Who needs gun registration when you have I-Net user registration...

[SteveM]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4940120&mesg_id=4940120

I don't normally cross-post, but this big thread shows how a House Judiciary Committee bill -- to help track down "pedophiles" --
will require all ISPs to keep a record/data base of all persons using the ISP. It passed with considerable Demo support.

Most posters seem up in arms. I can't understand. Of course, the government won't use it. No way. nope.

[TheWraith]

1. It's the same old saw: giving up liberty for the illusion of security.

Same as with wiretapping. As with firearms. As with the drug war.

[iverglas]

2. yes, it is the same old saw

People who think their puny liberties trump other people's essential security.

Hardly anything new hereabouts.

Why is this relevant to the Guns forum?

Because people who don't care about other people's security tend to hang out here?

Legislation to this effect was debated in the Canadian Parliament last year; I suspect it died on the Order Paper when Parliament was dissolved for an election but I'd have to check. ... No, I think it passed.

Similar legislation had been introduced several times, dating back to what I understand was its first incarnation in 1997, when it was a private member's bill introduced by an MP from my own party.

If you don't trust your government with information about you, elect better governments.

... Of course, I doubt that voting the NRA-ILA ticket will achieve the goal in this instance ...

[SteveM]

3. Why don't you post this in the other thread?.....

"If you don't trust your government with information about you, elect better governments."

Engender some discussion.

[iverglas]

4. feel free to quote me

The other thread was a long, long list of boring, pointless one-liners, pretty much, with nothing I could see in the way of discussion.

Pretty much like most other threads in the major forums these days.

[SteveM]

5. Austin musician Artly Snuff said of art something applicable to one-liners:

"It doesn't matter if it is bad art, as long as it's fast-moving stink."

[iverglas]

11. Artly Snuff

Is he (?) related to Fish Karma??

[SteveM]

21. Don't think so. He is a member of the Uranium Savages (40-yr-old-band).

[Riftaxe]

7. Your posts reek of narccisim

and yet you accuse others of it? All part of the disorder I suppose.

[iverglas]

8. if you knew what narcissism was, maybe you'd be able to spell it

And then maybe you'd be able to use it meaningfully in a sentence.

Fan club application stamped "reject".

[RSillsbee]

9. how does my having a gun mean I don't care for your security?

I have never even pointed a gun at another human being outside of a war zone

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

25. I am so confused I don't know what to do

For some reason you are allowed to put words in my mouth:

how does my having a gun mean I don't care for your security?

By asking that question, you are PRETENDING that I said that your having a gun means that you don't care for my security.

Not only did I NOT SAY THAT -- not ever, not anywhere, not to anyone -- BUT you do not even have the slightest basis for thinking I might have said it, let alone for alleging straight out that I said it.

Let us be clear.

By asking me that question, you alleged that I said that. If you were not alleging that I said that you having a gun meant that you did not care for your security, you would not have asked me HOW that could be.

Here's what I actually said in the post you replied to, regarding a thread about measures to trace internet pornographers:

Why is this relevant to the Guns forum?

I then said:

Because people who don't care about other people's security tend to hang out here?

What earthly right do you have to interpret that as me saying that YOU HAVING A GUN means that you don't care for my security?

Are you and "people who tend to hang out here" an identical set?
Are people who own guns and "people who tend to hang out here" an identical set?
Are people who tend to hang out here even representative of some large majority of people who own guns?

The answer to all those questions is NO.

So why in the name of the infinite universe would you think you are entitled to accuse me of saying that your having a gun means that you don't care about other people's security?


But what really confuses me is ... why you are entitled to do that, while I apparently may not question you for doing it. The infinite universe is indeed a strange place. But I merely wonder aloud.

[PavePusher]

12. Tell it to the U.S. citizens of Japanese descent interned during WWII.

Surely they should have been happy to "not trump other people's essential security".


:puke:

[iverglas]

18. what essential security was that?

You allege it, you prove it.

[PavePusher]

27. Wow, not just a side-step....

that was a triple-Axel with a back-flip in the middle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_skating_jumps

[iverglas]

29. you are one funny dude

You know what the sad thing is, though?

I actually find it quite plausible that you didn't have a clue what you were saying.

No wonder you couldn't explain it. You didn't know what any of it meant.

I'd laugh, but I should cry.

It was such a simple question.

You say: Surely they should have been happy to "not trump other people's essential security".

I ask: What essential security?

And you can't tell me ...

[PavePusher]

33. Jello.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=442414&mesg_id=442434

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. I take it then if the CSIS decided to take an interest in your activities, you'd be fine with it?

Or the RCMP or FBI started asking your neighbors and family members about you? Or Homeland Security decided you may not enter the

US or its airspace?

After all, what are your puny liberties to stand in the way of our essential liberty?



That unknown person was right: A left jackboot up your ass feels no better than a right one...

[iverglas]

17. so if I called you what you really are, you'd be fine with it?

I can only infer so.

You, however, cannot infer any of what you tried to put in my mouth from anything I said.

So we know what you are.

So take your ugly little "so" and stick it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. Go for it! Paisley Syndrome has worked just fine for your opponents in recent years

I've neither a thin skin nor a belief in word magic, so whatever you might say would cost me only some electricity and a portion of

the bill from my ISP. As a plus, if it is sufficiently over the top it will make a useful bookmark for later reference.


BTW, you could pick up some pointers from this guy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x442676

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBfpBxY2J00


He sure is bitter, isn't he?

[krispos42]

6. If you create a tool, it will be used.

If the tool is very useful, it will be used in ways not originally intended.

So maybe this tool shouldn't be used.

[SteveM]

22. "pedophilia," "porn," "defense of marriage." All warnings of useless tools.

[iverglas]

24. who's a useless tool?

What are they warning of when they say "defence of marriage"?

:rofl:

Sorry, that was the only way I could parse that. Just in case it wasn't what it was supposed to mean.

[SteveM]

26. Ha! That is good. My mind works better when the gate's open.

[ManiacJoe]

13. Almost everyone in that original thread was very confused

about what data is being recorded by the ISPs. The poor reporting by CNET did not help any.

The new data being requested is your IP address and the corresponding timestamps. The ISPs are already recording this for their own security and maintenance purposes. The proposed bill just requests that the data be retained for 18 months.

[SteveM]

28. I posted this because of the seeming irony when some...

gun-controllers seek registration for all firearms purchases, or ready access to NICS files for "research," or public access to concealed-carry proponents, but become upset when the government wants data to include more about them and their I-net activity and require that it all lingers for 1.5 yrs.

[iverglas]

30. is my eyesight worse than I thought?

I posted this because of the seeming irony when some...
gun-controllers seek registration for all firearms purchases, or ready access to NICS files for "research," or public access to concealed-carry proponents, but become upset when the government wants data to include more about them and their I-net activity and require that it all lingers for 1.5 yrs.

I hunted through that thread for the word "gun" and didn't find anybody seeking firearms registration, let alone at the same time as supporting the bill.

Should I have recognized "some gun-controllers" in the list of posters? I do recognize one gun control advocate from this forum, I think. Is that "some"? Is that one person the basis for some grand generalization worth mentioning?

In any event, I'm just not taking your point ... a fate I seem doomed to.

The bill provides for all internet users' data to be retained by private entities for a certain period of time.

I couldn't earn a living, doing what I do, without using the internet. Period. No shadow of a doubt. (And without my services, certain services provided by the government of Canada would suffer; I am not quite a fungible commodity.)

I'm hard pressed to play devil's advocate here since I don't object to the legislation. I'm just not paranoid. But I can actually see a distinction between internet use, something that is essential to the economy and to a vast number of individuals' ability to earn a living, for instance, and firearms possession. Really I can. I know you can too.

It would have a far more devastating effect on individuals and communities and the national economy if non-offending people were deterred from using the internet because of this kind of provision than it would if people were deterred from acquiring firearms. (Hell, one could quite well argue that the effect in the former case would be harmful if not devastating, while the effect in the latter case would be beneficial if not terrific. ;) )

And you can jump in and say that a tiny fraction of internet users are pornographers, and a tiny fraction of firearms owners commit firearms crime.

And we could agree that both stolen bandwidth and stolen firearms are problematic and the resulting harm could be reduced by registration, whether we like it or not.

Like I say, I don't object to either one, so I have a hard time playing devil's advocate. Maybe you should actually ask the people who object to one but not the other.

[AzWorker]

14. Statists, can't stand em....

yup

[iverglas]

19. demagogues, can't stand 'em more

You just visiting?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. There are easy ways around this, even if it did pass in Canada

For a wide variety of reasons, I run my own server at a hosting facility. Not very expensive. I have no ISP in the classic sense. I keep no records...no requirement when you run your server.

[-..__...]

20. Yep...

and the people this legislation is allegedly trying to stop, will most likely be the first ones to find a way around it (who can't find an open or public Wi-Fi connection nowadays?).

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. More security theater, promulgated by the cynical and accepted by the gullible. n/t

[SteveM]

23. Sounds like a god idea.nt