How The NRA Built A Massive Secret Database Of Gun Owners

[irishScott]

Well if the feds can access that data already, what's the resistance to a national firearms database that could help solve countless interstate crimes?

None of this makes sense. If you think a gun owner database is dangerous because of the threat of federal confiscation, well... the NRA just made one. Why someone would be okay with the NRA making one and not the government makes no sense as the government will just take the NRA's if they want it.

And how, pray tell, will they take the NRA's? They'd need to pass legislation towards that end for starters. The NRA is a powerful lobbyist group with lots of connections, and would not be easily intimidated. They could also destroy the database if they felt it was going to be seized, which they might very well do given the defiant stance of those running the NRA.

Suffice it to say if the day comes when the government seizes the NRA's database, the fight for the 2nd has already been fought and lost.

 

[fskimospy]

And how, pray tell, will they take the NRA's? They'd need to pass legislation towards that end for starters. The NRA is a powerful lobbyist group with lots of connections, and would not be easily intimidated. They could also destroy the database if they felt it was going to be seized, which they might very well do given the defiant stance of those running the NRA.

Suffice it to say if the day comes when the government seizes the NRA's database, the fight for the 2nd has already been fought and lost.

That's my whole point. Gun nuts think that the government is going to come and take their guns, but that will only happen once the government no longer cares about such things.

 

[Jhhnn]

Tell us again how the good fairy Obama is protecting us with his NSA? I don't understand why people would object to abuse. Please?

Feel the need to duh-vert?

 

[Jhhnn]

You know nothing about what is going on in California right now.

No surprise.

Oh, you must mean this-

http://www.npr.org/2013/08/20/213546439/one-by-one-california-agents-track-down-illegally-owned-guns

I thought responsible gun owners were against armed felons. Did I miss some sort of memo?

 

[irishScott]

That's my whole point. Gun nuts think that the government is going to come and take their guns, but that will only happen once the government no longer cares about such things.

And the only way that could happen (assuming our democracy continues to function) is if pro-gunners stop caring about such things or substantially diminish in population/funding.

In the meantime there's no doubt that there's a significant element in our government who would happily pass strict licensing, strict ammo restrictions, and strict, extensive background checks that would all result in a de-facto ban.

Much like many liberal states' concealed carry programs, where you can jump through a gazillion hoops, have a clean record and still be rejected because some faceless bureaucrat didn't think you had "sufficient reason". Maybe door-to-door confiscation isn't going to happen anytime soon, but there's still plenty to fear from the anti-gunners.

 

[irishScott]

Oh, you must mean this-

http://www.npr.org/2013/08/20/213546439/one-by-one-california-agents-track-down-illegally-owned-guns

I thought responsible gun owners were against armed felons. Did I miss some sort of memo?

We are. But I'd like to take a very close look at California's criteria before judging. If someone sees a psychologist, are they automatically deemed "mentally ill"? Is there any appeal process in place?

 

[jackstar7]

Got to this rather late (already off my front page). So apologies for the repost and the douche who couldn't help being douchey in letting me know it was a repost.

The thing is that no one who supports the NRA should be too comfortable with the NRA having a list because there isn't all that much to stop that list from getting out. Private companies with greater security have pissed off the wrong hackers and been punished for it.

The list itself is surely just for marketing purposes, but that the list exists and could make its way into the hands of people with a more dire agenda.

Meh. Based on the responses in this thread, I'm sure it'll all be fine.

 

[bshole]

In the meantime there's no doubt that there's a significant element in our government who would happily pass strict licensing, strict ammo restrictions, and strict, extensive background checks that would all result in a de-facto ban.

Actually there is MUCH MORE significant element in our society at large that support such measures. In fact the clear and substantial majority of American people support such measures. A small contigent of vociferous bullies and lobbyists have assaulted, raped and murdered common sense gun legislation that was widely supported by the American people.

 

[OCGuy]

Oh, you must mean this-

http://www.npr.org/2013/08/20/213546439/one-by-one-california-agents-track-down-illegally-owned-guns

I thought responsible gun owners were against armed felons. Did I miss some sort of memo?

You did, because all you read was a NPR headline, and not what is actually happening.

 

[etrigan420]

I'd put dollars to dog-nuts that any list the NRA has would be old news to the NSA.

 

[irishScott]

Actually there is MUCH MORE significant element in our society at large that support such measures. In fact the clear and substantial majority of American people support such measures. A small contigent of vociferous bullies and lobbyists have assaulted, raped and murdered common sense gun legislation that was widely supported by the American people.

Apparently your supposed super-majority isn't all that motivated, as it couldn't even muster enough support to get universal background checks through a Democrat-held Senate. The membership numbers and funding received by the NRA vs the gun control lobby are quantitative statements to their relative support.

And when you have some evidence that a majority of Americans support a de-facto ban on guns, I'd like to see it.

In the meantime:

There's your "significant majority".

 

[feralkid]

While I don't think there's anything wrong whatsoever with the NRA keeping a list of supporters, it does seem odd that people who believe the US government would use a federal database of gun owners to track and disarm the US population wouldn't simply seize the NRA database if they wanted to.

Or someone will simply "leak" the NRA's database to the world.

 

[monovillage]

Sorry, but we already had a lefty post this.


bwaaa hahahaha

 

[Jhhnn]

You did, because all you read was a NPR headline, and not what is actually happening.

Meanwhile, you link nothing, but we should believe you anyway, because you obviously know all about it, right?

 

[werepossum]

I'd put dollars to dog-nuts that any list the NRA has would be old news to the NSA.

No doubt.

 

[Doppel]

In other news: every business and organization keeps records of its members.

Is there anything actually worth reading in that long article? It failed to capture my attention in the first couple of hundred words.

 

[irishScott]

In other news: every business and organization keeps records of its members.

Is there anything actually worth reading in that long article? It failed to capture my attention in the first couple of hundred words.

The article's point is that it isn't just current members, it's potential members as well, and it tries to make it out to be hypocritical due to the NRA's stance on a national registry. It's essentially implying that a volunteer lobbyist organization is equivalent to a federal agency.

It's a rather failed attempt at alarmism IMO.

 

[irishScott]

Or someone will simply "leak" the NRA's database to the world.

Given that the NRA is a private lobbyist group, I find that unlikely. People join the NRA because they want to work for the NRA and believe in the 2nd amendment, you can't say that about a federal agency like the NSA.

Besides, Michael Moore got an NRA life membership some years ago with the intent of "destroying it from the inside." How's that going for him?

If it was "leaked", the leaker would be viewed as a traitor by gun owners and the irony would be in the further galvanization around the NRA. In fact, if such a leak were used for malicious purposes (ie, if there was a notable spike in gun thefts), then it would serve as an object lesson as to why a federal registry of gun owners is a bad idea.

 

[Lanyap]

That's OK as long as the <N><S><A> doesn't request access to the database to track guns owners who may be terrirists.

 

[Jhhnn]

The article's point is that it isn't just current members, it's potential members as well, and it tries to make it out to be hypocritical due to the NRA's stance on a national registry. It's essentially implying that a volunteer lobbyist organization is equivalent to a federal agency.

It's a rather failed attempt at alarmism IMO.

Volunteer? Talking out your ass-

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigm...nras-wayne-lapierre-gets-paid-to-defend-guns/

 

[werepossum]

Volunteer? Talking out your ass-

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigm...nras-wayne-lapierre-gets-paid-to-defend-guns/

Y'know, you don't HAVE to be an idiot in EVERY thread. We won't immediately forget you.

"Volunteer" in that its money comes solely from people who voluntarily join to support its cause, as opposed to unions whose members either voluntarily join for completely different reasons or are forced to join to work in a particular field, or corporations whose lobbying money comes from sale of products or services to customers not typically cognizant of nor caring about their lobbying actions. Even Red Cross and Salvation Army execs and lobbyists are paid.

tl/dr: Dumbass.

 

[irishScott]

Volunteer? Talking out your ass-

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigm...nras-wayne-lapierre-gets-paid-to-defend-guns/

No, you need to learn context. Our military is an all-volunteer force, they still get paid.

I'm saying that the people who work for and fund the NRA believe in the NRA's goals and principles. Contrast to a federal agency when all manner of petty politics and personal power seeking are thrown into the mix.

 

[Jhhnn]

Y'know, you don't HAVE to be an idiot in EVERY thread. We won't immediately forget you.

"Volunteer" in that its money comes solely from people who voluntarily join to support its cause, as opposed to unions whose members either voluntarily join for completely different reasons or are forced to join to work in a particular field, or corporations whose lobbying money comes from sale of products or services to customers not typically cognizant of nor caring about their lobbying actions. Even Red Cross and Salvation Army execs and lobbyists are paid.

tl/dr: Dumbass.

Need to duh-vert into the usual right-wing memes?

Obviously.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, you need to learn context. Our military is an all-volunteer force, they still get paid.

I'm saying that the people who work for and fund the NRA believe in the NRA's goals and principles. Contrast to a federal agency when all manner of petty politics and personal power seeking are thrown into the mix.

So, uhh, Wayne LaPierre's nearly $1M annual compensation package has nothing to do with politics & personal power seeking?

What planet are you from, anyway?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Feel the need to duh-vert?

Not at all. This is a trust issue and the NRA can be trusted on this issue more than your dear leader evidenced by his actions on another very serious issue. You will probably make excuses again, but this isn't diversion is a concrete example of why trust is not given by many. You'll excuse and blame republicans.

Go.