed 170,000,000 people in the 20th century. I recommend hotly that you read this article on the subject - http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/Brown-Journal-Kopel.pdf

"Police, however, can tell lots of stories about crimes being solved because they were able to swiftly track the ownership of a weapon. One recent example: Pawnshop sales records helped detectives connect a Miami Beach man accused of shooting three of his neighbors with the gun used in the attack."

So was the guy found guilty in the end or not? Because if he wasn't, the story is just pointless. And if he was, HOW OFTEN does this happen? Statistics? Numbers please? It is a known fact that gun registration exists in Washington D.C., Hawaii, and Chicago, yet has NEVER been succeffully used to I.D. a suspect - simply because criminals practically never buy guns from legitimate sources. Not that that matters.

Why? Because there's the privacy concern. As far as I know, gun owners have a right to privacy just like everybody else (or at least no court has ever ruled otherwise). I suspect you also support monitoring people's library books - because there's some really dangerous books out there, you know ( http://www.paladin-press.com/detail.aspx?ID=661 ). You wouldn't want an eeevil terrorist get his hands on any of these, right?

"Most reasonable citizens don’t have a problem providing their names when pawning or purchasing a handgun."

First of all, how do you define "reasonable"? And second, what "most people" think is right doesn't always count. In 1938, many Germans wouldn't have thought I have the right to live. I oppose having to be registered, fingerprinted, or whatever is the daily insanity, just to be able defend my life or engage in a hobby. But of course, you wouldn't mind to be fingerprinted and registered just to have access to the Internet. After all, if it stops one terrorist, it's worth it, right?

SY,
Boris Karpa, Bat-Yam, Israel
P.S. Would you consider J. F. Kennedy (Life Member, NRA) to be an unreasonable person? Just wondering.
 
Thanks for catching the bad email adress in the original article. I will delete it from my post.
 
This fool does'nt know of what he speaks. Gun traces can already be done by the ATF.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top