We need more surveillance when it comes to guns

[RobertEarl]

Isn't that the latest republican idea?

Well, they are right. Every gun range should have permanent, pervasive surveillance of the highest order.

Same goes for where any gun is sold.

The 2nd says nothing about an Individual's rights. It says the people's rights to bear arms shall not be infringed. Surveillance of all gun shows and ranges and the like will give law enforcement a running start on who is the most likely to shoot us up.

Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear but the gunners themselves.

[linuxman]

1. This is satire, right?

[RobertEarl]

2. Yes, I do believe your post is

I mean look at your post. It has no value and not even an attempt at discussion.

Shooters need to be identified and watched so they can pick up the next shooter before he gets loaded.

[linuxman]

4. Have fun with your bushco. police state fantasies.

It's never one freedom the prohibitionists can't stand, is it?

Break out the cameras, boys!

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

3. I would like to think so . . .

. . . but I suspect not.

Rather ironic how, when the subject is guns, people who would, in other contexts, decry the police and express fear of, and contempt for, those who would exercise power over us, are the first to express support for the "surveillance state."

The Second Amendment exists to secure the right of the people to retain the means to defend themselves -- through lethal action, as necessary -- against those who would seek to separate them from those means.

[Kang Colby]

5. I get it, you don't like gun owners.

But people who purchase guns are already required to fill out a 4473 which must match photo ID. The 4473 forms are held by the FFL for 20 years (in all likelihood forever). If the FFL goes out of business before 20 years is up, the 4473s are sent to the ATF for permanent archival. The ATF also routinely inspects these records. The forms contain sensitive PII.

What's my point? Exercising your 2A rights involves a considerable amount of infringement and is already subject to overbearing levels of surveillance.

[RobertEarl]

7. You need a dictionary

Look up infringed.

Telling the people they can't buy a gun is infringement.

Telling an individual that they can't buy a gun is not an infringement on the people.

Surveillance is not infringement. Look it up!

[Kang Colby]

10. Look up the Heller/McDonald SCOTUS decisions.

At no point in U.S. history were firearm purchase/ownership rights restricted to the militia.

[RobertEarl]

12. You are in favor of mentally ill getting guns?

You think they have a right?

[Kang Colby]

14. Yes. The mentally ill are more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators of violence.

I would only support the mentally ill having their firearm rights revoked if they are adjudicated as a risk to themselves or others in a manner fully respectful of due process.

You first have to define mentally ill, which could range from a mild case of ADHD or depression to schizophrenia.

[RobertEarl]

20. Was Orlando shooter mentally ill?

I think he was. Surveillance is how we determine who has guns and might be mentally ill.

Cop sits at side of road watching for bad drivers. Yep we are all under surveillance as we pass him by. He sees someone who is a danger to us and he pulls them over.

[Kang Colby]

22. I have no idea.

I think down inside you probably agree with what I'm saying, you just enjoy lively discussion. That's ok.

I feel like when these rampage killings occur, people always say, "the perpetrator was mentally ill", without any factual or medical basis to make that determination. In some cases, the assailants were indeed documented as being mentally ill. But we shouldn't speculate, as I believe it does a disservice to those who are truly mentally ill and have no tendency towards violence.

[RobertEarl]

24. Sure, he was mentally competent

I don't think so. Has there ever been one shooter who was found to be mentally competent? I'll wait.

There are some individuals who should not keep the right to bear arms. Surveillance of shooters is not an infringement of the people. But is good common sense and is good law enforcement.

Look, I get watched a lot due to my activities. It's ok. That's the LEO's job.

No one is going to take the people's arms. But we can and should take some individuals arms after they have been judicially deemed to not be able to exercise that right safely. First they have to be watched in order to make the case.

[lancer78]

92. San Bernadino shooters

were mentally competent terrorists.

[pipoman]

29. You would really fit in better someplace like North Korea...

An alternative would be something like American Government 101...your complete lack of understanding of the English language in the context of our Constitution is a more challenging problem..

[RobertEarl]

36. Bwahahaha

You funny.

[Orrex]

56. Heller is one of the worst SCOTUS decisions of the past 20 years

And McDonald is another. Both are dubious 5-4 products of the Roberts/Scalia court, and both should be revisited by a less fucked up SCOTUS at the first opportunity.

[Kang Colby]

57. That's your opinion.

Keep in mind, before Heller in 2008, it wasn't like the United States was full of states or localities that banned guns. It just wasn't. You had Chicago and D.C. So really, what did Heller change in terms of availability of guns?

In a world where SCOTUS overturns Heller/McDonald, do you think states will just ban guns outright? I don't.

[Orrex]

61. That is indeed my opinion, and your opinion is Scalia's opinion.

In a world where SCOTUS overturns Heller/McDonald, do you think states will just ban guns outright?

Obviously not, but in a world where the terrible Heller & McDonald decisions are allowed to stand, it's much more difficult for sensible gun legislation to be passed, thanks to the NRA's puppets on the SCOTUS and elsewhere.

[Kang Colby]

63. No, that's not really an accurate statement.

Look at California, New York, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Conneticut for a point of reference. Heller doesn't seem to have slowed them down unfortunately. Those states have gun laws that far exceed what would be considered reasonable regulations.

I guess that begs the question, what do you consider sensible? Heller/McDonald only prohibit outright bans.

[Orrex]

65. No, I'm not going to play that game.

Every single time I've had this conversation with a gun-enabler over the course of 25 years or so, it invariably ends with the enabler insisting that this or that law won't work, or "it'll never pass," or otherwise deteriorating into some petulant complaint about trivial distinctions of terminology, all in an effort to avoid actual discussion.

Additionally, gun-enablers offer absolutely no alternatives, content simply to complain about every offered suggestion. Some--as I saw here on DU just yesterday--insist that "the problem" of gun violence can't be solved, as if guns are some magical force of nature sweeping over the landscape.

I guess that begs the question, what do you consider sensible? Heller/McDonald only prohibit outright bans.

I would like a uniform federal standard of very tight restriction on the purchase and carrying of firearms.


What do you suggest?

[Kang Colby]

68. I'm not playing a game. Very rude of you to call gun rights supporters "gun enablers."

My point is that Heller/McDonald isn't an impediment to gun control measures. The decisions only prohibit outright bans. That's a fact. So your statement regarding those decisions is false, they have not made it more difficult to pass gun control laws.

My solution is to either enforce the laws on the books or repeal the laws.

Tens of thousands of people submit fraudulent 4473s every year, start there.

Full prosecution and investigation as a national law enforcement priority of prohibited persons in possession. All too often these cases are dropped or just aren't prosecuted. I believe there is a direct link between enforcement and the homicide rates in D.C., Chicago, and Baltimore. Establish state/local/federal partnership task force efforts devoted to arresting and prosecuting gun crimes in major metropolitan areas. Project Exile could serve as a model.

Fully fund NICS, and provide state grants to supply covered mental health records to NICS.

I think if we did those three things, we would be able to solve most of the major problems.

[Orrex]

72. I started using that term in response to the term "gun grabbers"

And I will continue using it as long as that insulting term remains popular among its fans.

Full prosecution and investigation as a national law enforcement priority of prohibited persons in possession.

I support this. Also, a conviction for domestic violence should prohibit future firearm ownership by the abuser.

The mental health angle is overplayed IMO, since the mentally ill are vastly more likely to be the victims of violence than its perpetrators. But it makes for a popular soundbyte and helps deflect attention from gun owners who go from "responsible" to "murderous" with little warning.

A fraudulent 4473 should result in fines and a lifelong ban on firearm ownership by the applicant. A second fraudulent 4473 should result in larger fines and a lifelong ban on firearm ownership or use by the applicant. A third fraudulent 4473 should result in jail time at the very least, along with massive fines and lifelong bans on ownership and use of firearms. And so on.

We need a comprehensive and publicly accessible national registry of gun ownership. This is no more a violation of privacy than publicly accessible databases of homeownership, of criminal history, of licensing (e.g., insurance or brokerage) or of credit history readily accessible by lenders.

Gun ownership should require regularly renewed licensing along with specific liability insurance for any firearms used on, transported via or fired across public lands. I would even support a requirement of periodic formal inspection to ensure safety. Firearm owners should be required to provide proof of license, insurance & inspection upon reasonable demand by law enforcement, with failure to comply resulting in fines and/or confiscation of the firearm(s) in question.

Firearm owners should be held accountable for their firearms. Failure to report the theft of a firearm within 3 business days will qualify the owner as an accessory to any crimes committed with that firearm subsequent to the theft. This is not an unreasonable request, because responsible firearm owners should certainly know where all of their firearms are at all times.

I support any legislation that requires gun owners to be more fully responsible for their firearms.

[Marengo]

75. What is the purpose of a publicly accessible database of firearms owners?

[Kang Colby]

79. To goad, intimidate, and harass law abiding gun owners. n/t

[Marengo]

80. That's my impression as well, I can't imagine it serves any positive purpose.

[Kang Colby]

78. Well, we largely agree.

A couple of points though....


The specific mental health issue that I am referring to is legitimate. There are prohibited people who are currently excluded from NICS due to state funding gaps. This is something we should correct.

I think the punishment for 4473 fraud should be much more severe than what you listed.

I disagree with the registration, licensing, and insurance requirements as simply nonsense. In my view, those types of requirements are simply intended to burden, harass, and intimidate ordinary Americans who choose to exercise their rights.

[Orrex]

84. Well...

The specific mental health issue that I am referring to is legitimate. There are prohibited people who are currently excluded from NICS due to state funding gaps. This is something we should correct.

I would like to see such gaps closed, certainly, but I'm concerned that mental illness can be too easily scapegoated as the cause of gun violence. All mental illness is not created equal, after all, so one person's illness might manifest very differently from another's. This also constitutes a serious HIPAA violation likely running up against the 9th Amendment, so it might only pass muster if we evaluate each and every patient on a case-by-case basis.

I think the punishment for 4473 fraud should be much more severe than what you listed.

I'm down with that.

I disagree with the registration, licensing, and insurance requirements as simply nonsense. In my view, those types of requirements are simply intended to burden, harass, and intimidate ordinary Americans who choose to exercise their rights.

I've heard that objection before, and I'm comfortable dismissing it. The same "burden" argument could be made against permit fees and sales tax on gun purchases, for example, and any concerns about "privacy" are refuted by the aforementioned public registries of other information which are much more intrusive. Heck, sex offender registries are famously ill-kept and inconsistent but are easily accessible by anyone. For that matter, the proposed mental health provision would be a much more profound violation of individual privacy, yet many seem to find this acceptable.

Further, if a gun is to be used/maintained solely on private property, then insurance/licensing/registration might not be needed, but once public land becomes involved (even transporting home from point of purchase), then a case can be made that the state has a reasonable interest in the use/transport of firearms on public lands.


On the whole, we do indeed show much more agreement than I'd have anticipated.

[Kang Colby]

86. Touché. See post 14.

I agree about mental illness. I forgot I didn't respond to you last night in #14. I'm simply saying that if someone has been adjudicated with due process protection as being a risk to themselves or others...then I am OK with them being included within NICS. That's already a part of the 1968 GCA, it simply does not have adequate funding within certain states.

We will politely agree to disagree on the registration, licensing, and insurance. I think you make a reasonable argument otherwise, but I recommend that you scrap those ideas. Those ideas are nothing more than mean spirited attacks on ordinary Americans.

[Orrex]

88. Interesting.

I'm simply saying that if someone has been adjudicated with due process protection as being a risk to themselves or others.

I'd call that reasonable, since it satisfies due process, and the concern for personal & public safety overrides the right of privacy in such a case.

We will politely agree to disagree on the registration, licensing, and insurance. I think you make a reasonable argument otherwise, but I recommend that you scrap those ideas. Those ideas are nothing more than mean spirited attacks on ordinary Americans.

I see it differently, but I understand your point. I think that someone able to purchase and maintain firearms costing hundreds of dollars would certainly be able to afford any attached fees. I'm also not willing to let go of the registry requirement, because I honestly don't see how someone can reasonable object to it when so many other public databases are considered acceptable.


But I thank you for the friendly exchange.

[lancer78]

93. About the insurance angle

when my dad asked his insurance agent why the agent didn't ask if he had a gun in his home, but he did ask about a large dog, the agent told him that gun incidents are so rare that insurance companies don't see them as a risk.

[beevul]

85. "Also, a conviction for domestic violence should prohibit future firearm ownership by the abuser. "

Also, a conviction for domestic violence should prohibit future firearm ownership by the abuser.

That is already federal law.

[hack89]

71. Heller specifically states that the 2A permits strict regulations of guns

all Heller says is that you have a right to own a handgun in your home for self defense. That is all. Everything else, including AWBs and registration, are perfectly constitutional. Look no further than CT, NY and CA.

[TipTok]

49. Mandating government surveillance of private property touches on a few other bits...

... of law.

[X_Digger]

6. The bill of rights is a 'the government shall not' document, not a 'the people can' document.

It's right there in the preamble.

[div class='excerpt']The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Abuse of whose powers? Declaratory and restrictive clauses against whom?

You sound as though you think that the bill of rights grants (and therefore limits) rights. It doesn't.

[scscholar]

8. If it doesn't grant us any rights...

then we don't have free speech!

[Kang Colby]

11. It protects rights. It doesn't grant them. LOL n/t

[X_Digger]

18. Take a 10th grade civics class.

Alright smart guy, then where does the right to travel come from?

Free clue: You should study the philosophy of the enlightenment to understand where our rights come from, legally speaking.

[RobertEarl]

9. See post above

Look it up!

It is not an abuse of powers to do that which is good for the general welfare of the people. That's why they have laws.

Saving innocents from mass murders is good for the people.

Surveillance is not abuse. It's good for the people, that's why they do it. Imagine if the police could not do surveillance!!

[sarisataka]

13. Are you ok with the FBI

checking your browser history, since surveillance is a good thing? http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141482211

[RobertEarl]

16. I can't mass murder with my computer

So, no.

Shooters can and do commit mass murder. They should be watched very closely.

[sarisataka]

19. Terrorists use computers

and commit mass murder.

It is not an abuse of powers to do that which is good for the general welfare of the people. That's why they have laws.

Saving innocents from mass murders is good for the people.

Surveillance is not abuse. It's good for the people, that's why they do it.

Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear but the g̶u̶n̶n̶e̶r̶s̶ terrorists themselves

[yeoman6987]

44. In order to do this, we'd have to quadruple our police force.

[Marengo]

74. Then you shouldn't have any objection to letting them have a look.

If you have nothing to hide.

[X_Digger]

21. If the only requirement to make a law was 'provide for the general welfare', we'd be screwed.

Right to privacy? Why that's against the general welfare!

You're not the only poster in this thread that could stand to take a refresher in civics.

[RobertEarl]

26. Lessons from you are not any good

Anarchy doesn't work.

Ya know how someone gets arrested? First they have to be found doing something that is potentially against the law and looks like, or is seen to be a danger to the public.

If you are a gunner and not doing something that looks like you may be a danger, you have nothing to fear. Even then before your gun is taken you go to court.

It's just good government. The 2nd is not a do anything you want whenever you want right.

[TipTok]

50. Ahh.. the greater good argument...

Lots of things we could do for the greater good if you are just throwing out a blanket statement.

Mandatory government enforced diet and exercise programs would save hundreds of thousands every year.

Surveillance of every citizen at all times with a live audio feed could prevent untold crimes and identify anyone who might get out of line.

It literally has no end...

[friendly_iconoclast]

90. Apparently, that poster is unfamiliar with the term 'Lovejoying':

https://www.google.com/search?q=lovejoying&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com

[friendly_iconoclast]

91. Ah, yes- the "saving innocents" claim. It's an old and time honored political technique:

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. Here are the coordinates for the shooting range I go to...

34.360936, -116.841285

It's used by literally thousands of people. It's not anywhere near a city or National Forest. It's simple unincorporated land in the largest county in the United States. Go put a camera there.

[RobertEarl]

17. Good idea

On the roads leading in and out. Satellites too.

We need to know who might be the next to violate the rights of many people via use of their guns.

[cherokeeprogressive]

23. Good luck. And oh... its surrounded by slightly less than a billion square miles of desert.

Have fun out there.

[RobertEarl]

27. Satellites!

And you gotta buy bullets somewhere else!!

Where I live there is a vast area where you can't shoot guns willy-nilly. You can have your space. I like mine a whole lot better. Safer there, and quieter and peaceful.

[cherokeeprogressive]

32. I don't know a single person who shoots any gun "willy nilly".

You seem afraid.

[RobertEarl]

35. Hell, I used to

And your damn right I am afraid of another gunner shooting up some place because he bears arms that can shoot everyone willy-nilly.

[Marengo]

73. What would these satellites be tracking?

[Marengo]

76. What kind of behavior surveilled on those roads would trigger an investigation?

[pipoman]

25. Really?

Wouldn't it be a good start to...say...investigate and prosecute the tens of thousands of felons and domestic abusers who illegally try to buy guns every year? I cant for the life of me figure out why bill clinton and BO have let these criminals go...and DiFi etal NEVER demand that the felons be investigated and arrested. Why? Seems like low hanging fruit...what you are ridiculously suggesting is silly business....

[RobertEarl]

28. That's true

But you have to start with surveillance. Identify the most likely and check them out. Fortunately we do that somewhat. Now we just need to do more watching of those who have the arms to do the mass murders.

Really, you have a problem with that?

[pipoman]

31. It's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Tens of millions of people....it is ridiculous and anti Constitutional and anti American complete nonsense.

[RobertEarl]

33. Heh

They do it on roads day in and day out. Cameras everywhere you turn. Many a crook has been caught on camera and on the road.

So your idea that is ridiculous is what is ridiculous.

[TipTok]

52. Controllers always assume that this stuff will only apply to the folks they are afraid of...

... with absolutely no thought to even the first or second order consequences.

Downright creepy...

Which other legal activities will mandate surveillance in the future?

Parents? They could abuse their children at any moment.

[Press Virginia]

30. The "right of the people" doesn't mean individuals?

Looks like the 1st, 4th and 9th amendments no longer apply to individuals either

[Abq_Sarah]

34. The 2nd says nothing about an Individual's rights?

Where did you get that idea?

The 2nd, like the 1st, is all about individual rights. They are restraints on the government's ability to infringe upon pre-existing rights. The government doesn't give you freedom of speech, they are prohibited from abridging it.

[Press Virginia]

38. You'll never convince a grabber. They think our rights are derived from the courts

[RobertEarl]

41. So everybody gets a gun?

Even a known felon? A little kid?

Your denial of any lines is a foolish denial.

Try again later.

[friendly_iconoclast]

89. "Your denial of any lines is a foolish denial." It *would* be, if such a denial had been made.

It wasn't

[Hoyt]

37. The gunners will throw Constitution BS at you, to point of sounding like right wingers.

They'll likely quote too.

[Press Virginia]

39. Yeah, that pesky constitution bs. If it weren't for that meddling document

you could have your way

[Hoyt]

40. Except gunners can't read and total ignore key phrases to protect their gunz.

[RobertEarl]

42. It is crazy

It's as if they think they were born by the gun.

No one is gonna grab the people's guns.

But we have to take guns away from some people. Duh!

[Press Virginia]

45. without due process?

[Press Virginia]

43. I'm sure you believe that...commas can easily confuse some people

[Hoyt]

46. Gunners are a good example. They'll whine about clip vs. magazine, but can't comprehend

something. Justice Stevens explained it well and I'm betting the future Supreme Court will set gunners straight.

[Press Virginia]

47. Yeah, why should anyone be expected to know what they're talking about

in a discussion, right?
Auto, semi auto...guns are scary looking. Who cares how they operate.

[Hoyt]

67. In the most simplistic form they are manufactured to let yahoos shoot people. Whether it's a clip

or magazine feeding the ammo is irrelevant.

[Press Virginia]

69. How many people did you shoot with your guns?

Did it have some malfunction?

[sarisataka]

48. Some folks who claim

to be progressive are very happy to throw out the Constitution when it suits them

2nd, 1st or any other Amendment be damned.

doesn't seem that there is a lot of love for the 4th or 5th these days either...

[Hoyt]

66. I grew up when the Constitution was used to discriminate. Now it's used to enable bigots,

intimidators, irrational/paranoid yahoos, etc., to arm up.

Truthfully, I'm not much on the Constitution in that it was written by folks talking about freedom and liberty who went home to beat and rape their slaves. I believe it little better than a guide and is open to interpretation in the context of the current time.

[Marengo]

77. Alexander Hamilton and John Adams beat their slaves? Wow, who knew.

[sarisataka]

81. That is refreshing honesty

I believe it little better than a guide and is open to interpretation in the context of the current time.

Just recall this when it is interpreted in a way you don't like, that the Constitution is merely a "guide".

Police aren't violating your rights, they are merely reinterpreting them at that specific moment.

[Hoyt]

87. It has been -- discrimination, states rights, gunz, etc.

[Odin2005]

60. Were we "right wingers" when we were throwing the Constitution at Bush, too?

[NutmegYankee]

51. The 4th amendment says "right of the people" too. Is that also a collective right in your view?

Legions of people wanting to search your home without a warrant want to know.

[Cryptoad]

53. KISS

I support any law that makes it harder for Idiots to get guns and ammo!

[meaculpa2011]

54. I have a better idea. The government should...

simply implant an electronic chip in everyone's brain.

At the first hint of an impure thought they could zap you with an immobilization pulse.

Problem solved. After all, it's for our own good.

[ileus]

55. The cameras would get pretty board...You need those camera in private residences.

[aikoaiko]

58. Where is this idea coming from?

[rock]

59. I tend to think that

those places are public areas and that surveillance is not breaching Constitutional rights. To put succinctly, there is no infringement.

[sarisataka]

82. Many ranges

Are private property as are gun show locations. What if the property owners don't want to allow cameras?

[rock]

83. I'm OK with exempting private clubs

That would probably be overly-intrusive.

[Odin2005]

62. LOL WUT?

[Captain Stern]

64. What would that accomplish? How would it save any lives?

I guess after somebody shoots a bunch of people, we could go back and look at video of them buying a gun.

Seems like a big waste of money that would accomplish absolutely nothing.

[jmg257]

70. What is this supposed to be - some kind of new idea? The US has been spying on America

for years. Don't you feel safer everyday?!

MORE ABOUT DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SPYING

"Five DHS components have intelligence missions, including the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis (OIA) manages the intelligence activities of these components, provides analysis, and represents DHS as a member of the federal Intelligence Community. At least one other DHS component, the Federal Protective Service, has spied on peaceful protests and produced and disseminated intelligence reports, despite the fact it has no authorized intelligence mission."

"Laptop Searches. In July 2008, CBP issued a new "Policy Regarding Border Search of Information," which permits CBP to search, copy, and retain the content of traveler's electronic device"

"Behavioral Profiling. Another dubious DHS program that is justly being criticized as an ineffective waste of resources with serious implications for the rights of innocent travelers"

"Targeting Peaceful Political Groups. DHS intelligence analysts have also unfairly targeted non-violent protest groups from all sides of the political spectrum for scrutiny over the last several years with inappropriate and factually flawed intelligence products".

"Monitoring Lawful Protests. DHS has also been involved in monitoring lawful protests."

"Domestic Satellite Surveillance. In 2007 DHS, in cooperation with the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), established the National Applications Office to facilitate domestic law enforcement access to U.S. military spy satellite technology and imagery"

https://www.aclu.org/more-about-department-homeland-security-spying


Should be no biggie giving the BATF a seat at the table.

Secrets Lists, widespread govt surveillance & spying? Piss on "guns", let's just watch everybody all the time! NO FEAR!!!

WE LOVE LISTS! WE LOVE SPYING! THEY KEEP Us...well, CERTAIN PEOPLE...SAFE!