It's called the EFF. The problem is, it's mostly supported by individuals, not the industry. And there are a lot more individuals interested in gun rights than electronic rights. It has a budget that's a tiny fraction of the NRA's.
We need an NRA for privacy
131–140 of 170 posts
Re: We need an NRA for privacy
#132It's called the EFF. The problem is, it's mostly supported by individuals, not the industry. And there are a lot more individuals interested in gun rights than electronic rights. It has a budget that's a tiny fraction of the NRA's.
Is gun industry bigger than Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, eBay, Rackspace, Godaddy, etc. combined? The latter are directly affected by the government policies regarding privacy and certainly their clients would appreciate their companies standing up for their rights. The users should just be more vocal in expressing it. Maybe if you're just a hobbyist who nobody knows your voice won't be heard, but if you're a kn…
Getting Google et. al. to resist this requires an entirely different approach.
Ah, one good analogy: while it was owned by some Brits, Smith and Wesson was the only company to play ball with the Clinton Administration in 2000 and it got crushed by a boycott: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_and_Wesson#Agreement_of_2...
But, then again, it's only because we're politically organized, and had to do so in self-defense starting in the '70s, that this came about. But if a prominent Internet company lost 40% of its business due to privacy issues that would get serious attention.
Re: We need an NRA for privacy
#133Privacy advocates need to get their act together and form a single-issue organization. I need to be seeing teenagers coming to my house peddling privacy the way they do for churches and baby seals. The tech industry needs to sack up and realize that their business interests are at stake, and put some serious money in PACs behind the whole effort. It needs to have a focused mission, no getting distracted in related is…
Hard to have the tech industry back it when most of it is taking part in the surveillance.
Re: We need an NRA for privacy
#134Systems like PRISM should be a lobbying issue for the NRA. Background checks and gun ownership registration become moot when the government has copies of all your web browsing history, purchasing activity and correspondence. PRISM is the biggest threat to the second amendment, the NRA needs to wake up to this.
Unless it directly impinges on what they're doing, like McCain-Feingold's suppression of its political speech, the NRA is resolutely single issue, which is one of the things that makes it so powerful, they don't give gun owners unrelated reasons to keep them away or oppose them. Compare to the 2nd largest, but very very small Gun Owners of America and e.g. their up front and continuing opposition to Obamacare. Gettin…
I never heard a single speech by Wayne LaPierre which would lead me to conclude that the NRA is interested in limiting itself to a single issue.
> I just don't see it as being a significant enough direct threat for the NRA to adopt it as a major issue like McCain-Feingold.
But you seem to understand that.
Re: We need an NRA for privacy
#135What has made "the NRA"---really, gunowners, the NRA has but a fraction of them as members---so powerful? Well, first of course there's a lot of us. Even having only a fraction, the NRA now has 5 million members. The EFF? I would be surprised to learn they had more than 50,000 (couldn't find a number in a quick search). 2nd, we vote, and many of us vote first and foremost on this issue. Especially since it's a good g…
Wait, can you get me the source for your claim that Fast and Furious was to boost gun death stats? There is no way I'm going to be able to convince anyone else of that without some official memo. I'd assumed it was to generate traces of the flow of guns to various gangs and thereby collect data on suppliers.
There is of course no official memo, these people aren't that dumb, or rather know the MSM wouldn't get away with carrying their water if one came to light. But there's pretty clear testimony by a BATF whistle-blower of a supervisor's comments that laid it out. While I don't have much respect for anyone in the organization, the rank and file properly had drilled into them the principle that they weren't to let guns walk, it's a cardinal rule and a lot of them are very upset at what happened.
And it's clear to anyone capable of following a logical argument based on three undisputed facts about the Arizona operation (it looks likely there was also a Texas one, and we have some evidence for a Florida/Miami area one targeting Latin America below Mexico):
When gun stores called up the BATF about extremely suspicious buyers, it told them to allow the sales, around 2,000 guns in total.
Unlike the Bush era's Wide Receiver operation, which put radio transmitters in the stocks of rifles, no attempt whatsoever was made to follow the guns south of the boarder, including informing, let alone involving the Mexican government (they're not happy).
Top Cabinet level officials like Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, plus many figures on down, made statements about how American gun stores and shows were supplying Mexican drug cartels despite a paucity of evidence.
E.g. you can't buy grenades or post-1986 manufactured automatic weapons in those venues, and for the usual reasons not really including effectiveness they prefer full auto M16s (originally supplied to the Mexican government by the US) and AK-47s (generally available on the black market, and much less bulky than drugs) to more expensive semi-auto US civilian versions. It should go without saying that the Mexican government doesn't ask the US government to trace weapons stolen from their armories.
Re: We need an NRA for privacy
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hard to have the tech industry back it when most of it is taking part in the surveillance.
Given that not taking part is not an option given current laws, hard to place the whole weight of the blame on them. They might have put a better fight, but the result - until the voters in general take notice - would be the same.
Too much of this is secret, Star Chamber stuff for the voters to be easily involved.
Re: We need an NRA for privacy
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
The threat is certainly more direct and concrete. A lot of people don't know that the recent assault weapons ban that was proposed would make millions of people felons and punishable by 10 years in prison if they did not register their rifles under the NFA (which is currently used for machine gun collectors - it's a painful bureaucratic process that takes months, but allows the ownership of machine guns, suppressors,…
As an aside, gun trusts are a decent way around the CLEO signature requirement for NFA items, at least in states which don't ban them outright (sigh, California). (acutely noticed since I've seen the fare.)
Of course, since nothing they do comes without a trade-off, they will be making the trust route somewhat more painful (requiring fingerprints and background checks).
Re: We need an NRA for privacy
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an aside, gun trusts are a decent way around the CLEO signature requirement for NFA items, at least in states which don't ban them outright (sigh, California). (acutely noticed since I've seen the fare.)
I gather that in a lot of states they haven't been put to the legal test. Not a good bet where judiciaries lean more left than the state itself, e.g. any that picks judges with the Missouri Plan, like my home state of Missouri where our Castle Doctrine has been judicially nullified. Especially since you won't find many political profiles in courage supporting ownership of NFA items.
In those states, so long as the NFA branch issues the stamp and you are (federally) legally allowed to possess the item under the NFA, it doesn't matter whether you or a trust owns it.
Of course, the trust must be valid under the trust law of the state you reside in or else it cannot legally own the items, but competent trust attorneys are not too hard to find.
Re: We need an NRA for privacy
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have the impression that the following are true of the NRA (with comparison to the National Association for Gun Rights) 1. They don't file audited accounts (the NAGR are as bad) 2. 4 million members is widely seen as a large overestimate (the NAGR figures don't attract as much noise) 3. The NRA board aren't really accountable to their membership (the NAGR says they are) 4. It's unusual for a grassroots organisation…
The NRA has had the freaking IRS audit it; I know during the Clinton Administration, I'd be surprised if that was the only time. And I'm pretty sure it has an independent auditor, it's huge, the NAGR is completely obscure and very close to being a lifestyle company/scam. The NRA has serious credibility and no serious person doubts their 5 million cited membership number. You do realize that's only a fraction of the c…
I don't mean tax returns, I mean regularly filing audited accounts. If they have filed those, I'd be delighted to find out where I can obtain them.
> no serious person doubts their 5 million cited membership number
The figure for NRA membership has been an active controversy for the last decade, after a former NRA board member asserted that the NRA was lax in a number of ways about how it maintain its membership list (e.g., not taking people of their list of life members when they died). The WaPo did a short Q&A about it - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/does-t... (a rare example of a WaPo story on the NRA that didn't get attacked by the 2nd-amendment media)
> only a fraction of the country's gun owning population
At what, 2%? Which makes the fact that they are de-facto the voice of gun-owning voters kind of odd.
Re: We need an NRA for privacy
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
The NRA doesn't have " specific , actual, real gun rights atrocities " and they do just fine. How about people who won't give up their privacy until it is pried from their cold dead fingers just getting an address to send a check to in order to feel like they have agents working on their behalf? Do the NAR or the Chamber of Commerce need atrocities?
You are GROSSLY ignorant of the history of gun grabbing atrocities, and they critically proceed the NRA's rise in political power. Read up on '70s BATF abuses of the GCA of '68 and get back to us before continuing to spout counterfactuals. This is exactly what got me started on this issue in the early '70s.