It is currently Sun Feb 23, 2025 11:15 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 568 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 19  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:18 pm
Posts: 19494
pizza_Place: Phils' on 35th all you need to know
Before we start changing the Constitution first off we should Begin to entire the laws that are on the books now. Stop letting felons who get caught with a gun to plea the charge .

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40940
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
rogers park bryan wrote:
pittmike wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
I'm pretty ignorant, so could someone explain what a national gun registry is supposed to accomplish? I'm just not sure how it would prevent people shooting the guns.


It wouldn't stop people from shooting the guns. Nothing will.

It creates a log of legal firearms. If unregistered and you caught with it, you get 20 years in jail. If it's used in a crime, add 30 years on top of that.

You'd be ruining someone's life over one mistake.


I wasn't specifically referring to that scenario. You could go ahead and give the wife or girlfriend of the criminal that forced them to buy them a handgun 20 years though.

What?



What I said earlier about locking away non violent offenders or first timers earlier I was thinking about the above. There are many ways to get charged and put away for 20 years in Peeps' list of regulations other than being a trigger man or carrying a firearm.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
pittmike wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
pittmike wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Terry's Peeps wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
I'm pretty ignorant, so could someone explain what a national gun registry is supposed to accomplish? I'm just not sure how it would prevent people shooting the guns.


It wouldn't stop people from shooting the guns. Nothing will.

It creates a log of legal firearms. If unregistered and you caught with it, you get 20 years in jail. If it's used in a crime, add 30 years on top of that.

You'd be ruining someone's life over one mistake.


I wasn't specifically referring to that scenario. You could go ahead and give the wife or girlfriend of the criminal that forced them to buy them a handgun 20 years though.

What?



What I said earlier about locking away non violent offenders or first timers earlier I was thinking about the above. There are many ways to get charged and put away for 20 years in Peeps' list of regulations other than being a trigger man or carrying a firearm.


Well one. Don't register your gun, risk going to jail.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93630
Location: To the left of my post
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
I'm pretty ignorant, so could someone explain what a national gun registry is supposed to accomplish? I'm just not sure how it would prevent people shooting the guns.
It would be helpful for making sure that felons and others who are not allowed to own guns are not.


That's what background checks do.

A gun registry does none of what you say it does, unless actively inspected and checked upon by law enforcement (are "bring out yer guns" checks constitutional?), or routinely cross-referenced with arrest and conviction records. The list itself has no inherent utility other than to know who has guns and who does not.

It is in no way rationally related to any compelling government interest, and as such is unconstitutional.
Of course it would be. It could be cross referenced with many lists, such as a list of Air Force convictions.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40940
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
I'm pretty ignorant, so could someone explain what a national gun registry is supposed to accomplish? I'm just not sure how it would prevent people shooting the guns.
It would be helpful for making sure that felons and others who are not allowed to own guns are not.


That's what background checks do.

A gun registry does none of what you say it does, unless actively inspected and checked upon by law enforcement (are "bring out yer guns" checks constitutional?), or routinely cross-referenced with arrest and conviction records. The list itself has no inherent utility other than to know who has guns and who does not.

It is in no way rationally related to any compelling government interest, and as such is unconstitutional.
Of course it would be. It could be cross referenced with many lists, such as a list of Air Force convictions.


Well, you know the Air Force screwed that up not the background check system.

Just because, I thought about what it might be like to get off of this massively cross checked list of disallowed gun buyers should you mistakenly get on it.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 9:50 pm
Posts: 6721
pizza_Place: Parts Unknown
rogers park bryan wrote:
Well, I disagree.

But I was just wondering if you really meant it was their goal, or if it was just a slippery slope to pedophilia.

I dont think my gay cousin has a goal of accepted pedophilia. Ill ask him and report back.


I don't think that's something anyone would disclose but let me know his answer either way.

_________________
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Have a terrible night and die in MANY fires.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93630
Location: To the left of my post
pittmike wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
I'm pretty ignorant, so could someone explain what a national gun registry is supposed to accomplish? I'm just not sure how it would prevent people shooting the guns.
It would be helpful for making sure that felons and others who are not allowed to own guns are not.


That's what background checks do.

A gun registry does none of what you say it does, unless actively inspected and checked upon by law enforcement (are "bring out yer guns" checks constitutional?), or routinely cross-referenced with arrest and conviction records. The list itself has no inherent utility other than to know who has guns and who does not.

It is in no way rationally related to any compelling government interest, and as such is unconstitutional.
Of course it would be. It could be cross referenced with many lists, such as a list of Air Force convictions.


Well, you know the Air Force screwed that up not the background check system.

Just because, I thought about what it might be like to get off of this massively cross checked list of disallowed gun buyers should you mistakenly get on it.
Exactly. The Air Force has a list of people who have done things that would disqualify them from the list. So, when you check that list against the registry you discover the mistake or investigate why someone who knows they shouldn't be allowed to has registered a gun. The guy then goes on a nice trip to jail.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
ToxicMasculinity wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Well, I disagree.

But I was just wondering if you really meant it was their goal, or if it was just a slippery slope to pedophilia.

I dont think my gay cousin has a goal of accepted pedophilia. Ill ask him and report back.


I don't think that's something anyone would disclose but let me know his answer either way.

Will do.

He seems more concerned about his cat, Stewart, than anything else, really.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 9:50 pm
Posts: 6721
pizza_Place: Parts Unknown
rogers park bryan wrote:
ToxicMasculinity wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Well, I disagree.

But I was just wondering if you really meant it was their goal, or if it was just a slippery slope to pedophilia.

I dont think my gay cousin has a goal of accepted pedophilia. Ill ask him and report back.


I don't think that's something anyone would disclose but let me know his answer either way.

Will do.

He seems more concerned about his cat, Stewart, than anything else, really.


Cats ,although not as cool as dogs, are important.

I hope Stewart has a blessed day

_________________
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Have a terrible night and die in MANY fires.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:05 am
Posts: 25181
Location: Cultural Mecca
pizza_Place: Pequod's / Barnaby's
Have we fit all guns with GPS yet? That is fair.

_________________
Rick Hahn is the best GM in baseball.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Gun registry sounds stupid.

Next suggestion, please.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
leashyourkids wrote:
Gun registry sounds stupid.

Next suggestion, please.


You sound stupid.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Terry's Peeps wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Gun registry sounds stupid.

Next suggestion, please.


You sound stupid.


Come on, this is a think tank!

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23549
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
I'm pretty ignorant, so could someone explain what a national gun registry is supposed to accomplish? I'm just not sure how it would prevent people shooting the guns.
It would be helpful for making sure that felons and others who are not allowed to own guns are not.


That's what background checks do.

A gun registry does none of what you say it does, unless actively inspected and checked upon by law enforcement (are "bring out yer guns" checks constitutional?), or routinely cross-referenced with arrest and conviction records. The list itself has no inherent utility other than to know who has guns and who does not.

It is in no way rationally related to any compelling government interest, and as such is unconstitutional.
Of course it would be. It could be cross referenced with many lists, such as a list of Air Force convictions.


Do you mean here that checks of homes and inspecting the firearms of people on the registry would be constitutional? Because I threw that in as a joke, not thinking any sane human would answer "yes".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93630
Location: To the left of my post
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Do you mean here that checks of homes and inspecting the firearms of people on the registry would be constitutional? Because I threw that in as a joke, not thinking any sane human would answer "yes".
I have no idea where you got that.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23549
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Do you mean here that checks of homes and inspecting the firearms of people on the registry would be constitutional? Because I threw that in as a joke, not thinking any sane human would answer "yes".
I have no idea where you got that.


I didn't know what "of course it would be" was referencing, and it appeared like it could have been an answer to my question about gun checks. If not, carry on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93630
Location: To the left of my post
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Do you mean here that checks of homes and inspecting the firearms of people on the registry would be constitutional? Because I threw that in as a joke, not thinking any sane human would answer "yes".
I have no idea where you got that.


I didn't know what "of course it would be" was referencing, and it appeared like it could have been an answer to my question about gun checks. If not, carry on.
It would be routinely cross-referenced with many lists we have that should make gun ownership not allowed for individuals. It would have discovered the church shooter prior to him killing everyone and put him in jail for obtaining a firearm when he was not allowed to do so. Just like catching guys for popping wheelies in the street on probation, this would make us safer.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23549
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Do you mean here that checks of homes and inspecting the firearms of people on the registry would be constitutional? Because I threw that in as a joke, not thinking any sane human would answer "yes".
I have no idea where you got that.


I didn't know what "of course it would be" was referencing, and it appeared like it could have been an answer to my question about gun checks. If not, carry on.
It would be routinely cross-referenced with many lists we have that should make gun ownership not allowed for individuals.


Again, background checks do that already. There is no reasonable basis to support a registry.

Boilermaker Rick wrote:
It would have discovered the church shooter prior to him killing everyone and put him in jail for obtaining a firearm when he was not allowed to do so.


No it wouldn't have.

Quote:
The Air Force says it failed to follow policies for alerting federal law enforcement about Devin P. Kelley’s violent past, enabling the former service member, who killed at least 26 churchgoers Sunday in Sutherland Springs, Tex., to obtain firearms before the shooting rampage.

...

Initial information indicates that Kelley’s domestic violence offense was not entered into the National Criminal Information Center database,” Stefanek said in a statement released Monday. Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson and Chief of Staff David Goldfein have directed an investigation of Kelley’s case and “relevant policies and procedures,” she said.


Unless your hypothetical registry somehow gains sentience and accesses every Air Force personnel file.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93630
Location: To the left of my post
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Unless your hypothetical registry somehow gains sentience and accesses every Air Force personnel's personal file.
The issue seems to be that no one entered it in. They had a record of it. A national registry of active gun owners would have checked against that list and flagged it.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23549
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
A national registry of active gun owners would have checked against that list and flagged it.


How would the national registry have access to internal Air Force records that even the FBI doesn't have access to? Do you listen to yourself?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93630
Location: To the left of my post
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
A national registry of active gun owners would have checked against that list and flagged it.


How would the national registry have access to internal Air Force records that even the FBI doesn't have access to? Do you listen to yourself?
I think it's fairly easy to think that there would be a sanity check between the two lists.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 66053
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
pittmike wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
pittmike wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
I'm pretty ignorant, so could someone explain what a national gun registry is supposed to accomplish? I'm just not sure how it would prevent people shooting the guns.


Other than knowing where they all are and who has them I got nothing.


Easier to systematically disarm the populace.


It could cut crime a great deal though if you make a combined registry. If you require every firearm to be ballistic tested and also build a DNA profile registry of every citizen/resident that could be very useful and helpful. We already would have one registry so what is wrong with another?

A DNA registry? Man fuck that.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23549
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
A national registry of active gun owners would have checked against that list and flagged it.


How would the national registry have access to internal Air Force records that even the FBI doesn't have access to? Do you listen to yourself?
I think it's fairly easy to think that there would be a sanity check between the two lists.


A sanity check between the gun registry and a list that doesn't exist. Maybe you don't understand this fully, but the only thing that would turn up his conviction in the Air Force would have been a security clearance screening with someone going over his records from the Air Force and interviewing people personally. It wasn't on some magic list just waiting to be discovered.

Your hypothetical registry would not have turned up what the FBI's NCIC background check didn't. Come on Rick, this is bad, even for you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40940
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Darkside wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
pittmike wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
I'm pretty ignorant, so could someone explain what a national gun registry is supposed to accomplish? I'm just not sure how it would prevent people shooting the guns.


Other than knowing where they all are and who has them I got nothing.


Easier to systematically disarm the populace.


It could cut crime a great deal though if you make a combined registry. If you require every firearm to be ballistic tested and also build a DNA profile registry of every citizen/resident that could be very useful and helpful. We already would have one registry so what is wrong with another?

A DNA registry? Man fuck that.


:wink:

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93630
Location: To the left of my post
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
A sanity check between the gun registry and a list that doesn't exist. Maybe you don't understand this fully, but the only thing that would turn up his conviction in the Air Force would have been a security clearance screening with someone going over his records from the Air Force and interviewing people personally. It wasn't on some magic list just waiting to be discovered.

Your hypothetical registry would not have turned up what the FBI's NCIC background check didn't. Come on Rick, this is bad, even for you.

The NCIC requires someone to be added to it which lead to this mistake.

A list of registered gun owners could be checked against the Air Force(and other organizations) list of people that would disqualify them from owning a gun. So, if this error had occured, they could get a report that says "Person X has been found to be on the list of both registered gun owners and the list of Air Force crime convictions that would disqualify them".

The NCIC list, while it wouldn't go away, would have more information to check against. It's more information that can cause a seemingly error prone system to be significantly less error prone.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40940
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
That’s a lot of lists.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:55 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80527
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
you want only to regulate to death the constitutional right
There has not been one legitimate "ban all guns" post in this thread. Not one.



But that is the real fantasy of the well-to-do American liberal. I'm fairly certain that people like John Oliver and Aaron Sorkin speak for them:

"Tomorrow morning, the White House is sending a bill to Congress for its consideration. It's White House Resolution 455, an energy bill requiring a 20 percent reduction of the emission of fossil fuels over the next ten years. It is by far the most aggressive stride ever taken in the fight to reverse the effects of global warming. The other piece of legislation is the crime bill. As of today, it no longer exists. I'm throwing it out. I'm throwing it out writing a law that makes sense. You cannot address crime prevention without getting rid of assault weapons and handguns. I consider them a threat to national security, and I will go door to door if I have to, but I'm gonna convince Americans that I'm right, and I'm gonna get the guns."

And again, the thing is, they don't really want to "get the guns". They want to get your guns. If they feel the need, they will be protected by someone with a gun. It will simply be someone who is not you.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23549
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
A sanity check between the gun registry and a list that doesn't exist. Maybe you don't understand this fully, but the only thing that would turn up his conviction in the Air Force would have been a security clearance screening with someone going over his records from the Air Force and interviewing people personally. It wasn't on some magic list just waiting to be discovered.

Your hypothetical registry would not have turned up what the FBI's NCIC background check didn't. Come on Rick, this is bad, even for you.

The NCIC requires someone to be added to it which lead to this mistake.

A list of registered gun owners could be checked against the Air Force(and other organizations) list of people that would disqualify them from owning a gun. So, if this error had occured, they could get a report that says "Person X has been found to be on the list of both registered gun owners and the list of Air Force crime convictions that would disqualify them".

The NCIC list, while it wouldn't go away, would have more information to check against. It's more information that can cause a seemingly error prone system to be significantly less error prone.


So, SkyNet. You want an AI to have access to thousands of indexed and searchable databases to decide who gets to own a gun or not? You really dig in your heels when you're wrong. Holy shit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
you want only to regulate to death the constitutional right
There has not been one legitimate "ban all guns" post in this thread. Not one.



But that is the real fantasy of the well-to-do American liberal. I'm fairly certain that people like John Oliver and Aaron Sorkin speak for them:

"Tomorrow morning, the White House is sending a bill to Congress for its consideration. It's White House Resolution 455, an energy bill requiring a 20 percent reduction of the emission of fossil fuels over the next ten years. It is by far the most aggressive stride ever taken in the fight to reverse the effects of global warming. The other piece of legislation is the crime bill. As of today, it no longer exists. I'm throwing it out. I'm throwing it out writing a law that makes sense. You cannot address crime prevention without getting rid of assault weapons and handguns. I consider them a threat to national security, and I will go door to door if I have to, but I'm gonna convince Americans that I'm right, and I'm gonna get the guns."

And again, the thing is, they don't really want to "get the guns". They want to get your guns. If they feel the need, they will be protected by someone with a gun. It will simply be someone who is not you.

What is your personal take on all this?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93630
Location: To the left of my post
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
So, SkyNet. You want an AI to have access to thousands of indexed and searchable databases to decide who gets to own a gun or not? You really dig in your heels when you're wrong. Holy shit.
Just stop. You don't have to over exaggerate.

This would be a simple check between the two databases. A simple comparison program could be created. Every 6 months they run it manually and get the results which hopefully are going to be 0 or near 0 and a correction can be made. No "SkyNet". Just the same kind of data analysis that is done millions of times a day by people.

In fact, if social security numbers were stored in the each database, then the person running it wouldn't even have to know any information of the gun owners and it would simply output a list of names that made both lists.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 568 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 19  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group