"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787). NOTE: In 1783, Noah Webster produced the first American Dictionary. UMMMMM....:rolleyes5:
I don't care! I will let them copy my Drivers Licence, its not like I am a criminal or something? I do not see what the problem is with this, unless you are engaged in some type of criminal activity? Just like I when did I not care when they put my licence in some database at WalMart when I buy Sudafed and since I am NOT buying it for METH production, I don't mind that my licence is photocopied since I am NOT engaged in some shady business. But if I was some street criminal I would be up in arms about this.
Are you aware that some of Walmarts biggest profits come from them selling databases of customer information to other companies? And why should one be treated like a criminal when they aren't one?
The process so many of us that are not engaged in any criminal activity that bothers us is the slow erosion of privacy and the gathering of all this data. Does some authority really need to know I have the sniffles and want sudafed to clear it up? What happens to all this data? Can I trust the place collecting all this data that it will not end up in the hands of someone that will use it for no good. What if I went for a job interview and some HR person across the table somehow saw I bought a box of Sudafed 6 times in the past year. Might they think I suffer from some malady that may prevent me from coming to work every day. Or that my Sudafed habit may not leave me with a clear head all the time. It really comes down to personal freedom and how every time we turn around our all knowing federal, state and local gov't folks are removing yet another layer of our anonymity.
It is the lack of diligence in preserving and safeguarding the individual rights, of which privacy is but one, that causes the slow erosion and eventual extinction of those rights. First they take your name for buying sudafed. Next they take your name for all the other prescriptions you might take. Then couple of guys from Health Net stick it all in a data base and sell it to your potential employer who will eventually make a decision not to hire you because you might take one more sick day then the other guy who is applying for the same job. Far fetched? Probably. But do we want to take that chance? I remember back in 1979 the sales tax in my locality was 5.25%. It is now 9.75%. Nearly double. Didn't all happen over night. A quarter percent here, a half a percent there. And all of a sudden we are paying the highest in the country.
"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our Liberties." -Abraham Lincoln
Or say your Sudafed buying habit is picked up by your health insurer and taken as a sign as a "predisposition to illness, allergy, or other condition." and adjust your rates accordingly. So they take down my name when I buy ammo, OK, what does this help? Someone gets shot nearby, do they look at everyone who bought ammo in the last week in the county? Or the last month? Shoot, unless it gets wet ammo can still be used so anyone who bought ammo ever, anywhere. And while they're collecting this data they could instead use other more traditional means to actually catch the killer rather than work on generating a list of law-abiding citizens to wade through. And what's to stop a criminal buying ammo from using a fake ID to do so, same as underage kids buying tobacco or alcohol. It's a stupid headache come up with the gun-control people that doesn't do anything for the problem they're trying to solve, they're bailing out their sinking boat but using the rustiest buckets they can find.
There is a related thing happening here in CA Turns out everyone who is arrested in CA for a felony now has to submit DNA evidence. Doesn't matter if the case is kicked, or lowered to a lessor charge or whatever. The law was put in by initiative a few years ago with a kick in date of 2009. So, now that we have some data how DNA evidence is best used to increase arrest rates and it turns out that these blanket data bases don't do much (there is an occational lucky hit that the pro data base sides hold up as evidence that the system is worth the effort). What does help a lot is to compare DNA from crime scenes to databases of conviced violent offenders. This has helped free some wrongly convicted before DNA evidence was avialable or widespread used. So, the unintended conciquenc of the law is to require that all these DNA samples get into the analysis queue (even non-violent criminals and those that were cought up in things like anti-war protests most of whom were released without any criminal proceedings) to the point that LA county has around 2000 rape kits in it's backlog, where there is a very high chance of an actual criminals DNA being present! The blanket collection of data for things like ammunition purchases is a lot like the requirements that all who touch the legal system get DNA testing. It's a way to say we're being tough on crime and that we're doing what we need to do (casting a wide a net as possible) to catch the very few that are the problem. This arguement is appealing to many who want to feel safe, but ignore the opportunity costs (what the resources could really be doing that is effective) of the required wide spread action with low chance of doing anything really productive. Logging ammunition sales is just dumb, as the percentage of people who buy ammo are mostly good people. Wasting the money doing this instead of directing it to real law enforcment efforts at the street level makes it even more stupid. Same with the case of requiring all arrested for felonies (instead of convicted for violent felonies, like it used to be) to submit DNA is just dumb too. But then, it's easy to require this stuff. Those that do it get to say they're being tough on crime, or interested in the public good (and this gets more votes). Those that are inconvinienced directly are a small part of the voting public, so it passes or is written into law with little fear of voter backlash. (And those that vote for it get to feel all warm and fuzzy because they care about the fabric of society). And the unthinking masses never even really consider the fact that the systems don't really work, or don't work as well as other ways of using the resources. But everyone does feel better and gets to think that they're all helping and making a better world, because they don't look at the real data (who has time now, it's all to complex! ) to know how bad the proverbial pooch has just been screwed. Or how much that screwing costs. Matt
I was completely unaware of what Dr. Obnxs has just said, that's disturbing and to me fits under the title of "Unreasonable Search and Seizure". Why should someone arrested for a demonstration or public intoxication be forced to surrender their DNA?
That whole thing was nuts, you'd never expect an officer who's been in the military that long to suddenly go nuts like that, especially a psychiatrist. I always has an issue with the gun control laws imposed by the military. In order for a soldier living in the barracks to have a firearm he'd have to keep it locked up in the company arms room then jump through hoops to draw it from the armorer so that he could go target shoot with it. I'm not sure concealed carry on post would've done anything in this case though since it was a deployment center, so everyone there would be in uniform and the carrying of personal firearms in uniform is strictly prohibited in an Army policy to keep people from bringing their own guns to war.
“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ” Sounds like they wanted you to be able to bring your own weapon. I'm just sayin'.
“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. †Sounds like they wanted you to be able to bring your own weapon. I'm just sayin'.
I take that to mean its so the people within the country can defend themselves against invasion or a tyrannical government. I also take that to mean the people should be as well armed as the military. Once in uniform you're no longer "the people" and are now "the government". There's other regulations in that regard. A soldier is free to campaign, protest, etc as they please so long as they aren't in uniform, once the uniform goes on you check your freedom of speech at the door.