6 ms·
Good job, jackasses, now this will get trotted out as an example against anything that ties a name to a firearm (i. e., registration). And though I might fall i
by mikestew 4y ago
Good job, jackasses, now this will get trotted out as an example against anything that ties a name to a firearm (i. e., registration). And though I might fall in with the "if not Sandy Hook, then what is it going to take?" crowd, I can't say it's an invalid argument. I mean, a government is unlikely to be so bold as to just outright publish the PII. But what if we suffered a "data breach"? If it's the way I'd do it, is it really a conspiracy theory? :-)
- cpwright 4y agoExcept in NY, where before the SAFE act they did. Westchester county responded to a FOIA request. Putnam county told the Journal News to pound sand. https://www.rcfp.org/journals/wake-journal-news-publishin/ https://www.rcfp.org/journals/wake-journal-news-publishin/
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoOK, that's two ways it could leak - data breach, and honoring an FOIA request. And that makes me think of a third way - improperly redacted evidence in a court case. Paranoia about my data in government databases wasn't on my radar 15 minutes ago...
- mulmen 4y ago> Paranoia about my data in government databases wasn't on my radar 15 minutes ago... Wait, really? If you really want to be scared check this out: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List
- chucksta 4y agoYou've never seen DMV leaks? https://www.autoinsurance.org/worst-states-for-dmv-dot-data-breaches/ https://www.autoinsurance.org/worst-states-for-dmv-dot-data-... The government in most forms is my biggest fear for my personal data security
- bsder 4y agoLeaks? Where have you been? The DMVs are all selling this stuff.
- int_19h 4y agoIn WA, we had a similar problem with bump stocks. See, the state banned them before the feds did. But unlike the feds, the state did the right thing and compensated the owners who surrendered theirs to the State Patrol (which required filling a form with a bunch of PII). That program was put together rather hastily due to the impending federal ban tho, and they didn't really consider the privacy angle. Then they got two FOIA requests for all the submitted forms, one of which explicitly stated that it's to compile and publish the registry of former owners. The legislature actually had to scramble to pass another law to specify that data as private before the response was due.
- jstarfish 4y agoNo, this was no accident. California has been leveraging gun regulations as a foil to anti-abortion movements elsewhere in the country, including discussions of dissemination of lists of abortion recipients, providers, and facilitators for targeting by bounty hunters. Now we have an accidentally-disseminated list of gun owners. "Oops," indeed. Turnabout is fair play?
- mulmen 4y agoThat’s a very serious allegation to throw around when regular old incompetence is a viable explanation.
- quarantaseih 4y agoDays after the most significant SCOTUS gun decision in over a decade (Heller)? Arguably the second most important one in 2A jurisprudence?
- jstarfish 4y agoI'm not afraid to make it; there's no burden of proof online. It's too conveniently timed--and too specific in content--to be coincidence. They didn't leak a list of everybody on food stamps during a slow news cycle. Everything other states have threatened to do regarding abortion, California has responded to by doing the exact same thing, only replacing the word "abortion" with "guns."
- pyronik19 4y ago>now this will get trotted out as an example against anything that ties a name to a firearm As it should be, "I told you so" all day long.
- kbd 4y agoGun advocates: "registration is problematic for many reasons as the data can be abused/leaked" prediction comes true Gun control advocate: "good job now they'll use this as an example" Yep.
- tylersmith 4y agoEven in a thread about this happening the GP asserts it's unlikely to happen.
- txsoftwaredev 4y agoIt's no body else's business, especially the power hungry federal government, to know if I own a firearm. If you want to see what happens when you disarm citizens there are plenty of examples through history. You can look at Australia during covid and the camps they setup. The citizens could do nothing. The government should always be kept in check and having armed legal citizens is a wonderful thing for freedom.
- giraffe_lady 4y agoWhat are you doing to keep the government in check currently or is this pretty much how you like it rn?
- spiderice 4y agoThere is a large gap between "I like what the government is doing right now" and "time to keep the government in check with guns". In other words, just because guns aren't being used to keep the government in check right now doesn't mean there aren't valid situations where they could be. I'm not entirely sure if your comment is insinuating that. If it's not, sorry for misinterpreting it.
- hackyhacky 4y agoSo if an election were believed to be fraudulent, for example, that would be a legally/ethically justified opportunity to raid the Capitol building in an armed mob? Inquiring minds want to know. In other words, can we have some concrete example when, in your opinion, it is appropriate to shoot a cop?
- abduhl 4y agoAny time it would be appropriate to shoot not-a-cop. Cop with his knee on someone’s neck where that person is obviously suffocating? It’s appropriate to shoot that cop.
- 4y ago
- topspin 4y ago> Good job, jackasses, now this will get trotted out as an example against anything that ties a name to a firearm (i. e., registration). We're way past that phase. New York has been playing this game for years[1] [1] https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/in...
- dontbenebby 4y agoHi. I'm from Appalachia and am a fan of the second amendment. Please don't call me a jackass. Now that we have that out of the way: Gun owners have brought this kind of thing on themselves. I've observed them for years. Most of the demands for "privacy" for gun owners stem from the fact if you did a fair and accurate background check... they wouldn't be able to own them. I don't own one, but they took me out on Pearl Harbor day when I was sixteen and showed me how to shoot a 1911 at the local range. Prior to that, I learned on BB guns, then at the archery range in Cub Scouts, then finally on bolt action .22s in the Boy Scouts. I can't hit a target accurately with a pistol more than 10 yards out, but I know enough if someone gives me one I can make use of it. Anyways, the ugly truth is most gun owners in America... shouldn't. They're obsessed with movie plot threats and movie plot guns, when if you truly want to have a militia geared at ovethrowing fascist oppressors, you want to take a look at how they handled such things in places like occupied Prague or Amsterdam. Hint: they didn't run up on the Nazis with deagles or AK-47 clones with drum clips so large they jam sooner than if you stuck with a 30 round banana clip -- they walked up with a .22 revolver so quiet you can't hear it from the next apartment over, emptied it into the skull of some local party official, dropping no casings, because it's a revolver, not a deagle with a dick extender, then dropped it in a canal or whatever and never spoke of it again, and slit the throats of those who felt otherwise as they slept. The second amendment was about maintaining arms for hunting and/or a small guerilla force to hold off invaders until an organized militia could provide reinforcement, not so every tom dick and sally could replicate the National Guard armory.
- tylersmith 4y ago> I mean, a government is unlikely to be so bold as to just outright publish the PII. This is literally what this thread is about.