Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Hawaii first state to put guns on FBI data


questionmark

Recommended Posts

Quote

Hawaii's governor signed a bill making it the first state to place its residents who own firearms in a federal criminal record database and monitor them for possible wrongdoing anywhere in the country, his office said.

The move by gun control proponents in the liberal state represents an effort to institute some limits on firearms in the face of a bitter national debate over guns that this week saw Democratic lawmakers stage a sit-in at the U.S. House of Representatives.

Hawaii Governor David Ige, a Democrat, on Thursday signed into law a bill to have police in the state enroll people into an FBI criminal monitoring service after they register their firearms as already required, his office said in a statement.

Read more on Reuters

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why the NRA would consider this extreme. Why would the tracking of gun-toting criminals be a bad thing? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Clair said:

I don't understand why the NRA would consider this extreme. Why would the tracking of gun-toting criminals be a bad thing? 

cause, cause...ehm... They want to take our  guns away!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, questionmark said:

cause, cause...ehm... They want to take our  guns away!

Um maybe they just want to take them away from criminals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Clair said:

Um maybe they just want to take them away from criminals?

Now don't get the poor guys in an explanation emergency... have a heart!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Clair said:

I don't understand why the NRA would consider this extreme. Why would the tracking of gun-toting criminals be a bad thing? 

Thats not the problem the problem is the tracking of gun-toting law abiding citizens. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

Thats not the problem the problem is the tracking of gun-toting law abiding citizens. 

Still I don't see the problem. If you are law abiding, then there's nothing to track. All they know is that you own a gun.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Clair said:

Still I don't see the problem. If you are law abiding, then there's nothing to track. All they know is that you own a gun.

Yet you are still being tracked, regardless of whether you are law abiding or not. The problem comes when the government decides things which arent currently illegal should be.

While I am not an NRA gun nut type and dont have any in my home currently I do absolutely understand the historical context of gun control, both its pluses and minuses and I think the minuses greatly outweigh the pluses. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Clair said:

Still I don't see the problem. If you are law abiding, then there's nothing to track. All they know is that you own a gun.

Yes, but tell that to those who "need a gun to protect themselves" because the world out there is so horrible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Yet you are still being tracked, regardless of whether you are law abiding or not. The problem comes when the government decides things which arent currently illegal should be.

While I am not an NRA gun nut type and dont have any in my home currently I do absolutely understand the historical context of gun control, both its pluses and minuses and I think the minuses greatly outweigh the pluses. 

There are basically two reasons:

The first would be to track where guns that people have illegally came from (because believe it or not, most guns start their life as legals), the second would be to simplify crime resolution. If you know the owner of the gun that shot a bullet you found on the scene you most probably also have the perpetrator.

For both you need a data bank to trace guns.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Yet you are still being tracked, regardless of whether you are law abiding or not. The problem comes when the government decides things which arent currently illegal should be.

Still, the FBI wouldn't know more than MasterCard did. You bought a gun, so what. I understand your point, but if something is made illegal, then well.. it's illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Clair said:

Still, the FBI wouldn't know more than MasterCard did. You bought a gun, so what. I understand your point, but if something is made illegal, then well.. it's illegal.

Being jewish, gay , and gypsy was once made illegal. This of course happened after gun control was enacted. 

7 minutes ago, questionmark said:

There are basically two reasons:

The first would be to track where guns that people have illegally came from (because believe it or not, most guns start their life as legals), the second would be to simplify crime resolution. If you know the owner of the gun that shot a bullet you found on the scene you most probably also have the perpetrator.

For both you need a data bank to trace guns.

 

Again I recognize the real world benefits and don't deny them. 

I simply cannot in good conscience support giving any government the ability to track who and how people choose to defend themselves. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

Being jewish, gay , and gypsy was once made illegal. This of course happened after gun control was enacted. 

Again I recognize the real world benefits and don't deny them. 

I simply cannot in good conscience support giving any government the ability to track who and how people choose to defend themselves. 

Well, maybe in good conscience you can support the government's duty to save you from lunatics.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Being jewish, gay , and gypsy was once made illegal. This of course happened after gun control was enacted. 

Well then I would hate to be a gay Jewish gypsy looking to buy a gun. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, questionmark said:

Well, maybe in good conscience you can support the government's duty to save you from lunatics.

No. Its not the governments job to save me from random lunatics it is mine. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

No. Its not the governments job to save me from random lunatics it is mine. 

 

I would read the constitution before claiming that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

No. Its not the governments job to save me from random lunatics it is mine. 

As much as you have a right to protect yourself, the rest of us who don't have a cache of weapons at the ready, also have a right to protection. Besides, if the FBI wanted to find out who owned a gun, they could as there's a record of legal purchases. It may take them longer, but they could still do it. So what's the diff?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, questionmark said:

I would read the constitution before claiming that.

 

can you show me where it says the governments job is to protect me from an individual? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Clair said:

As much as you have a right to protect yourself, the rest of us who don't have a cache of weapons at the ready, also have a right to protection. Besides, if the FBI wanted to find out who owned a gun, they could as there's a record of legal purchases. It may take them longer, but they could still do it. So what's the diff?

The different is pretty basic: Right now you can always unload a gun without asking much questions. Once there is a data-bank you better ask questions and document it because it will fall back on you where the gun ends up.

That makes a gun much less of a commodity as what it is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Clair said:

As much as you have a right to protect yourself, the rest of us who don't have a cache of weapons at the ready, also have a right to protection. Besides, if the FBI wanted to find out who owned a gun, they could as there's a record of legal purchases. It may take them longer, but they could still do it. So what's the diff?

The playing field is even. If you feel like you need a gun for protection you may go and purchase one just like anyone else. 

Ill defer to Ben Franklin on this issue:  Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

I do understand thats a little hyperbolic however I think when discussing gun control that is what is at the core of the issue : liberty and freedom. As i stated earlier the minuses of gun control simply outweigh the pluses. 

Edited by Farmer77
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

can you show me where it says the governments job is to protect me from an individual? 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That is the preamble.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, questionmark said:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That is the preamble.

 

I am quite familiar with the constitution , i think its a gigantic stretch to claim that gun control falls under general welfare. Particularly when the founding fathers understood the importance to the general welfare of the people and this nation of having an armed populace to oppose tyrannical governments. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I am quite familiar with the constitution , i think its a gigantic stretch to claim that gun control falls under general welfare. Particularly when the founding fathers understood the importance to the general welfare of the people and this nation of having an armed populace to oppose tyrannical governments. 

Taking the possibilities of lunatics to cause harm fall under "insuring domestic tranquility"  and "general welfare". To do that you first have to know how lunatics can cause harm and what tools they have at their disposal.

Nobody is taking your gun away unless you become a danger to society, and the government knows that there are guns around, they are not as dumb as they look. (On the other hand, they have no real reason to fear the existing guns either).

Edited by questionmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, questionmark said:

Taking the possibilities of lunatics to cause harm fall under "insuring domestic tranquility"  and "general welfare". To do that you first have to know how lunatics can cause harm and what tools they have at their disposal.

Nobody is tasking your gun away unless you become a danger to society, and the government knows that there are guns around, they are not as dumb as they look. (On the other hand, they have no real reason to fear the existing guns either).

Again I recognize all the aspects of the conversation and I recognize the vast majority as being valid. I think gun control though is exactly opposite to promoting the general welfare though (particularly when put in historical context). Now do I recognize the problems caused by guns YES , do I recognize the good that could be done by eliminating them YES , but once again those benefits simply do not outweigh the potential negatives. 

I also recognize the limited capabilities of an untrained and poorly armed populace vs a professional military with all the tech and money in the world. But Im a go down swinging kind of guy. I'd rather have almost no chance than absolutely no chance. 

 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Again I recognize all the aspects of the conversation and I recognize the vast majority as being valid. I think gun control though is exactly opposite to promoting the general welfare though (particularly when put in historical context). Now do I recognize the problems caused by guns YES , do I recognize the good that could be done by eliminating them YES , but once again those benefits simply do not outweigh the potential negatives. 

I also recognize the limited capabilities of an untrained and poorly armed populace vs a professional military with all the tech and money in the world. But Im a go down swinging kind of guy. I'd rather have almost no chance than absolutely no chance. 

 

That seems to be your opinion. I fail to see a popular uprising against this in Hawaii... or California or New York. So I guess the majority there seems to agree with it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.