You forgot to post this L
Posted on 10/20/2002 7:50:23 AM PDT by Deadeye Division
Sniper may hit gun lobby
By Mary McCarty
e-mail address: mary_mccarty@coxohio.com
Dayton Daily News
I'm not sure what made me so angry when I read last week that President Bush does not support the current push for firearms fingerprinting. It's hardly news, after all, that the president would oppose even the most rudimentary, common sense gun-control measures.
Maybe it was the timing: I had just read an e-mail from a friend in a Maryland suburb who makes a "game" of getting her 6-year-old son to race from the car to the classroom. She didn't tell him the real reason: "I wanted to minimize the time he would be a target."
Then again, maybe it was the president's reason for opposing fingerprinting: It would violate the privacy of gun owners.
This is the same president, after all, who has shown no compunction about violating our privacy since Sept. 11. Increased surveillance authority, military tribunals, the erosion of attorney-client privilege, you name it: No sacrifice is too great in the name of fighting terrorism.
Fingerprinting firearms is hardly the violation of privacy these measures represent. It's only a reasonable restriction of the kind that we submit to when we register our cars.
Some officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms have voiced strong support for a national database of ballistic fingerprints. Manufacturers would test the guns before they were sold; law enforcement authorities would then enter each gun's distinctive markings into a national database.
It wouldn't solve every crime, but it would be a "powerful tool," according to firearms bureau official David Harper. Yet Bush is ignoring the advice of his own firearms experts, and 2-year-old legislation to create a national fingerprinting system has stalled in Congress. The privacy rights of gun owners alone, apparently, are sacrosanct.
Well, what about the privacy rights of millions in Washington, D.C., and surrounding suburbs? I can think of few greater violations of privacy, of the simple freedom to move about without fear, than what they are enduring now. Students hole up in classrooms with the blinds drawn. Soccer and cheerleading practices are canceled. People can't mow the lawn or pump gas or load groceries without taking a deep breath and gathering their courage.
This is the worst kind of terrorism, whether it turns out to be foreign or domestic. Millions are affected in the Washington region alone. And then there's rest of us who wonder, "Will our town be next?"
Yet presidential press secretary Ari Fleischer at first brushed off the idea of firearms fingerprinting: "These are acts of a depraved killer who has broken and will continue to break laws. And so the question is not new laws."
Well, Osama bin Laden is also a "depraved killer," but it's hard to imagine this administration arguing against any measure that might have stopped him.
Fortunately, there are signs the administration may be softening its stance. The very same afternoon as Fleischer's curt comment, deputy press secretary Scott McClellan said White House aides are asking the ATF to conduct a study of the accuracy and feasibility of ballistic fingerprinting.
I've often wondered what it would take to get our political leaders to stop kowtowing to the gun lobby. A national uprising? A Trillion Mom March?
Now, sadly, we may have the answer.
Contact Mary McCarty at 225-2209 or mary_mccarty@coxohio.com
[From the Dayton Daily News: 10.20.2002]
The author is a twit.
Typical propaganda. THere's nothing "common sense" about trusting a technology that is far from perfected, and that would prove virtually impossible to implement anyway. How many variations do these idiots think there are in a given caliber and a given manufacturer? One .243 Model 700 Remington is going to have nearly identical ballistic markings to the next, considering they are produced using CNC machining that allows for only the most miniscule deviations from the blueprint.
But "ballistic fingerprinting" is the new magic pill for the anti-gun set. There is almost no way hundreds of thousands of ballistic fingerprints will yield only one qualifying set, meaning that the first time it is used it could yield false positives and ruin someone's life.
This is an idea whose time has not come, and probably never will.
That said, Ms. McCarty should also note that the president DID agree to finance a study of the technology.
But this isn't really about that anyway, is it, Ms. McCarty?
Does anyone have an e-mail address for this latte lefty?
See the first link for my take on this subject.
Congressman Billybob
It's only reasonable, er, no, it's for the children. Yeah, that's it! It's for the children. I get so sick of those B.S. lines. If it only saved one life every person should be issued a handgun at birth and training at age two!!
Boonie Rat
MACV SOCOM, PhuBai/Hue '65-'66
But that wouldn't make any difference to you would it, not if it interfered with YOUR agenda.
First point: common sense gun-control measures violate the Constitution just as much as outrageous gun-control measures. In fact, there's no distinction between common-sense and outrageous -- No law means No law!
Then again, maybe it was the president's reason for opposing fingerprinting: It would violate the privacy of gun owners.
But the Leftists love privacy! Are they saying that Republicans cannot claim privacy as a motivating factor? Why not? Isn't abortion justified (to a leftist) by the Constitutional Right to Privacy (which doesn't exist). It seems that the Right to Privacy is one of those things that comes and goes: It's there when Leftists want it there, but it's gone when Conservatives want it.
This is why the Cosntitution should not be a "living" document: it means what it means. It's not OK to wake up and discover different meanings depending on the weather.
That can be altered in a few moments in a dozen different ways ie: file, sandpaper, steelwool, drill, lapping compound, plain old neglect, rust, barrel change, firing pin change, extractor change, besides the perp would have to be stupid to use a gun that is tied to him as the original owner etc, etc.
She wants somebody to pass a law that will make the sniper bad guys stop. We already got twenty thousand of them on the books, that the sniper(s) care less about than the people they are killing. The best way to stop them is, for a good guy with a gun (police or citizen), to shoot them first.
Already there if you know what to look for. Just look for the words Dayton Daily News and the barf alert is implied.
Learn how to "unfingerprint" a gun in 20 minutes - with common gun tools...
BTW, she slipped up on her talking points- she's supposed to slur the phrase "NRA/Gun Lobby" together in one sibilant slander of distaste, like the congresscritters do when they talk on TV...
It's only a reasonable restriction of the kind that we submit to when we register our cars.
Uhh... hold the phone a minute there, Mary... aren't they looking for a white van?
Aren't all vehicles registered?
And this has helped how?
Boy, I'm in too bad a mood to read stuff like this today.
This guy is encouraging every state to adopt the infringements now in place in Kalifornia, where one may NOT buy guns at swap meets and garage sales.
In fact, my county has outlawed the use of the county fairgrounds for gun shows. Each incremental step makes the next one more "practical" and "reasonable". The final step is confiscation, for which the records exists in Kalifornia for any firearm legally transferred in the last ten or twenty years. ( I am not aware of exactly when these laws were changed. )
I have approximately 100 working days until early retirement. Then the search for a home in a free state will begin in earnest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.