A Gun -control exchange from Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate:

[chieftain]

How can you tell when a Dimocrat is trying to reduce your use of or completely take you guns from you

Of course, their mouth is moving.

Go figure.

Fred

The Wall Street Journal:

Notable &Quotable
January 17, 2008

A Gun -control exchange from Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate:

MODERATOR TIM RUSSERT: Sen. Clinton, when you ran for the Senate in 2000, you said that everyone who wishes to purchase a gun should have a license, and that every handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry. Will you try to implement such a plan?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I am against illegal guns, and illegal guns are the cause of so much death and injury in our country. I also am a political realist and I understand that the political winds are very powerful against doing enough to try to get guns off the street, get them out of the hands of young people.

The law in New York was as you state, and the law in New York has worked to a great extent. I don't want the federal government pre-empting states and cities like New York that have very specific problems.

So here's what I would do. We need to have a registry that really works with good information about people who are felons, people who have been committed to mental institutions like the man in Virginia Tech who caused so much death and havoc. We need to make sure that that information is in a timely manner, both collected and presented.
We do need to crack down on illegal gun dealers. This is something that I would like to see more of. And we need to enforce the laws that we have on the books. I would also work to reinstate the assault-weapons ban. We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again. We stopped it for awhile. Now they're back on the streets.

So there are steps we need to take that we should do together. You know, I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this.

RUSSERT: But you've backed off a national licensing registration plan?
CLINTON: Yes.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120053364436796229.html

 

[BobbyQuickdraw]

Having a registry of every gun owned in America (and/or the ballistic fingerprint data) is said to be so massive that even modern computers couldn't handle the search parameters. It's millions of entries, with each entry having dozens of variables.

Even if it worked, they say it would be so slow you're better off not even using it.

 

[precisionshootist]

Having a registry of every gun owned in America (and/or the ballistic fingerprint data) is said to be so massive that even modern computers couldn't handle the search parameters. It's millions of entries, with each entry having dozens of variables.

Even if it worked, they say it would be so slow you're better off not even using it.

I don't think computing power (data storage) would be a problem at all as far as a registry. Today we have PC's (Terabyte hard drives) that could handle the registry part, as far as ballistic data on every gun well that would take something larger for sure but easily done these days.

 

[novaDAK]

Doesn't the '68 GCA or '86 FOPA prohibit the federal government from having a national gun registry? I know one of those two says something about it.

And I find it rediculous that Hillary thinks that criminals magically didn't have "assault weapons" for the 10 years during the ban, and then when it finally expired, magically got "assault weapons" again.

The ban didn't work. The USDOJ even did a study that supported this fact.

 

[LeonCarr]

The motto at our house is Anyone but Hillary

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[dmftoy1]

Quote:
Having a registry of every gun owned in America (and/or the ballistic fingerprint data) is said to be so massive that even modern computers couldn't handle the search parameters. It's millions of entries, with each entry having dozens of variables.

Even if it worked, they say it would be so slow you're better off not even using it.


I don't think computing power (data storage) would be a problem at all as far as a registry. Today we have PC's (Terabyte hard drives) that could handle the registry part, as far as ballistic data on every gun well that would take something larger for sure but easily done these days.

Yup, trust me, I do this every day . . .that wouldn't even be close to a complex database to implement. The data entry would be a nightmare, but the size/volume is nothing.

Just to give you something to compare against . . every night the various telephone companies process call records for EVERY phone call placed through their system every day to assess things like whether they need to charge another provider, etc. We recently proved that one of these systems could actually run on a high end PC. The throughput of that system would be dwarfing any gun registry.

Just my .02

Regards,
Dave

 

[Claude Clay]

+1 dmftoy1

i have 3 cell phones with verizon and can go on line 24/7/60 and reference any day /time call was made or received or texted or....even if call was within a few minutes . and thats wireless. registration, very doable teckno wise.

 

[Drail]

We stopped those evil illegal guns for awhile and now THEY'RE BACK. Is common-sensical a word?

 

[Standing Wolf]

The fundamental issue has nothing to do with technology, everything to do with the leftist extremists' clearly stated goal of disarming the commoners.

The statement:

You know, I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this.

is nothing but the most recent reincarnation of that Kerry creature's photo opportunity to pose in hunting garb during the 2004 election. Like all leftist extremists, Mrs. Snopes Clinton will say or do anything to acquire power.

I've to confess, I haven't seen a so-called "lesser of two evils" to date other than Ron Paul.

 

[EOTechRulesAll]

The Canadian firearms registry cost about $2 billion dollars as of 2004/2005, just from 2002 onwards...

They have perhaps 8 million firearms and 32 million people in Canada.

In the USA we have anywhere from 200 to 400 million firearms, and anywhere from 320 to 380 million people (the census bureau really has no idea, and nobody will admit the true number of illegals, lest they cause a huge alarm, rather than just some small resentment over a "few million" which they see as tolerable).



It would cost hundreds of billions of dollars in the USA to get a system into place, assure it was accurate, and to maintain and update it...

 

[EOTechRulesAll]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_gun_registry#Use_of_the_registry

 

[geojap]

Just for the record, I obviously am completely against more gun control of any form in the USA. I am furthermore very concerned what may happen if a Democrat is elected president.

However, in response to some who stated that building the database would not be possible with current technology (databases and associated software), that isn't true. You're talking about several hundred million records, with several relational tables. Almost any serious database could handle this job, it would just have to be designed correctly, which isn't hard if you know what you are doing.

 

[Bitmap]

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I am against illegal guns . .
INTERVIEWER: Define "illegal guns".
HILLARY CLINTON: Any gun except the ones carried by my bodyguards.

 

[ceetee]

Let's just see, now...

Well, I am against illegal guns,

Great. Me, too.

I also am a political realist and I understand that the political winds are very powerful against doing enough to try to get guns off the street

Yes, we like our guns, and want to keep them. Thanks.

I don't want the federal government pre-empting states and cities like New York that have very specific problems.

That works for me. I don't want you in my business, either.

We need to have a registry that really works with good information about people who are felons, people who have been committed to mental institutions

Okay, here we're getting a bit tricky. IF it was possible to have such a "people registry", with a list of felons (et al) in it, and IF such a list coul dbe 100% accurate, and IF we had in place a system to redress any inaccuracies in it, and IF such a list could be constantly updated such that people could fall off the list when they no longer meet the proper criteria, than I MAY be tempted to actually agree with having one. That's a whole lotta IF's, though.

We do need to crack down on illegal gun dealers.

I agree.

And we need to enforce the laws that we have on the books.

Wow - we agree on a lotta stuff, here!

I would also work to reinstate the assault-weapons ban. We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again. We stopped it for awhile. Now they're back on the streets.

And..... she lost me. She obviously has no idea of what the actual AWB did, she has no idea of what kinds of crime we and our brethren in the law enforcement community face, and she has no idea of how to fight that crime.

I'll pass.

This is the first election that I can remember where I can honestly say that there is NO candidate I feel strongly enough to vote for above a write-in for Mickey Mouse.

 

[Dravur]

our motto is...

Anyone but a Dem.

Id vote for a ham sandwich over the Hildabeast

 

[Halffast]

Monica Lewinski's ex-boyfriend's wife for President!

 

[RKBABob]

This is the first election that I can remember where I can honestly say that there is NO candidate I feel strongly enough to vote for above a write-in for Mickey Mouse.

Whoa! That's a really cool idea. I might actually do that, depending on which Republi-Crat twins get the nomination.... eh, maybe I'll vote for the lesser of two evils to keep Billary out.

 

[Thylacine]

Dravur that is not fair!



I like ham sandwiches.

She should be forced to prove her statements about assault weapons.

Anyone but a DEM, will be how I vote yet again. Sigh.

 

[Old Fuff]

First we make this massive database with all the names of every prohibited person in the United States, and keep it up to date on a daily basis.

Then we require that ALL firearms transfers (private sales, gifts, everything) be subject to a background check using our super database.

And as a result those prohibited persons won't be able to get guns - except of course the illegal ones, which is exactly what criminals do. They supply themselves through their own black market. But don't bring that up.

Illegal dealer = anyone who sells a firearm who isn't a FFL. We need to have a paper trail on EVERY gun in the country before we can do what we really want too do.

Making it so the government has a record of every gun in the country is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the 2nd. amendment.

New York, and in particular - New York City - are perfect examples of places that have ideal gun control laws, and they really, really work...

As the man said, any time a Democrat candidate opens their mouth... :banghead:

 

[GunTech]

For those of you who think it's only the dems that want to restrict or eliminate you gun rights, keep in mind that the Whitehouse is basically supporting DC against Heller. And ever Republican candidate but two have basically supported some form of gun restriction.

 

[grimjaw]

BobbyQuickdraw, the others are right. I used to work with the database that kept images of the paper records on every US military retiree in the USA, plus their annuitants. SEVERAL variables for each person, linked to another database that actually dealt with doling out pay. The contractor i worked for wrote it, using mostly off the shelf products and no hardware out of the ordinary. Plenty of computers out there faster now (my laptop has as much RAM as a couple of those servers). We were contractually required to keep response times under 1.5 seconds for the production environment.

What she supports and what she would SIGN if it came across her desk, could be two entirely different things.

jm

 

[GBExpat]

I would also work to reinstate the assault-weapons ban. We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again. We stopped it for awhile. Now they're back on the streets.

I sure hope someone(s) with media visibility is loudly calling BS on such ridiculous statements.

 

[MD_Willington]

Canada has MORE than 8 million firearms... maybe 8 million registered...

On average, from the people I know, they own 3 or more EACH.. most own 5+

I owned 3 non registered firearms in Canada...

Plenty more are NOT registered...

 

[Old Fuff]

Gun Tech:

While the Republican candidates may not be poster boys for gun rights, they are far more moderate then the three leading Democrats. It is probably safe to say that the winner in November’s election will be a candidate from one of the two major parties. We will be far better off if that person is a Republican rather then a Democrat – unless there is a substantial change in the picture from what it is now.

 

[Master Blaster]

We need a system to check for a crimminal record?
Where the he77 has this lying moron been for the last 10 years?

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsfact.htm#top

Yes if we only made it illegal for crimminals to use guns to commit crimes there wouldnt be any crime. Just like the drug prohibition has prevented folks from using illegal drugs since 1919.

How anyone can vote for a person who would say such incredibly stupid false things is beyond me.