DHS wants information on journalists

[flockofseagulls104]

Yes I read it before posting, and my post didn’t say there was anything wrong with it. What I said (well, implied) was that we should treat the information collected from gun owners the same way. But right now it’s illegal to make that information text searchable. Let’s apply the same standards in that context and see how long the right stays quiet. —Bob

Nice backtrack on crazy implications.

So you agree with me that the federal law making it illegal to make the stored gun-sale information text-searchable should be repealed? --Bob

So, bob-tel, you want the federal government to know the names and addresses of everyone who owns a gun? And by text-searchable, do you mean that in addition to letting the federal government know the names and addresses of everyone who owns a gun, you want that information available to the general public? If so, you are even more insane than I thought. I think we should have a mandatory mental health screening for lawyers. But then again, if we did, there wouldn't be any. And, unfortunately, there is a need for a few of them.

[Bob78164]

Nice backtrack on crazy implications.

So you agree with me that the federal law making it illegal to make the stored gun-sale information text-searchable should be repealed? --Bob

So, bob-tel, you want the federal government to know the names and addresses of everyone who owns a gun? And by text-searchable, do you mean that in addition to letting the federal government know the names and addresses of everyone who owns a gun, you want that information available to the general public? If so, you are even more insane than I thought. I think we should have a mandatory mental health screening for lawyers. But then again, if we did, there wouldn't be any. And, unfortunately, there is a need for a few of them.

The federal government already has (or should have) a form recording every gun sale from a gun store in America. Police like to use that data to backtrace weapons that were used in crimes. But those forms reside in a ginormous warehouse in West Virginia. They've been scanned to PDF to save storage space, but by federal law, they can't be scanned to searchable PDFs. So searching through these records must be, and is, done by hand. I imagine the same is true if you want to ascertain whether someone who's just had a restraining order entered against him has previously bought a gun.

That's flocking insane. But if you're willing to trust the government with this information regarding journalists (whose words are much less dangerous than firearms), I don't see the problem with trusting the government with the ability to search this information regarding owners of firearms (information that the government already has). Why are you more afraid of journalists than you are of owners of firearms? It seems to me that your priorities are seriously flocked. --Bob

[BackInTex]

.. journalists (whose words are much less dangerous than firearms)

Really? That is your belief? smh

[Bob Juch]

So you agree with me that the federal law making it illegal to make the stored gun-sale information text-searchable should be repealed? --Bob

So, bob-tel, you want the federal government to know the names and addresses of everyone who owns a gun? And by text-searchable, do you mean that in addition to letting the federal government know the names and addresses of everyone who owns a gun, you want that information available to the general public? If so, you are even more insane than I thought. I think we should have a mandatory mental health screening for lawyers. But then again, if we did, there wouldn't be any. And, unfortunately, there is a need for a few of them.

The federal government already has (or should have) a form recording every gun sale from a gun store in America. Police like to use that data to backtrace weapons that were used in crimes. But those forms reside in a ginormous warehouse in West Virginia. They've been scanned to PDF to save storage space, but by federal law, they can't be scanned to searchable PDFs. So searching through these records must be, and is, done by hand. I imagine the same is true if you want to ascertain whether someone who's just had a restraining order entered against him has previously bought a gun.

That's flocking insane. But if you're willing to trust the government with this information regarding journalists (whose words are much less dangerous than firearms), I don't see the problem with trusting the government with the ability to search this information regarding owners of firearms (information that the government already has). Why are you more afraid of journalists than you are of owners of firearms? It seems to me that your priorities are seriously flocked. --Bob

Since there's no form required for person-to-person or gun show sales, that's not very useful.

[flockofseagulls104]

So you agree with me that the federal law making it illegal to make the stored gun-sale information text-searchable should be repealed? --Bob

So, bob-tel, you want the federal government to know the names and addresses of everyone who owns a gun? And by text-searchable, do you mean that in addition to letting the federal government know the names and addresses of everyone who owns a gun, you want that information available to the general public? If so, you are even more insane than I thought. I think we should have a mandatory mental health screening for lawyers. But then again, if we did, there wouldn't be any. And, unfortunately, there is a need for a few of them.

The federal government already has (or should have) a form recording every gun sale from a gun store in America. Police like to use that data to backtrace weapons that were used in crimes. But those forms reside in a ginormous warehouse in West Virginia. They've been scanned to PDF to save storage space, but by federal law, they can't be scanned to searchable PDFs. So searching through these records must be, and is, done by hand. I imagine the same is true if you want to ascertain whether someone who's just had a restraining order entered against him has previously bought a gun.

That's flocking insane. But if you're willing to trust the government with this information regarding journalists (whose words are much less dangerous than firearms), I don't see the problem with trusting the government with the ability to search this information regarding owners of firearms (information that the government already has). Why are you more afraid of journalists than you are of owners of firearms? It seems to me that your priorities are seriously flocked. --Bob

Hey bob-tel, You might want to actually read my post before you knee-jerkingly respond. I specifically said I don't trust the federal government with ANY information like this, be it who owns guns or information about journalists.

The government does not need to and should not be in the business of collecting either kind of data. They can't be trusted with it.

Look what the IRS did to the Tea Party groups. And see what the consequences were to those who used that information for partisan purposes. I think those consequences were exactly zero. That is just one glaring example. You seem to be only interested in the government having information that helps your party and your narrative. Not surprising, based on your pronouncement when trump was elected. We all know what your flocking priorities are.
Shall I add illiterate to your official titles?