Can we stop with useless ideas about gun-control?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Is there anyone out there who thinks once registered a gun cannot be:
>> illegally sold
>> legally sold but mistakenly not correctly re-registered
>> stolen
>> "stolen"
>> used in a crime by its registered owner
...


Had every one of Nancy Lanza's guns been registered, a school would still have been attacked.
There are now 300,000,000 unregistered guns in the US. The jurisdictions that have required some form of registration for some guns have seen compliance rates of less than 15%. Someone in another thread has pointed out that 50,000 guns are stolen per year. Do the math; criminals will run out guns in about 5,000 years. That's if every last newly produced gun is registered.

Can we talk about the ideas that have a chance of making a difference?
Please?

[dogman]

1. I've seen people run through red lights.

Why do we have them? Why have speed limits or stop signs, I've seen both ignored?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. Having a speed limits makes driving safer

Having a gun registration gives you a piece of paper.

[dogman]

5. A speed limit may or may not make driving safer, it is a factor though.

A piece of paper can also be a safety factor. Things need to be put in balance, we need to weigh the factors. Gun safety seems to work better when rules are applied.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. Registration is meaningless

Laws relating to required safety practices and measures make a difference. If you favor registration, please explain what it does to improve safety. Requiring safe storage keeps a gun away from children. Requiring safe handling minimizes negligent discharges and decreases the chance of accidental injuries. Prohibiting random gunfire within city limits makes everyone safer. Registration gives bureaucrats a budget and creates some clerical jobs, that's all.

[dogman]

12. Seems simple.

An auto registration provides a link to ownership. Not 100% exact but certainly helps keep track of them. It would be a lot harder enforcing the laws you cite if you can identify the gun owner. The ability to track the weapons used in San Bernadino have helped law enforcement it seems. It wouldn't be hard to determine the effectiveness if the NRA would allow it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

27. An auto registration allows the police...

...to easily determine the owner of the stolen car used by the guys who robbed the liquor store and sped off. Finding a car of matching description in a walmart parking lot half a mile away with a damaged steering column was a clue.

The registration did not prevent the theft nor the consequent robbery. Registration made some of the police work easier.

[lastlib]

14. The U.S. Constitution is a piece of paper.

According to GWBush, it is a "G-- D----- piece of paper."

A marriage license is a piece of paper. A deed to a house is a piece of paper.

Pieces of paper have consequences.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

31. As far as paper is concerned...

...I value the mutual pledge and promise between my wife and I more than the paper record. All of these things have the paper representing or recording something important. My auto registration helps me prove that I own my car. It doesn't prevent me or a car thief from running someone down and killing them. Registering a gun may make the police work after the fact easier but that's all.

[LonePirate]

2. Like replace the 2A with a ban and confiscate amendment and mandatory life sentences for possession?

That would make a difference.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. Wouldn't it be easier to...

...lock the entire population in cells? Then you'd only have to worry about the guards shooting each other.

Somehow you managed to stumble upon the idea that a natural right can disappear like a fart in the wind if enough people vote on it. How wrong is that? How anti-liberty of you.

[LonePirate]

9. For me, liberty is going to the grocery store without being shot and killed.

For you, liberty seems to be the mass possession of death tools instead of life. I'd say you are the anti-liberty one. Not much liberty to be had if you're dead.

[GGJohn]

10. The chances of you being shot and killed while going to the store are so statistically small,

they don't even register on the radar, you're far, far more likely to be involved in an auto accident.

[safeinOhio]

13. That's right

so why would you dozens of guns for self defense?

[GGJohn]

15. I have dozens of firearms for self defense?

Since when?
I think you have be confused with someone else.

[safeinOhio]

16. I must

[GGJohn]

20. I have numerous times said that the vast majority of my firearm collection are

of historical value and are not for shooting.

[ileus]

35. Not much liberty to be had if you're dead, is the exact reason we fight for the 2A.

For me liberty is going to the grocery store with the ability to actually protect myself and family.

It's true liberty is the possession of life saving tools to prevent death.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

125. re: "Not much liberty to be had if you're dead."

So why are you advocating against self-defense?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

133. The odds of you being killed by a drunk driver are about the same.

Ergo reimposing Prohibition with a life sentence for possessing alcohol will keep you safe.

[GGJohn]

6. You're funny, delusional, but funny.

[branford]

7. I'm sure Clinton or Sanders will be sure to campaign on that platform this election...

"Vote for me, I want to repeal the Second Amendment AND forcibly confiscate over 300 million firearms from otherwise law abiding Americans!"

With such a "let's start a new civil war platform," I guess we should just start getting used to a President Trump or Cruz.

[stone space]

11. Please don't threaten civil wars here on DU.

With such a "let's start a new civil war platform,"

It's not nice.

[GGJohn]

17. Please don't start your bullshit here again,

it's not nice.

[stone space]

18. There is no need for war. (nt)

[GGJohn]

21. There is no need for lying either. eom.

[Lizzie Poppet]

22. Stop erecting slanderous strawmen.

He didn't threaten a damn thing, and your assertion is both a straw man fallacy and slander. You should display at least a shred of ethics and delete that shit.

[stone space]

23. Reference was to a civil war.

With such a "let's start a new civil war platform,"

That's an obscene thing to threaten.

[Lizzie Poppet]

24. A reference isn't a threat.

It's simply a prediction about what would very likely happen in the event of any actual attempt to enact confiscation of civilian firearms. He's not urging such an action. This isn't exactly a subtle difference, either. It's one which any reader with even a borderline-adequate grasp of English would instantly recognize.

Stop misrepresenting what people write. You fool no one, and it's extremely unethical.

[stone space]

25. If somebody is going to start a civil war, they...

...should have all of their guns confiscated, shouldn't they?

Why should we allow Domestic Terrorists to have guns in the first place?

It's simply a prediction about what would very likely happen in the event of any actual attempt to enact confiscation of civilian firearms.

[DonP]

28. Please feel free to start confiscations any time now

I'm assuming of course that as a firm believer in gun control and confiscation, you'll be at the head of the line to volunteer to help search and confiscate those evil guns, right?

[stone space]

30. What's with the tough guy act?

you'll be at the head of the line to volunteer to help search and confiscate those evil guns, right?

You really don't think much of gun owners, do you?

You keep insulting them with comments like this.

[GGJohn]

33. Yup, back you your old tricks huh.

[DonP]

50. No I just don't think much of whiny and pompous "Keyboard Kommandos"

You know, people that talk a big game online about what needs to be done, then slink away when anybody suggests doing something in the real world about it.

How in the hell is anything I said insulting to gun owners? I think very highly of most gun owners, that's why I'm helping to create more of them with concealed carry and basic pistol classes. Just curious about what, if anything, you do to support your POV?

You really do live in an alternative reality. No wonder you have trouble staying on DU for more than a few days at a time. Better luck this visit.

[stone space]

53. Why would a mathematician be going door to door looking for guns?

I'm assuming of course that as a firm believer in gun control and confiscation, you'll be at the head of the line to volunteer to help search and confiscate those evil guns, right?

You aren't even making sense here.

[DonP]

54. So you want somebody else to do all the dirty work, pretty much what we'd expect

You "want" a lot of things done for gun control, but cant really be bothered to actually "do" anything beyond type on a keyboard to support what you supposedly believe?

Now that we know "where you stand" we'll all have to be sure to give your opinions all the careful, due consideration they deserve.

[stone space]

55. I'm a mathematician. I don't collect guns. You aren't making any sense here at all.

And what is it about work that you find so dirty, anyway?

Are you allergic to work or something?

[GGJohn]

56. "I'm a mathematician."

Uh huh, I'm quite sure you are.

[stone space]

57. Then why do you want me to do somebody else's job?

And why do you consider work to be dirty?

[GGJohn]

58. Pure comedy gold. eom.

[stone space]

59. Why do you consider work "dirty"?

You seem afraid to explain yourself.

[GGJohn]

60. LOL, afraid?

I hardly think so.

[Puha Ekapi]

100. Gotta luv...

...the calcululz...

[DonP]

61. Ummm, because they aren't smart enough to do anything else?

Oh, sorry, you were serious? I thought that was the start of a new "Why did the chicken cross the road" joke.

[stone space]

93. Putting mathematicians in charge of law enforcement is a useless idea.

Please feel free to start confiscations any time now

I'm assuming of course that as a firm believer in gun control and confiscation, you'll be at the head of the line to volunteer to help search and confiscate those evil guns, right?

I'm surprised that you would even suggest such a thing.

[GGJohn]

95. So now you're saying that someone else said what you said I said?

How about an apology?
And FTR, he didn't mean what your saying he meant.

[DonP]

97. Wow!! That is some seriously twisted stuff you got back right there.

Don't hold your breath for anything like an apology or explanation. That poster has an established reputation for disappearing when his ongoing wharfgarble gets too thick to see through. Then going on extended "Vacations".

Massively wrong interpretation of my post.

Totally wrong poster referenced.

And of course ... Woefully wrong thinking overall by the poster.

So somehow ... pointing out his unwillingness to do a difficult and dangerous job that he feels must be done someday, is the same as suggesting a bunch of feckless professors need to replace the police?

Yeah, right. It's just so obvious now.

[stone space]

98. Putting university professors in charge of law enforcement is not a useful idea.

So somehow ... pointing out his unwillingness to do a difficult and dangerous job that he feels must be done someday, is the same as suggesting a bunch of feckless professors need to replace the police?

[Puha Ekapi]

101. Repealing the...

...Second Amendment and enacting across the board confiscation is less than useful...it's dangerous and delusional.

[stone space]

103. I'd support repeal. (nt)

[Puha Ekapi]

109. Let me ask you a question

Do you support native rights and self determination?

[tortoise1956]

129. Tell me...

Has stone space EVER answered this question? Or has he ignored you every time you ask?

On the lighter side, it does seem to make him go away for a while...

[Puha Ekapi]

132. Pretty typical behavior...

...for authoritarian regressives.

[DonP]

104. Absolutely agree, utterly unqualified for any serious responsibility

Why many I have known need an instruction sheet for basic bathroom hygiene, let alone allow them to handle complex weapon systems.

You just stay home, preferably in the basement for safety, when the time for confiscation comes we'll take care of the work for you and your ilk.

[stone space]

105. Why do you feel the need to make personal insults? (nt)

[DonP]

107. Statements of simple proven facts are not "insults"

I just agreed with your statement that Professors obviously aren't qualified to do anything like safely or effectively confiscate complex firearm systems.

[stone space]

108. Not interested in subjecting myself to your abuse.

When you learn how to behave, please get back to me.

[DonP]

112. Buh bye! Miss you lots

[Duckhunter935]

117. he is back on another vacation

For a short time.

[DonP]

120. Now that's funny! Who did he piss off this time?

Religion?

Primaries?

HoF?

He does have a certain "knack", doesn't he?

[Duckhunter935]

121. his poll and attack at me

For my poll was hidden 6-1. Love to see the jury results.

[DonP]

122. That might be a new record for him

His previous "personal best" was 3 days I think.

[Duckhunter935]

123. yep, surprised me.

I don't tend to alert and did not on any of his posts. That is even when he directly attacked me.

[beevul]

126. OMFG

When you learn how to behave, please get back to me.

I about spit soda when I read that.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

127. Many monitors and keyboards have...

...come to untimely ends at the intersection of irony ave and pot/kettle blvd. good one

[GGJohn]

29. Back to your old same self eh stone? eom.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. only if they lose n/t

[Lizzie Poppet]

37. Depends on the justification, really.

This nation is founded on civil war. It's only justified when the grievances are sufficiently severe...but the problem lies in just how you determine "sufficiently severe," that being a subjective term. I'm sure that if the Colonials had lost, their rationale for war would have been found "insufficient" by history. They won, so the opposite happened. How history would decide an insurrection over forced disarmament, I couldn't possibly say. Any time things get to the point of something like that, it's a pretty good sign all parties involved have really screwed the pooch.

[stone space]

38. We are talking about Domestic Terrorists here. (NT)

[GGJohn]

40. Ummm, no, we're not.

Stop with the usual distractions.

[Lizzie Poppet]

42. Um...okay.

Never mind. This is a waste of my time.

[Marengo]

115. You would have supported the Crown?

[beevul]

118. No question mark necessary there. N/T

[beevul]

130. Depends on which side you personally want to win.

Would you have sided with the brits in the original?

[beergood]

139. "If somebody is going to start a civil war, they should have all of their guns confiscated"

they tried that before

This Article chronologically reviews British gun control which precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gun powder; the 1774
–
1775 confiscation of firearms and gun powder from individuals and from local governments; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events which changed a situation of rising political tension into a shooting war.
http://www.academia.edu/10621580/How_the_British_Gun_Control_Program_Precipitated_the_American_Revolution

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

140. One of the earliest recorded responses

[DonP]

141. Well, now we know which side of Concord Bridge "Stony" would stand on.

Probably help out with a hearty; "They're over here in this cellar, hurry before they move them Major Pitcairn!"

[Duckhunter935]

46. remember, he is a perfessserr

He thinks he is smarter than any of us.

[GGJohn]

47. A proooofesser in his own mind. eom.

[Marengo]

114. That this person claims to be an educator is a rather disturbing...

considering the level of intellectual dishonesty it engages in.

[Lizzie Poppet]

116. Well, good job that it's in mathematics, I guess.

No room for subjectivity, honest or otherwise... But I do expect more logical rigor from a mathematician.

[ileus]

36. It's an even worse thing to promote...which is what your idea would do.

[stone space]

39. Why should Domestic Terrorists not be disarmed? (nt)

[GGJohn]

41. And you wonder why you're constantly on a time out, here and there.

[Duckhunter935]

48. just a matter of time

Here or in the religion group

[GGJohn]

49. Someone should start a, well, never mind, someone will inevitably alert on it. eom.

[Marengo]

113. Your are suggesting Branford was threatening civil war?

He,as an individual, issued a threat against the United States government?

[Lizzie Poppet]

19. It would make a difference, all right.

But hey, I'm a Cascadian secessionist, so it's not like a break-up of the country is something I'm opposed to. I was just hoping for it to be peaceful...

[DonP]

26. How to repeal the 2nd, or any other amendment is all laid out for you

Easy Peasy!

You don't even need any new laws for it.

You just need 2/3 of both houses of Congress and then 3/4 of the states to ratify the repeal. Heck, you don't even need the President to sign off on it. Executive branch has no role in the process, beyond what he does within his/her party.

So, when will you start the petitions to get it proposed?

Nah, probably easier to just keep whining about it I guess?

[branford]

34. We may also call a Constitutional Convention.

In fact, I believe the governor of Texas has demanded one.

We can then open-up the WHOLE Constitution for review and revisions. The Republicans currently control a clear majority of state governments, and some Democratic state leaders are quite conservative (e.g., Jon Bel Edwards, governor of LA, pro-life and 93% rating from the NRA). What could possibly go wrong...?

[gejohnston]

44. That ranks up there with leaving keys for a federal building

for a band of mall ninjas to find.

[DonP]

51. I know that's "technically" possible but it's never been tried that I could find.

So far all the amendment proposals have come out of the legislature.

Every few years some affronted group announces they are going to form a Constitutional Convention and fail dismally.

Hell, we had some calling for one again in 2001 to get rid of the Electoral college, but they never seem to go anywhere ... but fund raising appeals for the people involved.

[branford]

62. Starting a constitutional convention is a trip down the rabbit hole.

It might start as a means to ban guns, but before you know it, abortion is illegal, English is the mandatory national language and Christianity is the official religion, flag burning is a capital felony, the death penalty is mandatory for a host of crimes, and Muslims are heading to internment camps.

The risks to all sides of opening the entire Constitution for change far outweighs the benefits, particularly since the amendment process is far more limited, precise, and predictable. However, it's still technically an option if gun controllers cannot get two-thirds of Congress to pass an amendment and want to appeal directly to the states.

In any event, I will not be losing any sleep fearing the Second Amendment is in any jeopardy or that there'll suddenly be public support or legal sanction for the government to start kicking down the doors of everyday Americans to confiscate their firearms. Heck, gun controllers couldn't even pass UBC's with a Democratic-controlled Senate after the death of schoolchildren.

[DonP]

63. Agreed, they talk a good game but ...

But when it comes down to doing any real work; petitions, legislator meetings, public marches or anything that involves reaching for their checkbooks,gun control fans are notably cheap, lazy and not terribly focused for any length of time.

They can post "Repeal the Second Amendment" and "Fuck the NRA" all they want to, but actual effort and infrastructure? Not gonna happen.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

80. re: "a trip down the rabbit hole"

This particular sub-thread has been a trip down the rabbit hole.
Tow thirds of what I read from pro-control would be a trip down the rabbit hole.
The very exercise of trying convince a pro-control individual to define "rights" often degenerates into a trip down the rabbit hole.

I've retraced my steps in that direction so often I've occasionally considered asking Skinner if I could change my user name to Alice.

OT & BTW I like your avatar. Krakatoa, answer to a few trivia questions.

[mwrguy]

85. We need to know who has the guns first

so we can make sure that they get turned in when the time comes.

[Duckhunter935]

87. and that my friend is why

the controllers are not trusted and will never get it passed. "nobody wants to take your guns"

[GGJohn]

89. And you wonder why gun control is a smoking wreck in this country?

Just look in the mirror for your answer.

[lastlib]

43. I've been ignoring the NRA's useless ideas for a long time.

Probably since John Lennon was murdered. None of their ideas have stopped the violence, or will, so as far as this debate goes, sure--let's stop with their useless ideas.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

45. Okay

[840high]

52. Enforce the laws we have now with

more than a slap on the wrist.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

65. If only that would happen.

I believe that one of the reasons we continue to have calls for new laws is that many existing laws are unworkable or unrealistically expensive. Perhaps if we could ditch laws that do nothing (as we did with the 1994 AWB) we could move on to usefully funding measures and programs worth a damn.

[stone space]

64. It was suggested above that university professors be put in charge of law enforcement.

Useful idea or useless idea?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

66. Could you either link to the post you refer to or...

...explain the scope of the idea? Thanks.

[stone space]

67. It's not my idea. It comes from one of the gunners here.

You'll have to ask him why he believes that this would be a good idea.

The idea keeps coming up, usually put forward by gunners, but I've never been able to figure out what folks are thinking when they suggest such a thing.

The idea seems pretty useless to me, however, regardless of the details.

[GGJohn]

70. The idea keeps coming up?

Then it shouldn't be hard for you to provide a link to such claims would it?

[stone space]

72. It has before, and it will again.

The idea keeps coming up?

[GGJohn]

73. Then provide a link,

if, as you say it's come up before, then posting a link should be pretty easy.

[Duckhunter935]

82. What is the idea

and why are you afraid to explain or link to it?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

74. I'd be happy to but ask who?

Please site a post # or give a link or name the member I should ask for details.

I don't know what this means. Are you asking if I think university faculty should be targeted for chief of police or sheriff in local appointments/elections? That's why I was asking for scope.

I searched the thread for professor, teacher, faculty... and couldn't find a post with those words.

[GGJohn]

75. Well, he says it's my idea, but for the life of me,

I can't remember making any such statement, and, as usual, he won't provide a link to his claim.

[stone space]

76. You are being disengenuous if you claim to not be able to read this short thread.

Your post # indicates just how small a task that is.

Not interested in games.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

83. You brought it up

I have no interest in spelunking through your half baked references trying to determine what you actually want to discuss and your shyness over explaining yourself makes me believe you really don't have a point or have no real interest in discussing the question you posed. Without further investigation I give a short answer to your original question:

It was suggested above that university professors be put in charge of law enforcement.

Useful idea or useless idea?

I see no specific reason other than a likely higher than average intelligence for targeting university professors to be Chief LEOs.

[stone space]

86. I didn't bring it up.

It was brought up above in this thread, and I objected to the idea.

Objecting to somebody else's idea is not bringing it up.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

88. Your post #64 brought it up to me

AFAIK I've answered your question. If not let me know.

[stone space]

91. How did you get to #68 without passing thru #28? (nt)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

96. Why are you asking about #68?

The post I mentioned was your post #64. Post #64 was a reply to my OP. I got to #64 by clicking the "My Posts" tab and then clicking to read your reply to my OP. (OPs are shown in bold.)

Should I go read #28?

[Duckhunter935]

81. can you specify and who keeps bringing this up?

I am sure can can link to one of the many posts that bring this up and explain the concept.

[GGJohn]

68. How about a link to this claim? eom.

[stone space]

69. It's your idea. Asking for a link is disengenuous.

Better to explain why you think it would be a useful idea.

[GGJohn]

71. My idea?

Then provide a link so I can see if you're telling the truth.

[Duckhunter935]

84. well then, you should be able to link to

or copy and post it as an excerpt in a new post. I think you can't as I do not think it is true.

[mainstreetonce]

78. If Nancy Lanza knew

that she would have been held responsible for any crime committed if her mentally son got his hands on the gun,she may have stored them safely or not made her house into an arsenal.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

90. And if I win tonight's powerball I promise to send you some

Your conjecture is maybe more useful than mine but only if I don't win.

[stone space]

99. Where did all the posts go?

What's with all the self-deletions in this thread?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

110. Maybe the same place as your answer to my post #96

[beergood]

128. a little off topic

but could you help me with this?


A bullet with mass m hits a ballistic pendulum with length L and mass M and lodges in it. When the bullet hits the pendulum it swings up from the equilibrium position and reaches an angle ? at its maximum. Determine the bullet’s velocity.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

131. Just to clarify...

...a few missing bits of info:
Are all sources of friction to be neglected? (air, pivot...)
Is all of the mass of the pendulum concentrated in the bob?
Can we assume that the mass M is much larger than the mass m?
We also kind of need to assume that the collision is almost completely inelastic.

[Warpy]

102. What's useless is the way gun zealots snort at all ideas for gun control

by pointing out they're not 100% perfect and absolutely iron clad.

What they don't realize is that we're not looking for perfection, we're looking for ways to slow down the nut cases and decrease the carnage. Enough is enough and unless they want an Oz style gun confiscation, they'd better accept the lesser measures with smiles.

[DonP]

106. Sorry, that's not going to happen

Get used to disappointment.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

111. For the time being...

...we're paying no attention to that man behind the curtain. The rest of you control folk, keep your hands where we can see them.

[beevul]

119. Sure you are.

...we're looking for ways to slow down the nut cases and decrease the carnage.

Sure you are.

Funny how you focus on those that aren't 'nut cases' and those who aren't causing any 'carnage'. Until you start to approach it as a people problem instead of a 'gun centric' problem requiring 'gun centric' solutions, nobody is going to buy it other than people who already buy into gun control. In short, you've got about all the gun control that you're going to get, the movement is out of gas on the side of the road, and getting out and pushing isn't going to help.

Enough is enough and unless they want an Oz style gun confiscation, they'd better accept the lesser measures with smiles.

We'll remember these empty threats when you finally figure out that you can't get anything done without the support of gun rights supporters. Like the next time the word 'compromise' is used by one of you, for example.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

124. Just so you know...

...claiming that the pro-rights side "snorts at all ideas for gun control by pointing out they're not 100% perfect and absolutely iron clad" is one of those straw man fallacies. The idea that an 'assault weapon' ban (which mostly affects rifles, the gun least often used by criminals) will make a difference in criminal gun violence is a joke. It's like putting a lock on a screen door. That only works for the honest folks.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

134. All rampage killers are dead-enders. They continue until killed, wounded or commit suicide.

When they begin their rampages they do so with the intention of not surviving. This is without exception.

So what good would gun registration do in stopping them?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

135. The warm feeling they get from knowing...

...if/when needed, big brother can 'round 'em all up'???

[Nuclear Unicorn]

136. If law enforcement were a magic panacea it could interdict the rampage killers before they act.

After all, the number of individuals within our national population of 330,000,000 who are liable to such actions can't possibly number more than a half dozen or so at any given time.

That is far more logistically tenable than believing 80 to one-hundred million gun owners can be disabused of 300 million firearms.

One would think the logistically simpler of the two courses of action would be preferred by those of genuine intentions.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

137. I didn't say it was a practical idea

just an idea. The control side often impractical.

[beergood]

138. "big brother can 'round 'em all up"

in order to do that, they would have to abolish or amend the 4th and 5th amendments.

[sarisataka]

142. Other Amendments are no problem

If they get in the way, GC will simply declare them "rights" that can only be exercised collectively...