Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We need an NRA for privacy

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 170 posts

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#151

Post by rayiner »

pessimizer wrote: post #140
hga wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On what planet does the seizure of guns count as an atrocity? I support gun rights absolutely, but you're looking at what I said through single-issue glasses.

IMHO: Seizure of property is a far greater atrocity than looking through some peoples' emails.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#152

Post by hga »

pessimizer wrote: post #140
hga wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On what planet does the seizure of guns count as an atrocity? I support gun rights absolutely, but you're looking at what I said through single-issue glasses.

When it's not following the Constitution and in the BATF's case frequently the law, and the gun owner gets "seized" and imprisoned as well, it's definitely in that direction. And they have regularly and often explicitly decreased the number of legal, licensed gun sellers, that's a pretty big thing, along with a multitude of abusive prosecutions of them.

But as I said, you haven't done your homework, or checked this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6185918 top level comment of mine where I detail some of the more notorious cases:

"Our side can point to kittens killed ("I swear I am not making this up"), pregnant mothers who miscarried, people crippled for life, mothers shot dead while holding a baby (Ruby Ridge, in which the BATF was enlisted to try to force her husband to spy), and many many outright killed (Waco started out as a BATF "ricebowl" operation, they wanted some nice video for their first budget in the Clinton Administration). Plus a constant drumbeat of gun owners ensnared by "flypaper" laws in gun grabbing localities; even NYC has realized it's damaging their tourist industry."

Please do your basic research before making more such howlers.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#153

Post by hga »

the_watcher wrote: post #145
hga wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will seldom if ever blow up in the media---did you hear about the publishing of gun owner names and addresses in various parts of New York, let alone a big media backlash???---but it is something we gun owners know about. For both causes we're going to have to depend a lot on other methods of publicity. E.g. I'll bet you haven't heard that the Democratic administration running Missouri illegally gave the Social Se…

This is damoncali's point. There is a huge opportunity here for both sides. The NRA gets to shine a light on illegal surveillance (or whatever you want to call it) without having to simultaneously fight the battle over guns. They can fight that battle separately, while at the same, any major wins for privacy are generally wins for the NRA in general. It goes both ways too. The NRA is extremely influential (imagine th…

It may be his point (not going to parse that), but it's not going to happen. As I've described elsewhere in this thread the NRA is not going to stray from its single issue unless something directly impinges on it, like McCain-Feingold's prohibitions on its core political speech. It's a very critical part of why we're even discussing it's effectiveness; asking it to be less effective because you'd like having its muscle in your corner is not to the point.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#154

Post by _delirium »

hga wrote: post #152
pessimizer wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On what planet does the seizure of guns count as an atrocity? I support gun rights absolutely, but you're looking at what I said through single-issue glasses.

When it's not following the Constitution and in the BATF's case frequently the law, and the gun owner gets "seized" and imprisoned as well, it's definitely in that direction. And they have regularly and often explicitly decreased the number of legal, licensed gun sellers, that's a pretty big thing, along with a multitude of abusive prosecutions of them. But as I said, you haven't done your homework, or checked this h…

Those seem like more "weird American law enforcement" things than inherent to gun control. Europe has largely [1] phased out guns in the past 50 years in a much more orderly way. It might not be a good idea that they did so, but it did happen in a pretty sane, non-cowboy, non-BATF sort of way, that I don't think would count as an "atrocity" in the regular sense of the term.

[1] With some exceptions. Carrying guns is still fairly common in sparsely populated rural areas, especially those with bears (northern Norway/Finland/Sweden). And, non-carry possession in the home is common in Switzerland. Switzerland is an interesting case because they cover both extremes: their law combines mandatory universal gun ownership with a very restrictive carry regime that makes it virtually impossible to carry a loaded gun out of the home (and even restricts the transportation of unloaded guns).

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#155

Post by hga »

_delirium wrote: post #154
hga wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it's not following the Constitution and in the BATF's case frequently the law, and the gun owner gets "seized" and imprisoned as well, it's definitely in that direction. And they have regularly and often explicitly decreased the number of legal, licensed gun sellers, that's a pretty big thing, along with a multitude of abusive prosecutions of them. But as I said, you haven't done your homework, or checked this h…

Those seem like more "weird American law enforcement" things than inherent to gun control. Europe has largely [1] phased out guns in the past 50 years in a much more orderly way. It might not be a good idea that they did so, but it did happen in a pretty sane, non-cowboy, non-BATF sort of way, that I don't think would count as an "atrocity" in the regular sense of the term. [1] With some exceptions. Carrying guns is…

Perhaps, I don't pay that close attention to the countries my ancestors left, although I do know there a lot more legal guns owned than you realize, check Wikipedia, plus Germans for some inexplicable reason are thought to have keep possession of ... 26 million? illegal guns. Start e.g. here and note France and Austria as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_co... ; dig around in Wikipedia or the sources for official legal vs. estimated illegal.

But irrelevant to my general point of:

Gun grabber atrocities were followed by gun owner political power.

A stark lack of privacy atrocities is correlating with no privacy political power.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#157

Post by hga »

_delirium wrote: post #154
hga wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it's not following the Constitution and in the BATF's case frequently the law, and the gun owner gets "seized" and imprisoned as well, it's definitely in that direction. And they have regularly and often explicitly decreased the number of legal, licensed gun sellers, that's a pretty big thing, along with a multitude of abusive prosecutions of them. But as I said, you haven't done your homework, or checked this h…

Those seem like more "weird American law enforcement" things than inherent to gun control. Europe has largely [1] phased out guns in the past 50 years in a much more orderly way. It might not be a good idea that they did so, but it did happen in a pretty sane, non-cowboy, non-BATF sort of way, that I don't think would count as an "atrocity" in the regular sense of the term. [1] With some exceptions. Carrying guns is…

WRT of your additions on Switzerland: it's much less universal now, post-Cold War. They only manufactured a bit over 600,000 SIG 550s/Stgw [19]90s for a current population of 8 million. Per Wikipedia the size of the official army is now "about 200,000 personnel, 120,000 receiving periodic military training and 80,000 reservists who have completed their total military training requirements." With a 15 year normal term of service, if they're still following the old pattern of allowing you to buy a converted to semi-auto version of your service rifle when you muster out, quite a few of those have been removed from service.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#158

Post by damoncali »

the_watcher wrote: post #145
hga wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will seldom if ever blow up in the media---did you hear about the publishing of gun owner names and addresses in various parts of New York, let alone a big media backlash???---but it is something we gun owners know about. For both causes we're going to have to depend a lot on other methods of publicity. E.g. I'll bet you haven't heard that the Democratic administration running Missouri illegally gave the Social Se…

This is damoncali's point. There is a huge opportunity here for both sides. The NRA gets to shine a light on illegal surveillance (or whatever you want to call it) without having to simultaneously fight the battle over guns. They can fight that battle separately, while at the same, any major wins for privacy are generally wins for the NRA in general. It goes both ways too. The NRA is extremely influential (imagine th…

The NRA will make sure that whatever they do, it will be in the context of guns. It's what they do and with good reason.

My point is more that some privacy advocates and some gun advocates share their distrust of governmental data snooping. The NRA has long fought data collection/abuse about gun owners and is well used to doing do. It would behoove the privacy movement to learn from and work with the NRA on the issue as it pertains to guns, because that knowledge will be useful in the more general case.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#159

Post by damoncali »

rdl wrote: post #142
shpxnvz wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that the NFA branch has a rule change out for public comment that would include removing the CLEO signature requirements for individuals. It's expected to go into effect sometime next year if I remember correctly. 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).

I don't think we need SBR/SBS/suppressors (and probably AOWs and most DDs) under NFA at all, but I'm kind of ok with at least making the requirements for select-fire consistent for individual vs. organization, especially after that LAPD Dorner guy.

Honestly, it doesn't make sense to put anything under NFA. Silencers are harmless, SBR's are bigger than handguns, and full auto is going to be less effective in the hands of a nutcase than semi auto. There is really no sane justification for it at all.

Re: We need an NRA for privacy

#160

Post by pcvarmint »

The NRA is not the most gun-friendly organization. The JPFO and Gun Owners of America are better. The NRA is a sellout, compromising on principles in order to maintain political power.

Just as the Rutherford Institute is more protective of individual rights than the ACLU is.

But you're right we need an organization for privacy.

The EPIC and EFF are not enough.

Post reply on HN