Federal Gun Registry Coming?

[Sparko]

It doesn't become something new or different. It's not considered a school teacher database, even though there are school teachers on it. It's not a bus driver database even though there are bus drivers on it. It doesn't become a federal gun registry database by adding gun owners to it. That's not what the list is for. Calling it something it's not is misleading, at best.

For that matter, it's entirely reasonable to think there are already gun owners on that database. They're just there for different reasons.

If it tracks gun owners, and it is a federal database, it doesn't matter if the database is NEW or not. The use is NEW. And it doesn't matter what you CALL it. It is a federal gun owners database. It lets the government track gun owners, something that has never been done before and should never be done. That is the problem: Its possible misuse. Not to mention putting innocent people on a federal watchlist just because they own firearms. That's freaking nazi-style crazy.

[Carrikature]

If it tracks gun owners, and it is a federal database, it doesn't matter if the database is NEW or not. The use is NEW. And it doesn't matter what you CALL it. It is a federal gun owners database. It lets the government track gun owners, something that has never been done before and should never be done. That is the problem: Its possible misuse. Not to mention putting innocent people on a federal watchlist just because they own firearms. That's freaking nazi-style crazy.

All of these things matter. It matters because of the claims being made both in the article and in this thread. It matters because what you call it needs to match what it is.

Moreover, innocent people are already on a federal watchlist. This isn't something new. It's not Nazi-style anything. Don't blow it out of proportion.

[Sparko]

All of these things matter. It matters because of the claims being made both in the article and in this thread. It matters because what you call it needs to match what it is.

Moreover, innocent people are already on a federal watchlist. This isn't something new. It's not Nazi-style anything. Don't blow it out of proportion.

So as long as they don't call it a federal gun owners registry, it is OK. Got it. Even though it is being used to keep track of guns and their owners. And it is a database.

It all makes sense now. Thank you Herr Karrot.

[Cow Poke]

Then enlighten me. So far all I see is claims of rights violations where none exist.

I don't think you want to be enlightened, C -- I think you screwed up, can't admit it, and it's a waste of my time and effort to prove it to you.

[Cow Poke]

if there is an existing federal database that does not track gun owners, and then you add gun owners to that database, you have created a federal gun registry database. duh.

That's pretty easy to understand, isn't it?

Which becomes, as I have pointed out repeatedly, a "de facto Federal Gun Registry".

[Cow Poke]

It doesn't become something new or different. It's not considered a school teacher database, even though there are school teachers on it. It's not a bus driver database even though there are bus drivers on it. It doesn't become a federal gun registry database by adding gun owners to it. That's not what the list is for. Calling it something it's not is misleading, at best.

It is a database of people who have committed crimes, especially those in positions of trust. Gun owners, who have committed no crime, will be added in as though they have committed crimes.

For that matter, it's entirely reasonable to think there are already gun owners on that database.

But not by virtue of the fact that they committed crimes.

They're just there for different reasons.

Yes, criminals, as opposed to responsible citizens who have broken no laws.

[Carrikature]

So as long as they don't call it a federal gun owners registry, it is OK. Got it. Even though it is being used to keep track of guns and their owners. And it is a database.

It all makes sense now. Thank you Herr Karrot.

Call it a registry if it is one. Don't call it one if it's not. But, again, if you weren't calling it a teachers database or a bus drivers database before, you've no room to call it a gun database now.


What's really ironic is that none of this bit about the FBI's database is even mentioned in the bill.

[Carrikature]

I don't think you want to be enlightened, C -- I think you screwed up, can't admit it, and it's a waste of my time and effort to prove it to you.

If this is the stance you're going to take, stop responding to me. Otherwise, move on. I don't care if this is what you think or not.

[Carrikature]

It is a database of people who have committed crimes, especially those in positions of trust. Gun owners, who have committed no crime, will be added in as though they have committed crimes.

This is false, on all counts. It's not limited to criminals. In fact, most of the use is to make sure those in positions of trust who commit crimes can be removed from those positions. You're completely off here.

But not by virtue of the fact that they committed crimes.

Nor is that changing.

Yes, criminals, as opposed to responsible citizens who have broken no laws.

Still false.

[Cow Poke]

This is false, on all counts. It's not limited to criminals. In fact, most of the use is to make sure those in positions of trust who commit crimes can be removed from those positions. You're completely off here.

Nor is that changing.

Still false.

I think some of the confusion here is WHICH database we're talking about. Are you talking about the Hawaii STATE database, or the Federal Rap Back database?

I have cited this before, from the FBI's own website... (bolding mine)

Source: FBI.gov

criminal history reported on individuals holding positions of trust, such as school teachers.

© Copyright Original Source

The Hawaii database, on the other hand, includes those who register weapons or even apply to own one.

[Sparko]

Call it a registry if it is one. Don't call it one if it's not. But, again, if you weren't calling it a teachers database or a bus drivers database before, you've no room to call it a gun database now.


What's really ironic is that none of this bit about the FBI's database is even mentioned in the bill.

who cares what it is called? It is what it does that counts. Tracking non criminals who own guns. That is not the business of government. You are quibbling semantics and ignoring the function. The government never calls something what it is anyway. They always have a clever name for it. Like "rap back" -- yeah that name really tells you what the database is for, right? Oh no, it is not a criminal-tracking watch list at all, it is a "rap back" database!

[Cow Poke]

What's really ironic is that none of this bit about the FBI's database is even mentioned in the bill.

[eider]

who cares what it is called? It is what it does that counts. Tracking non criminals who own guns. ............................

What?
Like registering non-crminals who own and drive vehicles?
Dreadful!

Oh, and while they're at it, maybe they should insist on 3rd party liability insurance?

[lilpixieofterror]

What?
Like registering non-crminals who own and drive vehicles?
Dreadful!

You only need to register a car when you're driving it on a public road. Oops...

Oh, and while they're at it, maybe they should insist on 3rd party liability insurance?

When are you going to insist on liability insurance on the bottle of bleach that I have since you're more likely to accidental poison yourself vs being accidentally shot? How about chocking insurance since you're more likely to be killed chocking on something vs being accidentally shot? Don't forget falling insurance since you're more likely to die from a fall than being accidentally shot either. Perhaps the reason there's no requirement for gun insurance is because unless you're suicidal or a criminal, your odds of being accidentally shot are next to nil?

[eider]

You only need to register a car when you're driving it on a public road. Oops...

Silly! You just haven't figured out that you are registered as a driver, unless of course you just don't drive.
Which part od this are you having difficultry with? If you drive, you are on databases..........

When are you going to insist on liability insurance on the bottle of bleach that I have since you're more likely to accidental poison yourself vs being accidentally shot?

Hundreds of thousands of accidents happen with guns each year. I am sure that responsible gun users will be insured. Only the idiots don't bother, and so to make 3rd party gun insurance mandatory would be a no-brainer.

How about chocking insurance since you're more likely to be killed chocking on something vs being accidentally shot?

This is hard work! If you own and carry a gun, there is a risk that you could, by accident, hurt somebody else! If you should be so unfortunate, and a Court awarded damages against you for the injury caused, any specialist treatment and services, loss of earnings, possible loss of life etc etc, you would not be able to pay for the damages, but if insured......

dONn't forget falling insurance since you're more likely to die from a fall than being accidentally shot either. Perhaps the reason there's no requirement for gun insurance is because unless you're suicidal or a criminal, your odds of being accidentally shot are next to nil?

So, slowly, I'm hoping that you are figuring out that 3rd party gun insurance would be there to protect THIRD PARTIES. Get a friend to explain third-party insurance to you. Without this a wounded person might get awarded a large payout, but if the negligent gun owner-shooter has no money, then the poor wounded innocent person doesn't get all those awards!

So take care you don't fall, choke, etc........... and get some 3rd party gun insurance!
People who run businesses, drive cars, own yachts, carry guns etc without 3rd party insurance are a total irresponsible disgrace.
Easy.

This isn't getting through........ maybe I could email your President to add it tyio his list of executive actions. 3rd party gun insurance.