Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On May 17 2013 01:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: @Kmillz, I don't even had to go back a page to find your supposed strawman.
This guy literally says that registration leads to drone strikes. He is not the first to make these types of arguments, many have before him and many will after.
On May 16 2013 04:16 stuneedsfood wrote: I think Thieving Magpie's point is clear. Registries of all kinds exist already, and they aren't used to illegally exploit people.
I refer back to the discussion of a few days ago, when the US federal government was directly responsible for returning guns confiscated by New Orleans city.
I honestly believe it is genuinely paranoid to think there is any realistic possibility of the government establishing a registry with the intent to confiscate all weapons in the country. Not only would it be logistically impossible, but the constitution as we know it would have to be thrown out the window completely to do it, and not just the second amendment.
Meanwhile, the paranoia of government confiscation is used as a reason to deny any reasonable legislation passing that would actually prevent needless deaths.
Yes, it's incredibly difficult these days to print/email/burn excel spreadsheets of the entire inventory of firearms of every home in a spread out suburb/farming community/etc to their respective "collection" teams laptop and call a drone strike at the first sign of resistance and put out a press release that Right wing extremists attacks DHS convoy during their investigation, officers retaliate, suffer minor injuries
Followed by rounding up all possible suspects for statements.
Nothing to worry about. Go about your business, citizen. Nothing to see here. Official state business.
*sarcasm*
Son, anonymity is THE only shield against an all-powerful, all-seeing government. Which is why protecting your privacy is critical to anyone who considers themselves a free man.
Edit: What you call paranoia I call experience and knowledge. As a project manager and businessman, I know, you need nothing but a budget, a team, a project leader and a collection route to begin confiscation/collection/activity, once the information is there.
The average American home is too spread out (suburb) or too packed together (city block) to deploy any form of meaningful resistance besides hit-and-run. If they have their list, it's already too late.
Lol he just explained how and why it could happen, no where did he "literally say that registration leads to drone strikes". You completely fail in everything you said in your previous post. Why are you trying so hard to prove that it isn't easier for cops to catch criminals if we abolish the 4th amendment? I didn't say that cops are going to go door-to-door trying to bust people...but you can keep piling on the strawmans. You are just vehemently defending your ridiculous statement just because you are stubborn and refuse to admit that it is ridiculous.
It is literally easier for them to simply use warrants and registries because it reduces 3 things.
Warrants make it easier for cops to catch criminals....on what planet? Wa
Do you actually, honestly, believe that it is easier for police to just break into every door they see than to just wait for a evidence to show up? Do you honestly believe that by ignoring evidence they will actually catch criminals easier? Do you think they will have fun bringing a guy to court, the judge asking "what did he do" and the police officer saying "i don't know, something, I didn't actually see anything."
wat
On May 17 2013 01:58 Thieving Magpie wrote: @Kmilz
here's another person who associates registries with both tyranny and gun grabbing. And this is just the page you tried to say this stuff doesn't happen? Imagine if we go back to prior pages
On May 17 2013 01:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: @Kmillz, I don't even had to go back a page to find your supposed strawman.
This guy literally says that registration leads to drone strikes. He is not the first to make these types of arguments, many have before him and many will after.
On May 16 2013 19:12 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
On May 16 2013 04:16 stuneedsfood wrote: I think Thieving Magpie's point is clear. Registries of all kinds exist already, and they aren't used to illegally exploit people.
I refer back to the discussion of a few days ago, when the US federal government was directly responsible for returning guns confiscated by New Orleans city.
I honestly believe it is genuinely paranoid to think there is any realistic possibility of the government establishing a registry with the intent to confiscate all weapons in the country. Not only would it be logistically impossible, but the constitution as we know it would have to be thrown out the window completely to do it, and not just the second amendment.
Meanwhile, the paranoia of government confiscation is used as a reason to deny any reasonable legislation passing that would actually prevent needless deaths.
Yes, it's incredibly difficult these days to print/email/burn excel spreadsheets of the entire inventory of firearms of every home in a spread out suburb/farming community/etc to their respective "collection" teams laptop and call a drone strike at the first sign of resistance and put out a press release that Right wing extremists attacks DHS convoy during their investigation, officers retaliate, suffer minor injuries
Followed by rounding up all possible suspects for statements.
Nothing to worry about. Go about your business, citizen. Nothing to see here. Official state business.
*sarcasm*
Son, anonymity is THE only shield against an all-powerful, all-seeing government. Which is why protecting your privacy is critical to anyone who considers themselves a free man.
Edit: What you call paranoia I call experience and knowledge. As a project manager and businessman, I know, you need nothing but a budget, a team, a project leader and a collection route to begin confiscation/collection/activity, once the information is there.
The average American home is too spread out (suburb) or too packed together (city block) to deploy any form of meaningful resistance besides hit-and-run. If they have their list, it's already too late.
That's an incredibly ignorant statement that fails to address the points brought up about the need for anonymity.
Americans already register their names, place of residence, income, work place, family ties, spending habits, and health records.
But it is gun registry that will help them track us? Please, explain.
It's not being tracked that's the problem. Its that they know you have guns. If there's a gun-registry, and a tyranny tries to crack down on opposition in an area, they know exactly who has guns and who does not. It really narrows their search for guerrillas.
No where does he say that, he said it would make it easier. Nice try.
On May 17 2013 01:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: @Kmillz, I don't even had to go back a page to find your supposed strawman.
This guy literally says that registration leads to drone strikes. He is not the first to make these types of arguments, many have before him and many will after.
On May 16 2013 19:12 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
On May 16 2013 04:16 stuneedsfood wrote: I think Thieving Magpie's point is clear. Registries of all kinds exist already, and they aren't used to illegally exploit people.
I refer back to the discussion of a few days ago, when the US federal government was directly responsible for returning guns confiscated by New Orleans city.
I honestly believe it is genuinely paranoid to think there is any realistic possibility of the government establishing a registry with the intent to confiscate all weapons in the country. Not only would it be logistically impossible, but the constitution as we know it would have to be thrown out the window completely to do it, and not just the second amendment.
Meanwhile, the paranoia of government confiscation is used as a reason to deny any reasonable legislation passing that would actually prevent needless deaths.
Yes, it's incredibly difficult these days to print/email/burn excel spreadsheets of the entire inventory of firearms of every home in a spread out suburb/farming community/etc to their respective "collection" teams laptop and call a drone strike at the first sign of resistance and put out a press release that Right wing extremists attacks DHS convoy during their investigation, officers retaliate, suffer minor injuries
Followed by rounding up all possible suspects for statements.
Nothing to worry about. Go about your business, citizen. Nothing to see here. Official state business.
*sarcasm*
Son, anonymity is THE only shield against an all-powerful, all-seeing government. Which is why protecting your privacy is critical to anyone who considers themselves a free man.
Edit: What you call paranoia I call experience and knowledge. As a project manager and businessman, I know, you need nothing but a budget, a team, a project leader and a collection route to begin confiscation/collection/activity, once the information is there.
The average American home is too spread out (suburb) or too packed together (city block) to deploy any form of meaningful resistance besides hit-and-run. If they have their list, it's already too late.
That's an incredibly ignorant statement that fails to address the points brought up about the need for anonymity.
Americans already register their names, place of residence, income, work place, family ties, spending habits, and health records.
But it is gun registry that will help them track us? Please, explain.
It's not being tracked that's the problem. Its that they know you have guns. If there's a gun-registry, and a tyranny tries to crack down on opposition in an area, they know exactly who has guns and who does not. It really narrows their search for guerrillas.
The truth is out there, man! You also fail to understand that the gun owners are all secretly planning on overthrowing the unarmed public and we have to strike first! /sarcasm
There isn't anywhere near enough instability in our country to even consider the possibility of a tyrannical regime in the next 15 years. That also goes for getting rid of the second amendment.
On May 17 2013 01:58 Thieving Magpie wrote: @Kmilz
here's another person who associates registries with both tyranny and gun grabbing. And this is just the page you tried to say this stuff doesn't happen? Imagine if we go back to prior pages
On May 17 2013 01:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: @Kmillz, I don't even had to go back a page to find your supposed strawman.
This guy literally says that registration leads to drone strikes. He is not the first to make these types of arguments, many have before him and many will after.
On May 16 2013 19:12 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
On May 16 2013 04:16 stuneedsfood wrote: I think Thieving Magpie's point is clear. Registries of all kinds exist already, and they aren't used to illegally exploit people.
I refer back to the discussion of a few days ago, when the US federal government was directly responsible for returning guns confiscated by New Orleans city.
I honestly believe it is genuinely paranoid to think there is any realistic possibility of the government establishing a registry with the intent to confiscate all weapons in the country. Not only would it be logistically impossible, but the constitution as we know it would have to be thrown out the window completely to do it, and not just the second amendment.
Meanwhile, the paranoia of government confiscation is used as a reason to deny any reasonable legislation passing that would actually prevent needless deaths.
Yes, it's incredibly difficult these days to print/email/burn excel spreadsheets of the entire inventory of firearms of every home in a spread out suburb/farming community/etc to their respective "collection" teams laptop and call a drone strike at the first sign of resistance and put out a press release that Right wing extremists attacks DHS convoy during their investigation, officers retaliate, suffer minor injuries
Followed by rounding up all possible suspects for statements.
Nothing to worry about. Go about your business, citizen. Nothing to see here. Official state business.
*sarcasm*
Son, anonymity is THE only shield against an all-powerful, all-seeing government. Which is why protecting your privacy is critical to anyone who considers themselves a free man.
Edit: What you call paranoia I call experience and knowledge. As a project manager and businessman, I know, you need nothing but a budget, a team, a project leader and a collection route to begin confiscation/collection/activity, once the information is there.
The average American home is too spread out (suburb) or too packed together (city block) to deploy any form of meaningful resistance besides hit-and-run. If they have their list, it's already too late.
That's an incredibly ignorant statement that fails to address the points brought up about the need for anonymity.
Americans already register their names, place of residence, income, work place, family ties, spending habits, and health records.
But it is gun registry that will help them track us? Please, explain.
It's not being tracked that's the problem. Its that they know you have guns. If there's a gun-registry, and a tyranny tries to crack down on opposition in an area, they know exactly who has guns and who does not. It really narrows their search for guerrillas.
That's exactly how it went down in England. They passed a gun registry, and then used the registry to take most people's guns.
I'm not saying a tyranny is coming, but I can't in good conscience say it cannot happen. To say that tyranny is impossible now would be neglecting the entirety of human history.
On May 17 2013 01:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: @Kmillz, I don't even had to go back a page to find your supposed strawman.
This guy literally says that registration leads to drone strikes. He is not the first to make these types of arguments, many have before him and many will after.
On May 16 2013 19:12 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
On May 16 2013 04:16 stuneedsfood wrote: I think Thieving Magpie's point is clear. Registries of all kinds exist already, and they aren't used to illegally exploit people.
I refer back to the discussion of a few days ago, when the US federal government was directly responsible for returning guns confiscated by New Orleans city.
I honestly believe it is genuinely paranoid to think there is any realistic possibility of the government establishing a registry with the intent to confiscate all weapons in the country. Not only would it be logistically impossible, but the constitution as we know it would have to be thrown out the window completely to do it, and not just the second amendment.
Meanwhile, the paranoia of government confiscation is used as a reason to deny any reasonable legislation passing that would actually prevent needless deaths.
Yes, it's incredibly difficult these days to print/email/burn excel spreadsheets of the entire inventory of firearms of every home in a spread out suburb/farming community/etc to their respective "collection" teams laptop and call a drone strike at the first sign of resistance and put out a press release that Right wing extremists attacks DHS convoy during their investigation, officers retaliate, suffer minor injuries
Followed by rounding up all possible suspects for statements.
Nothing to worry about. Go about your business, citizen. Nothing to see here. Official state business.
*sarcasm*
Son, anonymity is THE only shield against an all-powerful, all-seeing government. Which is why protecting your privacy is critical to anyone who considers themselves a free man.
Edit: What you call paranoia I call experience and knowledge. As a project manager and businessman, I know, you need nothing but a budget, a team, a project leader and a collection route to begin confiscation/collection/activity, once the information is there.
The average American home is too spread out (suburb) or too packed together (city block) to deploy any form of meaningful resistance besides hit-and-run. If they have their list, it's already too late.
That's an incredibly ignorant statement that fails to address the points brought up about the need for anonymity.
Americans already register their names, place of residence, income, work place, family ties, spending habits, and health records.
But it is gun registry that will help them track us? Please, explain.
It's not being tracked that's the problem. Its that they know you have guns. If there's a gun-registry, and a tyranny tries to crack down on opposition in an area, they know exactly who has guns and who does not. It really narrows their search for guerrillas.
The truth is out there, man! You also fail to understand that the gun owners are all secretly planning on overthrowing the unarmed public and we have to strike first! /sarcasm
There isn't anywhere near enough instability in our country to even consider the possibility of a tyrannical regime in the next 15 years. That also goes for getting rid of the second amendment.
Do you like having airbags in your car? Why; the odds that you'll get in a wreck are pretty low. Well, I like being able to stand up for myself against a tyranny, even if that tyranny is really unlikely.
I don't know if a tyranny is going to happen, in 10, 50, or 100 years. But it might, and I don't want to be caught unprepared.
As for getting rid of the 2nd Amendment being unlikely, how do you boil a frog? If you toss the frog in the boiling pot, he hops right back out. But if you put him in cool water and slowly turn up the heat, he's none the wiser. Same for gun control. You slowly pile on the restrictions, and don't face much opposition on each one because individually they're small. But over time, they add up and eventually you're left with nothing but nerf guns.
I wasn't trying to refute you. Just showing Kmilz that there are people here who think gun registries lead to gun grabbing, thank you for another example to show him.
On May 17 2013 01:58 Thieving Magpie wrote: @Kmilz
here's another person who associates registries with both tyranny and gun grabbing. And this is just the page you tried to say this stuff doesn't happen? Imagine if we go back to prior pages
On May 17 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:
On May 17 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 17 2013 01:47 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
On May 17 2013 01:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: @Kmillz, I don't even had to go back a page to find your supposed strawman.
This guy literally says that registration leads to drone strikes. He is not the first to make these types of arguments, many have before him and many will after.
On May 16 2013 19:12 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
On May 16 2013 04:16 stuneedsfood wrote: I think Thieving Magpie's point is clear. Registries of all kinds exist already, and they aren't used to illegally exploit people.
I refer back to the discussion of a few days ago, when the US federal government was directly responsible for returning guns confiscated by New Orleans city.
I honestly believe it is genuinely paranoid to think there is any realistic possibility of the government establishing a registry with the intent to confiscate all weapons in the country. Not only would it be logistically impossible, but the constitution as we know it would have to be thrown out the window completely to do it, and not just the second amendment.
Meanwhile, the paranoia of government confiscation is used as a reason to deny any reasonable legislation passing that would actually prevent needless deaths.
Yes, it's incredibly difficult these days to print/email/burn excel spreadsheets of the entire inventory of firearms of every home in a spread out suburb/farming community/etc to their respective "collection" teams laptop and call a drone strike at the first sign of resistance and put out a press release that Right wing extremists attacks DHS convoy during their investigation, officers retaliate, suffer minor injuries
Followed by rounding up all possible suspects for statements.
Nothing to worry about. Go about your business, citizen. Nothing to see here. Official state business.
*sarcasm*
Son, anonymity is THE only shield against an all-powerful, all-seeing government. Which is why protecting your privacy is critical to anyone who considers themselves a free man.
Edit: What you call paranoia I call experience and knowledge. As a project manager and businessman, I know, you need nothing but a budget, a team, a project leader and a collection route to begin confiscation/collection/activity, once the information is there.
The average American home is too spread out (suburb) or too packed together (city block) to deploy any form of meaningful resistance besides hit-and-run. If they have their list, it's already too late.
That's an incredibly ignorant statement that fails to address the points brought up about the need for anonymity.
Americans already register their names, place of residence, income, work place, family ties, spending habits, and health records.
But it is gun registry that will help them track us? Please, explain.
It's not being tracked that's the problem. Its that they know you have guns. If there's a gun-registry, and a tyranny tries to crack down on opposition in an area, they know exactly who has guns and who does not. It really narrows their search for guerrillas.
That's exactly how it went down in England. They passed a gun registry, and then used the registry to take most people's guns.
I'm not saying a tyranny is coming, but I can't in good conscience say it cannot happen. To say that tyranny is impossible now would be neglecting the entirety of human history.
On May 17 2013 01:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: @Kmillz, I don't even had to go back a page to find your supposed strawman.
This guy literally says that registration leads to drone strikes. He is not the first to make these types of arguments, many have before him and many will after.
On May 16 2013 19:12 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
On May 16 2013 04:16 stuneedsfood wrote: I think Thieving Magpie's point is clear. Registries of all kinds exist already, and they aren't used to illegally exploit people.
I refer back to the discussion of a few days ago, when the US federal government was directly responsible for returning guns confiscated by New Orleans city.
I honestly believe it is genuinely paranoid to think there is any realistic possibility of the government establishing a registry with the intent to confiscate all weapons in the country. Not only would it be logistically impossible, but the constitution as we know it would have to be thrown out the window completely to do it, and not just the second amendment.
Meanwhile, the paranoia of government confiscation is used as a reason to deny any reasonable legislation passing that would actually prevent needless deaths.
Yes, it's incredibly difficult these days to print/email/burn excel spreadsheets of the entire inventory of firearms of every home in a spread out suburb/farming community/etc to their respective "collection" teams laptop and call a drone strike at the first sign of resistance and put out a press release that Right wing extremists attacks DHS convoy during their investigation, officers retaliate, suffer minor injuries
Followed by rounding up all possible suspects for statements.
Nothing to worry about. Go about your business, citizen. Nothing to see here. Official state business.
*sarcasm*
Son, anonymity is THE only shield against an all-powerful, all-seeing government. Which is why protecting your privacy is critical to anyone who considers themselves a free man.
Edit: What you call paranoia I call experience and knowledge. As a project manager and businessman, I know, you need nothing but a budget, a team, a project leader and a collection route to begin confiscation/collection/activity, once the information is there.
The average American home is too spread out (suburb) or too packed together (city block) to deploy any form of meaningful resistance besides hit-and-run. If they have their list, it's already too late.
Lol he just explained how and why it could happen, no where did he "literally say that registration leads to drone strikes".
You mean like when he says, verbatim
"spreadsheets of the entire inventory of firearms of every home in a spread out suburb/farming community/etc to their respective "collection" teams laptop and call a drone strike "
On May 17 2013 01:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: @Kmillz, I don't even had to go back a page to find your supposed strawman.
This guy literally says that registration leads to drone strikes. He is not the first to make these types of arguments, many have before him and many will after.
On May 16 2013 19:12 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
On May 16 2013 04:16 stuneedsfood wrote: I think Thieving Magpie's point is clear. Registries of all kinds exist already, and they aren't used to illegally exploit people.
I refer back to the discussion of a few days ago, when the US federal government was directly responsible for returning guns confiscated by New Orleans city.
I honestly believe it is genuinely paranoid to think there is any realistic possibility of the government establishing a registry with the intent to confiscate all weapons in the country. Not only would it be logistically impossible, but the constitution as we know it would have to be thrown out the window completely to do it, and not just the second amendment.
Meanwhile, the paranoia of government confiscation is used as a reason to deny any reasonable legislation passing that would actually prevent needless deaths.
Yes, it's incredibly difficult these days to print/email/burn excel spreadsheets of the entire inventory of firearms of every home in a spread out suburb/farming community/etc to their respective "collection" teams laptop and call a drone strike at the first sign of resistance and put out a press release that Right wing extremists attacks DHS convoy during their investigation, officers retaliate, suffer minor injuries
Followed by rounding up all possible suspects for statements.
Nothing to worry about. Go about your business, citizen. Nothing to see here. Official state business.
*sarcasm*
Son, anonymity is THE only shield against an all-powerful, all-seeing government. Which is why protecting your privacy is critical to anyone who considers themselves a free man.
Edit: What you call paranoia I call experience and knowledge. As a project manager and businessman, I know, you need nothing but a budget, a team, a project leader and a collection route to begin confiscation/collection/activity, once the information is there.
The average American home is too spread out (suburb) or too packed together (city block) to deploy any form of meaningful resistance besides hit-and-run. If they have their list, it's already too late.
Lol he just explained how and why it could happen, no where did he "literally say that registration leads to drone strikes".
You mean like when he says, verbatim
"spreadsheets of the entire inventory of firearms of every home in a spread out suburb/farming community/etc to their respective "collection" teams laptop and call a drone strike "
You're right, people suggesting possible scenarios for how a gun confiscation would take place after you strawman me totally makes it not a strawman anymore.
Hidden cameras in every room in every house would catch criminals in all kinds of domestic crimes, is that a good idea? What about cameras in every car to catch people littering? Chips in cars to alert the authorities when people are speeding?
On May 17 2013 01:58 Thieving Magpie wrote: @Kmilz
here's another person who associates registries with both tyranny and gun grabbing. And this is just the page you tried to say this stuff doesn't happen? Imagine if we go back to prior pages
On May 17 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:
On May 17 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 17 2013 01:47 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
On May 17 2013 01:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: @Kmillz, I don't even had to go back a page to find your supposed strawman.
This guy literally says that registration leads to drone strikes. He is not the first to make these types of arguments, many have before him and many will after.
On May 16 2013 19:12 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
On May 16 2013 04:16 stuneedsfood wrote: I think Thieving Magpie's point is clear. Registries of all kinds exist already, and they aren't used to illegally exploit people.
I refer back to the discussion of a few days ago, when the US federal government was directly responsible for returning guns confiscated by New Orleans city.
I honestly believe it is genuinely paranoid to think there is any realistic possibility of the government establishing a registry with the intent to confiscate all weapons in the country. Not only would it be logistically impossible, but the constitution as we know it would have to be thrown out the window completely to do it, and not just the second amendment.
Meanwhile, the paranoia of government confiscation is used as a reason to deny any reasonable legislation passing that would actually prevent needless deaths.
Yes, it's incredibly difficult these days to print/email/burn excel spreadsheets of the entire inventory of firearms of every home in a spread out suburb/farming community/etc to their respective "collection" teams laptop and call a drone strike at the first sign of resistance and put out a press release that Right wing extremists attacks DHS convoy during their investigation, officers retaliate, suffer minor injuries
Followed by rounding up all possible suspects for statements.
Nothing to worry about. Go about your business, citizen. Nothing to see here. Official state business.
*sarcasm*
Son, anonymity is THE only shield against an all-powerful, all-seeing government. Which is why protecting your privacy is critical to anyone who considers themselves a free man.
Edit: What you call paranoia I call experience and knowledge. As a project manager and businessman, I know, you need nothing but a budget, a team, a project leader and a collection route to begin confiscation/collection/activity, once the information is there.
The average American home is too spread out (suburb) or too packed together (city block) to deploy any form of meaningful resistance besides hit-and-run. If they have their list, it's already too late.
That's an incredibly ignorant statement that fails to address the points brought up about the need for anonymity.
Americans already register their names, place of residence, income, work place, family ties, spending habits, and health records.
But it is gun registry that will help them track us? Please, explain.
It's not being tracked that's the problem. Its that they know you have guns. If there's a gun-registry, and a tyranny tries to crack down on opposition in an area, they know exactly who has guns and who does not. It really narrows their search for guerrillas.
That's exactly how it went down in England. They passed a gun registry, and then used the registry to take most people's guns.
I'm not saying a tyranny is coming, but I can't in good conscience say it cannot happen. To say that tyranny is impossible now would be neglecting the entirety of human history.
Now you're being dishonest. In England, they banned the use of arms for self defense. This basically meant goodbye handguns. Unfortunately your causative argument doesn't work because THERE WERE 77 YEARS IN BETWEEN THESE THINGS HAPPENING. Unless your argument is that the United States will ever do the same (on a federal level), then you can't make the moronic argument that a gun registry will lead to gun confiscation.
On May 17 2013 01:58 Thieving Magpie wrote: @Kmilz
here's another person who associates registries with both tyranny and gun grabbing. And this is just the page you tried to say this stuff doesn't happen? Imagine if we go back to prior pages
On May 17 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:
On May 17 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 17 2013 01:47 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
On May 17 2013 01:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: @Kmillz, I don't even had to go back a page to find your supposed strawman.
This guy literally says that registration leads to drone strikes. He is not the first to make these types of arguments, many have before him and many will after.
On May 16 2013 19:12 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
On May 16 2013 04:16 stuneedsfood wrote: I think Thieving Magpie's point is clear. Registries of all kinds exist already, and they aren't used to illegally exploit people.
I refer back to the discussion of a few days ago, when the US federal government was directly responsible for returning guns confiscated by New Orleans city.
I honestly believe it is genuinely paranoid to think there is any realistic possibility of the government establishing a registry with the intent to confiscate all weapons in the country. Not only would it be logistically impossible, but the constitution as we know it would have to be thrown out the window completely to do it, and not just the second amendment.
Meanwhile, the paranoia of government confiscation is used as a reason to deny any reasonable legislation passing that would actually prevent needless deaths.
Yes, it's incredibly difficult these days to print/email/burn excel spreadsheets of the entire inventory of firearms of every home in a spread out suburb/farming community/etc to their respective "collection" teams laptop and call a drone strike at the first sign of resistance and put out a press release that Right wing extremists attacks DHS convoy during their investigation, officers retaliate, suffer minor injuries
Followed by rounding up all possible suspects for statements.
Nothing to worry about. Go about your business, citizen. Nothing to see here. Official state business.
*sarcasm*
Son, anonymity is THE only shield against an all-powerful, all-seeing government. Which is why protecting your privacy is critical to anyone who considers themselves a free man.
Edit: What you call paranoia I call experience and knowledge. As a project manager and businessman, I know, you need nothing but a budget, a team, a project leader and a collection route to begin confiscation/collection/activity, once the information is there.
The average American home is too spread out (suburb) or too packed together (city block) to deploy any form of meaningful resistance besides hit-and-run. If they have their list, it's already too late.
That's an incredibly ignorant statement that fails to address the points brought up about the need for anonymity.
Americans already register their names, place of residence, income, work place, family ties, spending habits, and health records.
But it is gun registry that will help them track us? Please, explain.
It's not being tracked that's the problem. Its that they know you have guns. If there's a gun-registry, and a tyranny tries to crack down on opposition in an area, they know exactly who has guns and who does not. It really narrows their search for guerrillas.
That's exactly how it went down in England. They passed a gun registry, and then used the registry to take most people's guns.
I'm not saying a tyranny is coming, but I can't in good conscience say it cannot happen. To say that tyranny is impossible now would be neglecting the entirety of human history.
Now you're being dishonest. In England, they banned the use of arms for self defense. This basically meant goodbye handguns. Unfortunately your causative argument doesn't work because THERE WERE 77 YEARS IN BETWEEN THESE THINGS HAPPENING. Unless your argument is that the United States will ever do the same (on a federal level), then you can't make the moronic argument that a gun registry will lead to gun confiscation.
On May 17 2013 01:58 Thieving Magpie wrote: @Kmilz
here's another person who associates registries with both tyranny and gun grabbing. And this is just the page you tried to say this stuff doesn't happen? Imagine if we go back to prior pages
On May 17 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:
On May 17 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 17 2013 01:47 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
On May 17 2013 01:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: @Kmillz, I don't even had to go back a page to find your supposed strawman.
This guy literally says that registration leads to drone strikes. He is not the first to make these types of arguments, many have before him and many will after.
On May 16 2013 19:12 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
On May 16 2013 04:16 stuneedsfood wrote: I think Thieving Magpie's point is clear. Registries of all kinds exist already, and they aren't used to illegally exploit people.
I refer back to the discussion of a few days ago, when the US federal government was directly responsible for returning guns confiscated by New Orleans city.
I honestly believe it is genuinely paranoid to think there is any realistic possibility of the government establishing a registry with the intent to confiscate all weapons in the country. Not only would it be logistically impossible, but the constitution as we know it would have to be thrown out the window completely to do it, and not just the second amendment.
Meanwhile, the paranoia of government confiscation is used as a reason to deny any reasonable legislation passing that would actually prevent needless deaths.
Yes, it's incredibly difficult these days to print/email/burn excel spreadsheets of the entire inventory of firearms of every home in a spread out suburb/farming community/etc to their respective "collection" teams laptop and call a drone strike at the first sign of resistance and put out a press release that Right wing extremists attacks DHS convoy during their investigation, officers retaliate, suffer minor injuries
Followed by rounding up all possible suspects for statements.
Nothing to worry about. Go about your business, citizen. Nothing to see here. Official state business.
*sarcasm*
Son, anonymity is THE only shield against an all-powerful, all-seeing government. Which is why protecting your privacy is critical to anyone who considers themselves a free man.
Edit: What you call paranoia I call experience and knowledge. As a project manager and businessman, I know, you need nothing but a budget, a team, a project leader and a collection route to begin confiscation/collection/activity, once the information is there.
The average American home is too spread out (suburb) or too packed together (city block) to deploy any form of meaningful resistance besides hit-and-run. If they have their list, it's already too late.
That's an incredibly ignorant statement that fails to address the points brought up about the need for anonymity.
Americans already register their names, place of residence, income, work place, family ties, spending habits, and health records.
But it is gun registry that will help them track us? Please, explain.
It's not being tracked that's the problem. Its that they know you have guns. If there's a gun-registry, and a tyranny tries to crack down on opposition in an area, they know exactly who has guns and who does not. It really narrows their search for guerrillas.
That's exactly how it went down in England. They passed a gun registry, and then used the registry to take most people's guns.
I'm not saying a tyranny is coming, but I can't in good conscience say it cannot happen. To say that tyranny is impossible now would be neglecting the entirety of human history.
Now you're being dishonest. In England, they banned the use of arms for self defense. This basically meant goodbye handguns. Unfortunately your causative argument doesn't work because THERE WERE 77 YEARS IN BETWEEN THESE THINGS HAPPENING. Unless your argument is that the United States will ever do the same (on a federal level), then you can't make the moronic argument that a gun registry will lead to gun confiscation.
That sounds like confiscation to me.
It sounds like the majority of the people of England got tired of handguns. Funny how the same guy who did that got re-elected twice. Also, so I don't put words in your mouth, you're saying that like it's an inherently bad thing, right?
On May 17 2013 01:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: @Kmillz, I don't even had to go back a page to find your supposed strawman.
This guy literally says that registration leads to drone strikes. He is not the first to make these types of arguments, many have before him and many will after.
On May 16 2013 19:12 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
On May 16 2013 04:16 stuneedsfood wrote: I think Thieving Magpie's point is clear. Registries of all kinds exist already, and they aren't used to illegally exploit people.
I refer back to the discussion of a few days ago, when the US federal government was directly responsible for returning guns confiscated by New Orleans city.
I honestly believe it is genuinely paranoid to think there is any realistic possibility of the government establishing a registry with the intent to confiscate all weapons in the country. Not only would it be logistically impossible, but the constitution as we know it would have to be thrown out the window completely to do it, and not just the second amendment.
Meanwhile, the paranoia of government confiscation is used as a reason to deny any reasonable legislation passing that would actually prevent needless deaths.
Yes, it's incredibly difficult these days to print/email/burn excel spreadsheets of the entire inventory of firearms of every home in a spread out suburb/farming community/etc to their respective "collection" teams laptop and call a drone strike at the first sign of resistance and put out a press release that Right wing extremists attacks DHS convoy during their investigation, officers retaliate, suffer minor injuries
Followed by rounding up all possible suspects for statements.
Nothing to worry about. Go about your business, citizen. Nothing to see here. Official state business.
*sarcasm*
Son, anonymity is THE only shield against an all-powerful, all-seeing government. Which is why protecting your privacy is critical to anyone who considers themselves a free man.
Edit: What you call paranoia I call experience and knowledge. As a project manager and businessman, I know, you need nothing but a budget, a team, a project leader and a collection route to begin confiscation/collection/activity, once the information is there.
The average American home is too spread out (suburb) or too packed together (city block) to deploy any form of meaningful resistance besides hit-and-run. If they have their list, it's already too late.
Lol he just explained how and why it could happen, no where did he "literally say that registration leads to drone strikes".
You mean like when he says, verbatim
"spreadsheets of the entire inventory of firearms of every home in a spread out suburb/farming community/etc to their respective "collection" teams laptop and call a drone strike "
You're right, people suggesting possible scenarios for how a gun confiscation would take place after you strawman me totally makes it not a strawman anymore.
Hidden cameras in every room in every house would catch criminals in all kinds of domestic crimes, is that a good idea?
How would that make it easier to catch criminals?
A small apartment would have at least 3-4 rooms. Kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, "other" room, not to mention closets, garage, parking areas, front yard area, back yard area, etc...
In every house? You mean 4-20 cameras a residence, 300 million people worth of residencies, plus the buildings without occupants?
Then add in parks, city streets, alley ways you're talking about 2-3 billion cameras that need people to actually be looking at what they're doing.
And we're talking about police here, cameras would be about the size they have in malls, would require their own power grid, and the moment the owners sees a sudden jump in electricity they now what's there.
But lets pretend the police force has the funding and manpower to install 500,000-2,000,000 million cameras in their city without getting caught. Say they have the super secret tech cameras you see on TV. Say these cameras are powered by a nuclear isotope in a lead lining so they can remain powered and not die after 1 day of battery use. Say a random police department in america has the manpower to have someone keep track of 2,000,000 cameras. Say they have the top secret server farm to host all this data and the brand new server farm they'll have to make every 1-2 days to store 2,000,000 cameras worth of 24 hour data per day. Say this super police force has the manpower, funding, and technology to do this.
Would it be cheaper to simply hire more cops to do what they're already doing than it is to hire an entire army worth of tech and tech support and infrastructure support to man something like this?
But, you know what, fuck it, lets not even make it secret. Lets say to cut costs they just use normal cameras, have it everywhere, and suddenly people turn off the lights. Police barge in and go "something sort of happened, I think, maybe, there was a noise, I'm here to arrest some fuzzy camera image from last night?"
Hmm.... that sounds like a lot of money spent on.... well, nothing actually. Maybe if the money was used to hire more cops and increase after school programs instead of secret cameras a cop's life would be easier. Oh right! It would be, because reducing crime while increasing police force size reduces work stress and increases worker productivity.
Anymore conspiracy theories you have? Because no, cameras in every home would not help a police department in anything but an action movie. There are a shit tonne of homes with a shit tonne of rooms in them and trying to get a camera in all of them would cost more than simply funding the tactics we use already. It's much more cost effective to gather evidence and simply have surveillance gather info in areas where you have proof that something will occur. Less man hours, less infrastructure support, and has technology we already have.
What else do you have? Microchips in the brain? Everyone chained to a shock collar? Mind control gas in the air? What other sci-fi fear do you have that the government will do to you?
Now that we finally have stopped that supervillain plot non-sense, lets finally get back to the topic of doctors being called unfit to talk about public health if guns are involved.
On May 17 2013 02:54 Thieving Magpie wrote: Now that we finally have stopped that supervillain plot non-sense, lets finally get back to the topic of doctors being called unfit to talk about public health if guns are involved.
This did happen to me and I told the Doctor that was none of his business. I went in for a upper respiratory illness. Owning or not owning a gun had nothing to do with me being sick.
On May 17 2013 02:54 Thieving Magpie wrote: Now that we finally have stopped that supervillain plot non-sense, lets finally get back to the topic of doctors being called unfit to talk about public health if guns are involved.
This did happen to me and I told the Doctor that was none of his business. I went in for a upper respiratory illness. Owning or not owning a gun had nothing to do with me being sick.
Oh God! I've been going to the doctor wrong this whole time...
I thought I would go to the doctor for being sick, and he would diagnose what I had. I didn't realize I would self diagnose and go to the doctor already knowing what's wrong with me.
On May 17 2013 02:54 Thieving Magpie wrote: Now that we finally have stopped that supervillain plot non-sense, lets finally get back to the topic of doctors being called unfit to talk about public health if guns are involved.
This did happen to me and I told the Doctor that was none of his business. I went in for a upper respiratory illness. Owning or not owning a gun had nothing to do with me being sick.
Oh God! I've been going to the doctor wrong this whole time...
I thought I would go to the doctor for being sick, and he would diagnose what I had. I didn't realize I would self diagnose and go to the doctor already knowing what's wrong with me.
Silly me.
"Have you considered seeing a psychologist?"
"That's none of your business! Give me a scrip for the illness I tell you I have and I'll be on my way!"
On May 17 2013 02:54 Thieving Magpie wrote: Now that we finally have stopped that supervillain plot non-sense, lets finally get back to the topic of doctors being called unfit to talk about public health if guns are involved.
This did happen to me and I told the Doctor that was none of his business. I went in for a upper respiratory illness. Owning or not owning a gun had nothing to do with me being sick.
Its absolutely none of their damn business to ask if their patient owns a firearm. Despite what FallDownMarigold keeps insisting, the gun control debate is not a public health issue. Its a criminology issue. I'm all for legislation that will keep criminals from owning guns. But doctors are not the authority on criminology, they may however be an authority on how to treat a bullet wound.
Maybe I should have clarified. I went to the doctor because I was sick.....symptoms fever, coughing up phlegm. The doctor diagnosed that it was an upper respiratory infection.But it does not change the fact that I went in for an upper respiratory infection. Did I know that at the time no. And yes I have before told the doctor what was wrong......I broke my foot and told the doctor as such.
Furthermore I do not think the doctor should ask me about firearms. I would wager I know more about firearms (types,how to operate,safety,etc)than 99% of doctors. If this is under the guise of public safety there are a lot more questions that could be asked. Do you own a pool?(drownings)When is the last time you had your break pads changed?(auto accidents)
On May 17 2013 02:54 Thieving Magpie wrote: Now that we finally have stopped that supervillain plot non-sense, lets finally get back to the topic of doctors being called unfit to talk about public health if guns are involved.
This did happen to me and I told the Doctor that was none of his business. I went in for a upper respiratory illness. Owning or not owning a gun had nothing to do with me being sick.
Its absolutely none of their damn business to ask if their patient owns a firearm. Despite what FallDownMarigold keeps insisting, the gun control debate is not a public health issue. Its a criminology issue. I'm all for legislation that will keep criminals from owning guns. But doctors are not the authority on criminology, they may however be an authority on how to treat a bullet wound.
While I would rather not have a gun discussion with my doctor either, what do you think of the doctor asking you if you always buckle your seatbelt when you get into a car? I think you can make a similar argument for how that is none of his business as gun-ownership (especially in the case of children), but I'm okay with the doctor insisting to his/her patients to wear a seatbelt.
On May 17 2013 02:54 Thieving Magpie wrote: Now that we finally have stopped that supervillain plot non-sense, lets finally get back to the topic of doctors being called unfit to talk about public health if guns are involved.
This did happen to me and I told the Doctor that was none of his business. I went in for a upper respiratory illness. Owning or not owning a gun had nothing to do with me being sick.
Its absolutely none of their damn business to ask if their patient owns a firearm. Despite what FallDownMarigold keeps insisting, the gun control debate is not a public health issue. Its a criminology issue. I'm all for legislation that will keep criminals from owning guns. But doctors are not the authority on criminology, they may however be an authority on how to treat a bullet wound.
Are you at all familiar with physician guidelines insofar as mental health advice and environmental dangers are concerned, or are you simply jerkin that knee?
On May 17 2013 02:54 Thieving Magpie wrote: Now that we finally have stopped that supervillain plot non-sense, lets finally get back to the topic of doctors being called unfit to talk about public health if guns are involved.
This did happen to me and I told the Doctor that was none of his business. I went in for a upper respiratory illness. Owning or not owning a gun had nothing to do with me being sick.
Its absolutely none of their damn business to ask if their patient owns a firearm. Despite what FallDownMarigold keeps insisting, the gun control debate is not a public health issue. Its a criminology issue. I'm all for legislation that will keep criminals from owning guns. But doctors are not the authority on criminology, they may however be an authority on how to treat a bullet wound.
Criminologists can't be allowed into this debate. They're obviously heavily biased, because their very livelihood requires crime to exist.
EPT
