But I can understand how that data, in civilian hands, could be used for potentially nefarious purposes. I only suggested the idea as a way to make the information more "transparent", but someone a lot smarter than me would have to discern the risks involved, and I am 100% able to adjust my expectations based on such risks. I'm not committed to the issue one way or another.
2 wrongs do not make a right.
There is FAR FAR FAR too much information accessible to police and even other citizens now. It is clear you believe everything about a person should just be open to everyone.
Do you believe in any privacy at all?
"We the people" have no right to know who own the guns, and if the police infact when armed "to the teeth" door to do looking for any object, gun or not, then any vestiges of a free society will have long been abolished.
I desire liberty above all else, I do not derive this belief in liberty from the Constitution or any other document, I derive my liberty from the Philosophy of liberty which itself is based in the Principle of self ownership. These beliefs transcend the constitution.
It is sad you are willing to give up essential liberty for perceived protection by the government, who will ultimately take your liberty but never provide you with protection.
>>>>Being a registered gun owner does not endanger you in any significant way.
Actually it does, in a large number of ways. However that is also not relevant, even if there was no danger I would still oppose such a registration, as you have no right to require me to submit to such a registry.
Anyone the respects individual liberty, and freedom will agree.
The reasons include but not limited to (and in no particular order)
1. Poor Training in Gun Operations and Saftey
2. No Training in deescalation
3. No Accountability for murdering people
4. Decades of "War on X" public policy that makes the citizens the "enemy" of the police
5. Militarization of police. We have effectively turn the Modern Police force into a Paramilitary organization with less oversight and fewer rules of engagement
My state police force specifically uses the phrase "paramilitary organization" to describe itself. They do not view themselves as civilians charged with protecting other civilians (which is what they are). They view themselves as a higher subset, with different rules and laws.
that is what I have been attempting to dispel. The common misconception that the public has is that the police are in fact a protection force. They are not.
I actually give your State Police credit for being honest with the public. Every other police force lies when they claim to be their for the protection of the people.
there is never been any legal basis for this belief, every single court ruling on the subject in in fact direct contradiction to the statement "the police are for protection"
Police are there to enforce the law. period, end of statement. They have no other purpose.
There are very very very very very few cases where police provide any actual protection. For the most part they are revenue generators, tax collectors. They also provide needed protection and security for the government apparatus of power. they ensure the citizens do as their masters in goverment demand.
this idea that police are simply citizens here to protect other citizens is a myth and we can not have real police reform until people wake up to reality and stop living in that myth
And if you get into enough disputes with your neighbors that you feel you need to know what things they've purchased perhaps you should focus more on conflict resolution and less on their shopping habits. Because your definition of "unusual" may be very different from theirs, and whether or not I purchased a handgun, or a rifle, or a shotgun, or a Bowie knife, or a pallet of rifle ammunition is not my neighbor's business.
People outspoken in favor of gun ownership have been routinely swatted by those who disagree with them. Nothing is gained by giving those mentally ill people more information with which to put innocent lives in danger.