The NRA supports a program where violent criminals who use guns in actual crimes are sent to prison for long stretches. Typically, the liberals oppose it. They prefer to let criminals loose and prosecute law-abiding people who have the temerity to think the Second Amendment is still part of the Constitution. As for these BATF programs, they were being used to generate information for trial lawyers to try to bankrupt gun manufacturers with bogus nuisance suits and to harrass lawful gun dealers and collectors. Congressional hearings detailed numerous gestapo-like abuses by BATF. At least this once the Bush administration stood up for the little guys and reined in the bureaucracy.
As always, AAA is the rational voice of reason. Also as usual, LoZZZer taking apart a policy issue without knowing any background behind it. What's it like living in an intellectual vacuum?
As always, Putzie parrots the party line. What is it like living on the left side of the bell curve of intelligence? Sorry, you are probably too challenged to figure that one out...
So you are quoting the NRA's version of the story chapter and verse. LMAO... In an era where folks are so security conscious, the NRA is of course an obstacle...
As I said, I encourage you to get your friends at the DNC to run hard on that message during the midterms. "Gun ownership is dangerous. You people are way too stupid to be trusted with guns, no matter what the Second Amendment says." That will go great with the "surrender to islamofacism" platform. We can always convert to islam and then they won't hurt us , right? Then we wouldn't need guns.
To bar and prohibit federal and local law enforcement agencies from collection, analysis, and sharing of data the involves weapons and gun crimes, especially when a pattern can be discovered of which gun dealers are the source of guns that end up being used in crime is completely illogical, and goes against the very concept of homeland security. Of course, something that actually makes us safer, you are happy to curtail and squash. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic...
I support the right to bear arms, but I do not understand the problem with collecting and sharing the data. AAA, Pabst, enlighten me.
I will chime in on this one. Data of sales will be used to keep the track of legally owned guns and their owners for the purpose of the future confiscation. Criminal will not buy a gun intended for the crime legally, so the argument that we somehow need to collect the sales data to prevent all armed crime is just the lie. Only way to control armed crime is to impose mandatory sentences for the crimes committed with gun. Just ask Brits and Aussies what happened to their hunting rifles and collectible guns after innocently looking "data collecting " laws has been passed in their countries.
Z, How come we see no increase in gun crimes in states that have passed concealed carry laws? Would you be as supportive of a law that gave others access to your web viewing habits and the books you read. After all, if someone is trying to learn how to build a bomb, I am in fear and that is terroism, right?