Is the government really protecting American lives?

[BainsBane]

NSA monitors phones and emails to prevent terror attacks but we can't get universal background checks or a gun registry, while the NRA opposes state laws requiring parents to safely store guns in safes. Is the government really protecting American lives?

[dkf]

1. If they cross checked credit card purchases they probably know who has a gun

Why do we even need a registry?

[BainsBane]

2. To track weapons used in crimes

The point isn't who has a gun but who uses them to commit a crime.

[dkf]

5. So it's not just the background check.

Well throw that argument out the window.

[BainsBane]

7. What are you talking about?

One is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those adjudicated dangerous. The other is for law enforcement to track killers and gun crimes.

[dkf]

8. The latest gun law agreement said all they wanted were background checks, no registration.

[BainsBane]

9. That was one bill

with several different amendments. That doesn't mean that law enforcement doesn't need to be able to use databases to track gun crimes, which is now prohibited by the gun lobby. The two measures serve different purposes.

[JoeyT]

14. The registry isn't really to track gun owners.

It's to track the gun itself. That way if Bob's handgun puts a bullet in someone, Bob had better have a damned good alibi and have reported that gun stolen prior to it being used in a crime.

Or at least that's my understanding of it.

[leveymg]

3. Not a single solid case of a terrorist attack foiled by mass surveillance and profiling in the US

The example that was claimed a day or two ago was quickly debunked. I haven't seen another offered since: http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/public-documents-contradict-claim-email-spying-foiled-terror

Public Documents Contradict Claim Email Spying Foiled Terror Plot

Defenders of “PRISM” say it stopped subway bombings. But British and American court documents suggest old-fashioned police work nabbed Zazi.
posted on June 7, 2013 at 10:21pm EDT
Ben Smith

You want to talk about lack of efficacy and cost effectiveness in national security spending? The NSA domestic surveillance Program makes the F-35 procurement look like an act of genius.

[byeya]

4. The answer is NO! They are protecting profits and their own jobs.

[Autumn]

6. No, hell no. This benefits a few but does nothing

to keep anyone safe.

[Downwinder]

10. As shown by the anthrax scare,

Government only protects itself.

[TheKentuckian]

11. At present, the government exists to protect the lifestyles of the rich and famous

Food stamps, non-military research grants, WIC, student aid, farm subsidies...all of that shit is small time cost doing business "petty cash" maybe up to line item. Why do you think they despise Social Security and Medicare, those are revenues that mostly and eventually completely have to go back to the people for their actual benefit. There isn't enough to really scheme on to bring big cash outs, especially with Social Security. It just isn't a cash cow for anyone directly.

Look at the budget and you'll see the priorities and that will be putting to the side the corporate porkiness that gets put into the little piece actually invested into our people and their welfare.

I'll also remind that for all the cries about obstruction depending on who is in the majority plenty of rather shitty stuff never fails to pass right on through with little to no opposition. Appointments go through 97-0. Blustering around and then on to easy confirmation.

Most priorities are shared, the allowed "debate" is about 20-30%...maybe. I don't think that 80% represents the desires and sure as hell the needs of most Americans and that can't get lost in the scuffle over the petty cash.

[BainsBane]

13. The rich and famous and

the gun lobby and other big moneyed special interests.

[rrneck]

12. As I understand the controversy...

Last edited Sun Jun 9, 2013, 04:59 PM - Edit history (1)

the NSA is collecting third party information without collecting content. They are tracking who you contact via phone email etc. without knowing what you say or write. Unfortunately, this sort of data mining can reveal a wealth of information about you even if they don't have access to the content of the communications. Plus, merely maintaining data on the movements and communications of people without probable cause is an outrage against a citizen's right to privacy.

So for a firearms registry to work, you would have to document chain of custody. That means an item with a unique serial number is attached to you and whoever you transfer that item to or from. Now, that data says nothing about why the transfer was made or what those involved intend to with the item being transferred but it does tell the NSA (ATF) a great deal about the people making the transfer nevertheless. In fact, it reveals much more about them than data mining simple communications since the subject of the transfer is an object with a particular function. That function is the content of the communication.

I find it fascinating that so much outrage is expressed about NSA data mining but a gun registry, and the required chain of custody documentation, is a good idea. They're the same thing. The only difference to some is that guns are transferred by other people. You know, NRA Teabagger right wing conservative Republican crazy militia assholes that need to be watched because they're untrustworthy.

When it comes to questions of a citizens constitutional rights we should always remember that they are us.