Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NRA Joins ACLU Lawsuit Against NSA

timothy posted 1 year,12 days | from the but-don't-worry-nics-remains-unimpeachable dept.

Privacy 531

cold fjord writes with this excerpt from The Hill: "The National Rifle Association joined the American Civil Liberties Union's lawsuit on Wednesday to end the government's massive phone record collection program. In a brief filed in federal court, the NRA argues that the National Security Agency's database of phone records amounts to a 'national gun registry.' 'It would be absurd to think that the Congress would adopt and maintain a web of statutes intended to protect against the creation of a national gun registry, while simultaneously authorizing the FBI and the NSA to gather records that could effectively create just such a registry,' the group writes. ... In its filing, the gun-rights group claims that the NSA's database would allow the government to identify and track gun owners based on whether they've called gun stores, shooting ranges or the NRA. 'Under the government's reading of Section 215, the government could simply demand the periodic submission of all firearms dealers' transaction records, then centralize them in a database indexed by the buyers' names for later searching,' the NRA writes."

cancel ×

531 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So it has come to this (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44768243)

When the NRA and ACLU both oppose something, you know it's bad for everyone.

Re:So it has come to this (4, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768319)

I've actually donated to both organizations. Though the ACLU generally does much more good than the NRA.

Re:So it has come to this (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44768609)

Though the ACLU generally does much more good than the NRA.

Yes, because focusing on protecting one Constitutional right as opposed to picking and choosing when to protect or attack the others is evil.

Re:So it has come to this (0)

the_B0fh (208483) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768651)

Evidence?

Kinda batshit of the NRA (2)

themushroom (197365) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768331)

But in this instance it's for the common good. Serandpity on that. :)

Re:Kinda batshit of the NRA (2, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768351)

I serandpity the fool!

It has happened before (5, Informative)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768357)

The NRA and ACLU were joint petitioners to the Clinton Administration trying to restrain a patter of abuses by Federal law enforcement. (Clinton ignored them).

Re:It has happened before (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44768563)

So I guess they will be ignored once again...

Re:So it has come to this (1)

intermodal (534361) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768517)

I was just thinking the same thing, and that I should have gotten into the coat business now that Hell is freezing over.

Re:So it has come to this (0, Troll)

ackthpt (218170) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768565)

When the NRA and ACLU both oppose something, you know it's bad for everyone.

They both must be recoiling in disgust that they are both on the same side of something ... but while the ACLU pursues matters through leveraging law, the NRA advocates remedying government amok with a more pointed (or hollow pointed) approach. Fascinating.

So NRA people, why are you not attacking teh evil gummint with your 2nd amendment rights? I do not understand this using lawyers method, which is entirely contradictory to all this ballyhoo about needing guns, many and large.

I feel cheated.

Re:So it has come to this (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768689)

The NSA is probably better armed.

you know hell has frozen over (5, Insightful)

halfEvilTech (1171369) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768245)

When the NRA, EFF, ACLU and the author of the [un]Patriot Act are all against it.

Re:you know hell has frozen over (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44768273)

Well, the NRA is there to keep the 2nd amendment strong. The ACLU is there to keep the first 10 amendments strong. It's really like the NRA focuses on a subset of the ACLU.

Not sure who's around to support the 26th amendment... kids these days probably wouldn't notice if it changed.

Re:you know hell has frozen over (1)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768353)

Actually, the ACLU does work outside of the bill of rights, they try to protect anything that could reasonably be called a civil liberty, like voting and running for public office as well.

Re:you know hell has frozen over (4, Informative)

Nadaka (224565) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768375)

Actually... the ACLU does not defend the 2nd amendment. They view it as a right to form a militia, not as a right for private citizens to own firearms.

Now, the ACLU does a ton of other great stuff, but they are not perfect.

Re:you know hell has frozen over (1)

lgw (121541) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768525)

The ACLU has changed a bit on this. They've stopping irrationally refusing to defend the 2nd amendment, though change will be slow of course. I think they want to stop being seen as "some left wing thing" by many Americans.

Re:you know hell has frozen over (5, Insightful)

Ksevio (865461) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768587)

It's kind of a waste of resources for the ACLU to defend 2nd amendment cases. The NRA and other groups are eager to fill the gap whereas there are fewer groups for other civil liberties.

Re:you know hell has frozen over (3, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768633)

They view it as a right to form a militia, not as a right for private citizens to own firearms.

How can one interpret those as different things? A militia is exactly that - private citizens. If it's not composed of private citizens, it's an army and not a militia.

Re:you know hell has frozen over (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768425)

Not sure who's around to support the 26th amendment... kids these days probably wouldn't notice if it changed.

The ACLU protects the "right" to vote-- but that's not actually in the constitution. Dreamy eyed liberals maintain that such a right is implied, but Conservatives know better.

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.

Bush v Gore, of course... [cornell.edu]

Re:you know hell has frozen over (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44768469)

Actually, the ACLU's official stance on the 2nd Amendment is that it was a state right, not individual right.

This was actually a contentious decision internally, and I really wish they'd roll this back. The problem is that for some on the liberal left gun violence is perceived as anti-civil liberties, and gun restrictions as promoting less violent neighborhoods and thus promoting more liberties.

I'm a strong supporter of gun rights, personally. Although I must admit to myself that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was a protection afforded people *as* states (the debacle with the Articles of Confederation explains this history), the right wing SCOTUS has settled the matter once and for all, and I don't like the idea of rolling this back.

Re:you know hell has frozen over (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44768583)

The ACLU doesn't care about Amendments 2, 3, 7, 9, or 10.

Re:you know hell has frozen over (2, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768279)

Not, especially. Even if the NRA prop up an industry by manipulating US politics, all 3 organizations share the stated goals of protecting citizens' rights.

Re:you know hell has frozen over (5, Insightful)

Quila (201335) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768407)

Even if the NRA prop up an industry by manipulating US politics

You mean influences US politics on behalf of its millions of members, and millions more like-minded non-members. Kind of like the ACLU.

What you said is like saying the EFF only does what it does in order to prop up Internet services companies because they profit from a free and open Internet.

Re:you know hell has frozen over (0)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768441)

The relevant bit is the absolute-fuckton of money they get for being a (according your the jist of your post) grassroots organization. It's pretty unreasonable.

I support following the 2nd amendment while it's in the constitution, but I don't believe it belongs there.

Re:you know hell has frozen over (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44768577)

If you don't think the 2nd amendment belongs in the constitution, you're an idiot.

It belongs there to allow the citizens, at the end of the day, to defend their other rights.

Re:you know hell has frozen over (1, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768617)

Except that it wouldn't actually succeed at that, and we can plainly see through critical examination of numerous other countries that arms ownership has exactly zero relationship with rights actually possessed by the populace.

Most modern liberal democracies that protect individual freedom do so in conjunction with gun control. And many barbaric shitholes with extremely corrupt, poor governance have absolutely massive numbers of guns. One simply does not cause the other.

That's aside from the more practical argument that you couldn't even remotely take down an M1 with any of the weapons officially protected by the 2nd amendment.

Re:you know hell has frozen over (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768669)

But that isn't what it says.

It says 'a well-regulated militia.' At most, it could be seen as making sure states have a local army sufficient to defend against any oppressive actions by the federal government - but it certainly isn't there to allow citizens or self-appointed groups of citizens to declare revolution if they feel oppressed.

Re:you know hell has frozen over (1)

RoboRay (735839) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768693)

If you don't have the right to personally enforce your own rights, you have no guaranteed rights. The Second Amendment is the difference between having rights and having privileges.

Re:you know hell has frozen over (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768449)

That would be a reasonable assessment if the EFF took positions contrary to that of most of its members but beneficial to the ISPs.

Re:you know hell has frozen over (1)

redmid17 (1217076) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768483)

The NRA isn't the lobbying organization for the gun manufacturers. That's the NSSF

Re:you know hell has frozen over (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44768519)

The NRA isn't the lobbying organization for the gun manufacturers. That's the NSSF

Someone should alert the NRA of this...

Re:you know hell has frozen over (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44768601)

Even if the NRA prop up an industry by manipulating US politics

You mean influences US politics on behalf of its millions of members, and millions more like-minded non-members.

Those millions of dollars spent lobbying come in $25 at a time.

Unlike the opposition, there are no deep pocketed limousine liberals bankrolling the NRA.

Re:you know hell has frozen over (1)

intermodal (534361) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768535)

Be that as it may, you know when the author of the PATRIOT Act goes to the side these organizations are on, things have gotten bad in Washington...

Re:you know hell has frozen over (1)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768637)

To be fair, the whole "outraged==paying attention" formula applied to the patriot act.

Re:you know hell has frozen over (2)

Antipater (2053064) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768317)

"By your powers combined, I am Captain Lobbyist!"

Re:you know hell has frozen over (3, Funny)

amstrad (60839) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768403)

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Re:you know hell has frozen over (1)

Krojack (575051) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768475)

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Bill Fuckin' Murray? What are you doing on Slashdot?

Between the two organizations (0)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768247)

You actually get coverage of the entire bill of rights. The ACLU defends most of the bill of rights, and the NRA spends its inexplicably much more massive budget on defending the remaining half of the second amendment.

Re:Between the two organizations (2, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768303)

Inexplicably? The 2nd amendment is the only amendment affecting the profitability of a single specific industry. There is money in gun sales... Not so much in the other amendments.

Re:Between the two organizations (4, Funny)

x0 (32926) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768361)

Inexplicably? The 2nd amendment is the only amendment affecting the profitability of a single specific industry. There is money in gun sales... Not so much in the other amendments.

Obviously, no one sells books...

Re:Between the two organizations (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44768477)

You don't make more money books that exercises free speech compared to books that follow government regulation.

And those who sells books are too busy to get rid of the first sale doctrine anyway.

Re:Between the two organizations (1)

Bartles (1198017) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768573)

Or newspapers, websites, movies, religion, or legal assistance.

Re:Between the two organizations (1)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768365)

I'm pretty sure that the barracks manufacturing industry whole-heartedly supports the third amendment.

Re:Between the two organizations (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44768391)

Inexplicably? The 2nd amendment is the only amendment affecting the profitability of a single specific industry. There is money in gun sales... Not so much in the other amendments.

how about the argument p0rn = Freedom of speech

Re:Between the two organizations (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44768401)

Nope, no money at all in journalism. Must be some other reason why all those news organizations also filed briefs?

Civilian arms industry in the US is $10b/year, tiny overall. Now add the military side into that and you are talking real money. That part doesn't much care for the bill of rights though.

Re:Between the two organizations (1)

geekoid (135745) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768355)

No, it defends the last 1/3 while ignoring the rest of the sentences. Someone should teach them how to read a 18th century sentence splice.

Re:Between the two organizations (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768395)

No, it defends the last 1/3 while ignoring the rest of the sentences. Someone should teach them how to read a 18th century sentence splice.

Get on it then.

Re:Between the two organizations (1)

whoever57 (658626) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768445)

No, it defends the last 1/3 while ignoring the rest of the sentences.

Which is pretty much what the Supremes did when upholding the last extension of copyright.

Re:Between the two organizations (3, Insightful)

hsmith (818216) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768571)

Liberalism, where in plain english you can't decipher the 2nd amendment - but you can find a right to abortion and free healthcare in the constitution. Brilliant!

Re:Between the two organizations (1)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768663)

Both of those come from not being a shithead that wants to see people suffer, and not the bill-of-rights.

Re:Between the two organizations (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768413)

The ACLU, however, has a someone different take on the 2cd Amendment (surprise). Their official position is that the ACLU supports state militias rather than an individual gun right.

That said, the NRA's position here seems something of a reach. There theory sees to be that if the US government can spy on and collect all communications, then they have de facto created a $whatever watch database. The $whatever in this case being guns. This could be expanded to $whatever = stamps, radios, dildos and Hello Kitty paraphernalia.

This gives the government the power of regulating pretty much anything ever mentioned in electronic communications. Personally, I'm not so worried. They have enough trouble rounding up pressure cooker aficionados, much less Hello Kitty perverts.

Re:Between the two organizations (2)

Narcocide (102829) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768545)

The problem you're not foreseeing is what happens when they run out of actual criminals to hunt down and have created a giant, profitable industry on spying. That database that can be used to track down every single person who is a $whatever turns into a motive with a universal applicator. Who could possibly protect that much power from misuse? Its already been demonstrated that they can not.

The Enemy of my Enemy is my.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44768253)

Friend?

Re:The Enemy of my Enemy is my.... (1)

1729 (581437) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768555)

There are a lot of us who support both the ACLU and pro-2A organizations. I'm not a fan of the NRA specifically, but I support several gun-rights groups (including the Second Amendment Foundation and the Calguns Foundation) as well as the ACLU and EFF.

This just in: (-1, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768263)

The NRA continues to be a bunch of paranoid loons.

Re:This just in: (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768283)

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, assuming it's not traveling westward at a sufficiently high speed.

Re:This just in: (1)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768305)

While I think the logic of "If you look carefully at the massive way the NSA is trodding over US Citizens' rights, you see a possible way they might stop someone from owning a gun, in a very abstract way!" is absurd, there's not anything wrong with opposing excessive wiretapping.

Re:This just in: (1)

Derec01 (1668942) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768383)

While paranoia of an individual applied to everyone around him can be absurd, when you apply paranoia to a large governmental organization that will exist longer than you or I, I prefer to think of it as testing edge cases.

Regardless of whether you think there should be a registry or not, I don't think it's absurd to imagine that given an NSA database, creating one becomes simply an algorithmic problem with the data you have (among a huge number of similar "Why don't we use this data to...." eventualities).

Re:This just in: (2)

Derekloffin (741455) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768467)

Well, I'm not so sure. Although it is wholly illogical, there is a common issue of human perception that having X associated with Y when you view X negatively, makes Y seem negative as well. I must admit, that the NRA's case is so... sloppy, it kinda makes me feel like the whole issue is likewise overblown, even though it isn't.

Re:This just in: (1)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768521)

Well, some people have the impressive ability to overblow anything.

Re:This just in: (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768315)

The NRA continues to be a bunch of paranoid loons.

But sometimes they really are after you.

Re:This just in: (0)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768381)

Yes, but when they're after you, they aren't after your stupid guns. The reasoning they give still manages to be absurd in the face of obvious abuse of people's rights.

Re:This just in: (2)

Derec01 (1668942) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768455)

They could be after guns eventually. The NRA isn't stating the entire purpose of the data storage is to create a gun registry. They just believe that among the myriad possible abuses of such data are ones that conflict with their mission statement. I can't see faulting them for this; advocacy organizations can usually only spend money on issues related to their cause.

Re:This just in: (2)

gangien (151940) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768503)

they aren't after your stupid guns

I guess you weren't paying attention this last year.

Obama I believe just signed an executive order which, affects exported/imported firearms. You are being naive, they are constantly after all of our rights, including our 2nd amendment.

PS "they" isn't any specific group or person. It is our government and society at large.

Re:This just in: (0)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768537)

"which affected"
Even your own dumb example uses weasel words that mean nothing. I'm familiar with the "antique international firearm resale" loophole that changed enforcement procedure, and it has as much to do with preventing firearm ownership as sales tax does.

Re:This just in: (5, Informative)

msauve (701917) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768589)

"they aren't after your stupid guns."

Depends on who you mean by "they."

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here.

- Sen. Diane Feinstein, February 5, 1995

Confiscation could be an option...mandatory sale to the state could be an option

- NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo, December 20, 2012

Re:This just in: (-1, Troll)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768683)

Yeah, you sure can edit those to hide the context of those to pretend it's about all guns. Nice use of the ellipsis there, and with no link back to an original source.

A+ for effort!

Re:This just in: (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44768339)

Just because YOU are not paranoid. Does not mean 'they' are not out to get you.

captcha:paranoia (awesomeness)

Re:This just in: (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44768341)

As opposed to Greenpeace, which can't even get any decent press these days.

This headline needs more acronyms.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44768267)

ASAP!

Sic semper tyrannis (5, Insightful)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768295)

Such tracking is exactly the kind of thing the King of England would have used against the Founding Fathers, and would have been banned by them after the Revolution, which would have been very much less likely with "metadata" gathering and tracking of who called whom, whether it be gun shops or other supporting people.

Saying "metadata" isn't protected is the biggest fraud in recent history. We must continue backing the government away from building the tools of tyranny. It makes no difference that they "use it wisely" currently. Don't let it get started at all.

This is for the weak-minded who get upset over "absolutism". Go read the Bill of Rights.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis (1)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768415)

Since you asked me to read the bill of rights again...

Yeah, see, there's this part about well-regulated militias that the word "metadata" might be pertinent to. I'm actually angry at you for giving such a crappy argument in support of an action I support myself. Stop making me look stupid.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768465)

there's this part about well-regulated militia

Read the Militia Act sometime. You might be unaware that you're a member.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis (1)

swamp boy (151038) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768547)

This part?

"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia"

Re:Sic semper tyrannis (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768655)

But that would mean your right to bear arms terminates at age 45, and if you were listed as an exception.

Gun rights start at birth and end when they pry your weapon from your cold dead hands. Or so I've been told.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis (1)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768559)

You mean the Militias that literally can trace their existence to today in the form of the National Guard? I'm pretty sure I'm not a member of the national guard.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768495)

The idea that they "use it wisely" is very questionable based on what's leaked out so far.

Re:Sic semper tyrannis (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44768527)

You give the Founding Fathers too much credit. Don't forget that at the time we broke our bonds to the King of England, we were also usurping his powers and granting them to individual state legislatures.

The Founding Fathers were very wary of hamstringing states. The colonial states were democracies, afterall, and though they were aware of the concept of tyranny of the majority, at the end of the day they desired states to have wide latitude to address their internal problems.

The lofty rhetoric regarding rights was possible only because it was inconsequential. They were debating a new Federal government which, at the time, had almost no place in the individual lives of American citizens. The Federal government was tremendously smaller and less involved. The Bill of Rights didn't even restrict state behavior. Massachusetts had an official state religion until almost mid-century. Slavery still existed. You have to look at the history in context before you start applying your modern ideals to their circumstances.

NRA spokeman quote (2)

Sponge Bath (413667) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768309)

Pew! Pew! Pew!

Lovecraft had it right (5, Interesting)

kruach aum (1934852) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768343)

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

Re:Lovecraft had it right (1)

lightknight (213164) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768699)

Or it won't matter...you need to have an ego in order for it to be crushed by such revelations, to become so mad. If you are already aware of your position and velocity in the Universe, being told it is the equivalent of being told that it's a nice day outside...it's something said that has as little or as much meaning as the listener ascribes to it.

You've been told to want that your life has meaning, and that it is a meaning that you will understand, etc., etc. So your ego fights to understand something that is probably far too large for it to understand...like a baby trying to swallow or eat a watermelon. And yet, you are determined not to give up...because you've been taught that giving up is quitting, and that quitting is the opposite of winning, and that it is better to be a winner than a quitter...

Hallelujah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44768359)

I was wondering when the NRA would figure out that the NSA can generate a gun registry list in what, about 30 seconds?

Doesn't the NRA already collect names? (4, Interesting)

StuartHankins (1020819) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768389)

If the NRA already collects names, who's to say they don't share them with the government already, willingly or unwillingly? Seems like a pretty easy nut to crack... and oh boy they have a lot of nuts in that org.

Re:Doesn't the NRA already collect names? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44768509)

They have never had any shootings at their meetings, or gun shows, that seems to only happen in gun free zones.

Re:Doesn't the NRA already collect names? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44768671)

Perhaps you mean intentional shootings. People accidentally shoot each other at gun shows quite regularly.

Re:Doesn't the NRA already collect names? (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768619)

If the NRA already collects names, who's to say they don't share them with the government already, willingly or unwillingly? Seems like a pretty easy nut to crack... and oh boy they have a lot of nuts in that org.

Any way you can say the same thing without coming off as a biased asshole?

Maybe you should try attending a meeting sometime. you know, actually meet some of your neighbors, whom you readily write off as "nuts," and get to know them?

The NRA's full of wack-jobs & gets worse each (1)

BUL2294 (1081735) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768405)

...but they do have a valid point with this one. Right or wrong, Congress has forbidden state & Federal agencies (e.g. FBI, ATF, etc.) from putting together a list of gun owners. Period. It wouldn't take any stretch of the imagination to realize that the "government" (NSA, FBI, ATF, etc.) would have 99% of the gun owners' phone numbers out there simply by querying for phone numbers of gun shops, ranges, etc. All it would take is for an NSA snoop to do a simple SQL query "WHERE phone_num in ('222-333-4444', '333-444-5555', '444-555-6666', ...)" and they have such a list.

The NSA's phone snooping does offer the ability to create such a de facto list... Sure, there could be some false-positives (e.g. the non-gun-owning wife of the gun store shop's owner) and some false-negatives (e.g. the militia man who doesn't own a phone or have access to "thar Intar-webs"), but I can't see it not being 98-99% accurate...

Now the conservative Congress-critters who voted to keep the NSA snooping but who are also financed by the NRA are likely to change their minds...

Re:The NRA's full of wack-jobs & gets worse ea (1)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768487)

Yes, but what's awful, is that somehow possibly knowing how people used the 2nd amendment rights is worse or more worth stopping than knowing precisely how everyone uses their 1st amendment rights.

Re:The NRA's full of wack-jobs & gets worse ea (1)

JWW (79176) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768551)

Um. I think what the NRA and the ACLU are saying here is that its the SAME.

Re:The NRA's full of wack-jobs & gets worse ea (1)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768579)

And I'd submit that it isn't. At an abstract level, one is a debate worth having, and the other is a clear and direct infringement of rights.

The 2nd amendment gets placed on this unholy altar where not only is the right to keep and bear arms protected, but the right to do so with absolutely no limitation is.

A well regulated Militia (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44768423)

lol, more like the exact opposite--a decentralised bunch of paranoid fucks and criminals

a long time coming (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768463)

This isn't exactly a new opinion for NRA members. A little over a year ago my grandpa's brother told me he always pays cash for bullets and anything resembling ammo at hardware and sporting goods stores just in case the government has some secret database or something. He's pretty level headed and he even said if he didn't have the cash, he'd pay credit and not really care. It was just something there was a rumor to do and it sounded true-ish. Well surprise, here's the NSA. CC companies don't typically have line items on a single purchase charge but who says the mega chain stores don't hand over the CC name and items purchased? Considering they do that for meth lab stuff and fertilizer already, it's not a stretch.

Yep (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44768485)

And I have no doubt government goons would be talking in their office to each other saying things like "we can store it, we just can't use it"; at some point they will use it, and they will already be setup for it.

Ludicrous Argument From An Effective Lobbyist (1)

organgtool (966989) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768529)

In a brief filed in federal court, the NRA argues that the National Security Agency's database of phone records amounts to a 'national gun registry

This may be the most ludicrous argument I have ever heard. With that said, the NRA is extremely effective at forcing themselves onto the legislative system and repeatedly gang-banging it until they're raw and left shooting only puffs of dust. With support like that, it might almost be possible to get the current amount of unconstitutional spying scaled back.

Re:Ludicrous Argument From An Effective Lobbyist (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768703)

In a brief filed in federal court, the NRA argues that the National Security Agency's database of phone records amounts to a 'national gun registry

This may be the most ludicrous argument I have ever heard.

More ludicrous than the NSA supporters argument of, "we must sacrifice our freedoms to protect our freedoms?"

With that said, the NRA is extremely effective at forcing themselves onto the legislative system and repeatedly gang-banging it until they're raw and left shooting only puffs of dust. With support like that, it might almost be possible to get the current amount of unconstitutional spying scaled back.

Then why are you bitching? A win is a win, right?

Wow, how time flies ... (1)

Krishnoid (984597) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768543)

So ... there's a new Debian release coming up?

Compton and Long Beach together (2)

belgo (72693) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768575)

... now you know you in trouble. Seriously though, how do you even get these two to talk to each other, let alone be co-plaintiffs?

And they are suing why? (1)

Ronin Developer (67677) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768595)

If I had the means, I could build a starship and flew to some other galaxy. But, it doesn't mean because I had the means that I actually did it.

The NSA has the means to collect a lot of information. Does it mean they built an illegal gun registry?

I suspect this case will be thrown out due to no proof such a thing actually exists and is just theoretical.

any list of citizens is also a list of gun owners (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44768611)

lists of property owners

lists of voters

lists of dog owners

lists of municipal water customers

these can all be used to identify gun owners just as easily as any list made by the NSA

maybe they should all be unconstitutional?

thats just too many acronyms (1)

ClassicASP (1791116) | 1 year,12 days | (#44768657)

Great. YAL. Somebody please call CALA. Will VOIP come into question? Will the 2A be discussed? TMI People! I gtg. L8R
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>