alan
Member
The article at the top of page 91 reads as follows. "New York's Ballistic "Fingerprinting" Database: Millions Of Tax Dollars Spent, Zero Crimes Solved". Given that this program ignores the design features of small arms, particularly handguns, and catered to the psalm singers of gun control, and assorted political hacks, is anyone really surprised at the results, or lack of results so far obtained? They shouldn't be.
Reading further, one finds the following. "New York is working to find a way to skirt federal law …", "they are trying to tap into an existing federal database, the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network". Does this ringing appellation serve to cover what is simply another example of bureaucratic/governmental/legislative "pie in the sky", one wonders?
In it's first paragraph, the article mentions the following. "The only impact has been to increase the cost of firearms, reduce their availability to New Yorkers and cost the taxpayers millions to create and operate the system". Once again, is anyone really surprised at this? More important might be the following. Does anyone actually believe that the purpose behind the imposition of this scheme, scam if you prefer, was anything other than to cause problems for the law abiding? After all the barrels of most semi-automatic pistols can be changed, without tools, in about ONE MINUTE, and it's the passage through the barrel that makes "distinctive marks" on the bullet, assuming that one is recovered, and that it's in useable condition, not always the case.
Of course, it is possible that the purpose behind establishment of this scheme was simply to create another layer of bureaucracy, which then would have to be led, fed, benefited, officed and paid for by the taxpayer. Think of all the empires that could be built, of all the aggrandizement and story telling that could take place. In the last analysis, isn't that what the bureaucracy does best, aggrandize itself, and tell stories, the intention of which is to delude the taxpayer as to the reasons behind the ongoing failure of bureaucratic "programs", like this one.
Are our "elected things", respecting their oversight responsibility much better. Not really is the answer that comes to mind. Is the creation of bureaucratic sinecures a proper basis for diminishment of the privacy of the law abiding, or for the wasting of millions in public funds? The answer there is also NO, yet the program exists in New York, in Maryland, and is or has been pushed in other locales too. Wake up before it becomes too late.
Reading further, one finds the following. "New York is working to find a way to skirt federal law …", "they are trying to tap into an existing federal database, the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network". Does this ringing appellation serve to cover what is simply another example of bureaucratic/governmental/legislative "pie in the sky", one wonders?
In it's first paragraph, the article mentions the following. "The only impact has been to increase the cost of firearms, reduce their availability to New Yorkers and cost the taxpayers millions to create and operate the system". Once again, is anyone really surprised at this? More important might be the following. Does anyone actually believe that the purpose behind the imposition of this scheme, scam if you prefer, was anything other than to cause problems for the law abiding? After all the barrels of most semi-automatic pistols can be changed, without tools, in about ONE MINUTE, and it's the passage through the barrel that makes "distinctive marks" on the bullet, assuming that one is recovered, and that it's in useable condition, not always the case.
Of course, it is possible that the purpose behind establishment of this scheme was simply to create another layer of bureaucracy, which then would have to be led, fed, benefited, officed and paid for by the taxpayer. Think of all the empires that could be built, of all the aggrandizement and story telling that could take place. In the last analysis, isn't that what the bureaucracy does best, aggrandize itself, and tell stories, the intention of which is to delude the taxpayer as to the reasons behind the ongoing failure of bureaucratic "programs", like this one.
Are our "elected things", respecting their oversight responsibility much better. Not really is the answer that comes to mind. Is the creation of bureaucratic sinecures a proper basis for diminishment of the privacy of the law abiding, or for the wasting of millions in public funds? The answer there is also NO, yet the program exists in New York, in Maryland, and is or has been pushed in other locales too. Wake up before it becomes too late.
