billvon 3,111 #51 July 19, 2007 >Registrations can and HAVE been used to take guns from law abiding owners . . . Registrations can and have been used to take cars from law abiding car owners. I'm not saying registration is good or bad. It's both; there are arguments on both sides. But there is no right to not have guns registered. That's an issue that should be decided by each community on their own. I'd personally vote against it - but if DC votes for it, it's their decision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #52 July 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteFeel free to answer the question, professor. Why do things need to change? Why should the Taihrt amendment not be renewed? What is better about not having it in place? For the same reason that every pilot's name and every airplane owners's name is posted on the FAA web site. So you don't believe that private pilot's names should be public. But since they are anyway, then you believe that gun owners should also have to suffer the same invasion of privacy? Gosh, I think you would do better to take the high moral ground on the issue, and just state that you don't believe either should be a matter for public record. Being vindictive against another group, which is not responsible for making pilot info public record, is just silly. As is dragging everyone down, instead of trying to lift a few up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #53 July 19, 2007 Quote>what gain is there in this opening of information? There is certainly potential gain in knowing whether a given person has a gun if the police are about to arrest him for murder - they will know that they must be extremely cautious. That's a silly argument. Even if the records show the murderer doesn't own a gun, the police are still going to be super-cautious anyway, because, well, he's a murderer! Gun records or not, they won't slack off on their capture procedures - they'll continue to approach all murderers as if they may be armed and dangerous. So that certainly is not a valid reason for promoting gun registration. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 892 #54 July 19, 2007 isn't the real problem here the multitude of legal databases? and who might have access to them or sell/rent access or content? I'm personally in a number of them: concealed weapons permit, NCIC and FBI from military service, NSA for security certifications and computer access, NRA, driver license, a multitude of local and state government records, passport, AKC, USPA, FAA, TSA, secret service security clearance, hell I have even bought spray paint and model glue. I don't object to being in those databases however I would object highly to access to said databases expanding to less scrupulous entities - or sharing them with other cross referenced databases. various government groups have really changed their perspectives since 9/11 and THAT makes me overly cautious of datum on all US citizens. I pay cash for all items that someone would consider suspicious...as would a lot of people when they look at our lives under a microscope. remember the post office program to notify the FBI when they see suspicious deliveries? are YOUR subscriptions out of place to someone with an agenda? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #55 July 19, 2007 If it comes to pass my guns will be reported stolen and buried in a hole somewhere. Millions will likely do the same. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #56 July 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteFeel free to answer the question, professor. Why do things need to change? Why should the Taihrt amendment not be renewed? What is better about not having it in place? For the same reason that every pilot's name and every airplane owners's name is posted on the FAA web site. So you don't believe that private pilot's names should be public. Not only are you misquoting me to try to make a point, it was actually YOU that suggested there was no need to make them public. Pretty shabby form there, John, to write something and then try to attribute it to someone else. Quote But since they are anyway, then you believe that gun owners should also have to suffer the same invasion of privacy? A rather large and unjustified leap there, JR. Quote Gosh, I think you would do better to take the high moral ground on the issue, and just state that you don't believe either should be a matter for public record. Being vindictive against another group, which is not responsible for making pilot info public record, is just silly. As is dragging everyone down, instead of trying to lift a few up. There are legitimate reasons on each side of the debate, for both pilots and guns. The community needs to determine the merits of the two sides and make the decision. Pretending that it's all a plot to victimize gun owners is pure BS. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #57 July 19, 2007 QuoteBTW car ownership records are not secret, cars must be registered and drivers licensed. Not everywhere. In Texas, for example, if you want to look up car registration info, you have to attest to one of several valid reasons for doing so, and then your name goes in a log. So if the person you're looking up wants to find out who accessed their records, they can trace it back to you. That's not exactly completely "open", in the sense that anyone can look at it, without the subjects knowing it, or who they are. California, I believe, has also made this info private, because of stalking of celebrities. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #58 July 19, 2007 QuoteCan you tell me where the right to keep gun ownership secret has ever been established by any court as an inalienable right that does not need to be explicitly stated? Are you saying now that there exists an absolute right to privacy, or just a right to privacy for the things that you support. Government records should, by default, be kept private, unless there is some compelling reason to the contrary. Just because there isn't something that explicitly states it in the Constititution, doesn't mean that everything about you should be open to everyone else. Compelling reasons to make data public, would be for things like criminal records. But for law-abiding people, their information should be private. For entertaining news stories about this issue, do a Google News search on "CHL Sandusky", for info about a newspaper in Sandusky, Ohio, that decided to publish a list of state concealed handgun licensees in their area, and the huge backlash and response that resulted from it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #59 July 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteCan you tell me where the right to keep gun ownership secret has ever been established by any court as an inalienable right that does not need to be explicitly stated? Are you saying now that there exists an absolute right to privacy, or just a right to privacy for the things that you support. Government records should, by default, be kept private, unless there is some compelling reason to the contrary. Just because there isn't something that explicitly states it in the Constititution, doesn't mean that everything about you should be open to everyone else. Compelling reasons to make data public, would be for things like criminal records. But for law-abiding people, their information should be private. . And making the determination of what is a compelling reason is up to local, state and federal governments. Seems like they are doing what they are supposed to.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 892 #60 July 19, 2007 insert stick stir briskly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #61 July 19, 2007 QuoteThat's the funny thing. Cops have no trouble whatsoever getting the information they need. It's not like the ATF stonewalls them and says "No, we're not telling who owned that one." Groups that represent officers (as opposed to gropus for chiefs) support the Tiahrt amendment completely. The only people that have a problem with it are the people with an agenda (banning guns or getting elected). I find it so amusing that the best argument they can come up with is that local police don't have access to gun trace records. It's completely ridiuclous. They have access anytime- Through the BATFE. In support of your points made here. http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ks04_tiahrt/2007/MAIGResponse.html"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #62 July 19, 2007 >Even if the records show the murderer doesn't own a gun, the police >are still going to be super-cautious anyway . . . . . . like I said. There are reasons for and reasons against. Your reasons against are good ones. Other people have good reasons for. >So that certainly is not a valid reason for promoting gun registration. I'm not. But people in Missoula may feel differently - and may not care what you or I think, because we don't live there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #63 July 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteSo you don't believe that private pilot's names should be public. Not only are you misquoting me to try to make a point, it was actually YOU that suggested there was no need to make them public. Since you wouldn't answer a straight question, we have to assume what you believe. That's the price you pay for being cantankerous and evasive. I got that belief about your views from this statement you made: "Why does the public need to know who owns an airplane and when they had their last medical?"That certainly made it sound like you were against such release. But since you now state that my assumption was incorrect, I'll now have to assume that you are in favor of pilot's names and flight medicals being made public. If you don't like that assumption, just go back and answer the straight question and tell us flat out. QuoteNot only are you misquoting me to try to make a point, it was actually YOU that suggested there was no need to make them public. Pretty shabby form there, John, to write something and then try to attribute it to someone else. Oh my, look at the pot calling the kettle black. Here is what transpired:You: "Why does the public need to know who owns an airplane and when they had their last medical? Me: "They don't, for general aviation. For commercial aircraft and pilots, I think the public has a right to know who is taking care of their safety while they're flying."So you see, I didn't say that there was no need to make them public - I made a distinction between private pilots and commercial pilots. You are the one doing the misquoting and misrepresenting, by lumping everything together and claiming that I was against public release. QuoteQuoteBut since they are anyway, then you believe that gun owners should also have to suffer the same invasion of privacy? A rather large and unjustified leap there, JR. It wasn't a leap, it was a question. You're being evasive again. If that's not what you believe, then state otherwise and clear the air. You know, the main reason that you cause so much discord in discussions is simply because you choose to be evasive and play games, rather than to just be straight-forward and honest with your views and expressions. You really ought to try that sometime. QuoteThere are legitimate reasons on each side of the debate, for both pilots and guns. The community needs to determine the merits of the two sides and make the decision. Pretending that it's all a plot to victimize gun owners is pure BS. Opening these gun records is in fact opening the door to plots by anti-gun forces to victimize gun owners, gun stores and gun makers. They did it before, prior to making this data private. Bloomberg has an entire large coalition just champing at the bit to do it again. Those are established facts, not paranoia. Now, why don't you just tell us where you stand on this, straight forward and honest: 1) Do you approve of pilot's names being made public? Yes or No. 2) Do you approve of gun owners being made public? Yes or No. No evasiveness. Straight answers. Your personal opinions. Come clean. Clear the air. Eliminate the discord and cantankerousness. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #64 July 19, 2007 It doesn't actually bother me at all for airplane ownership records to be public. Please take a good look. I have no paranoid fear that the City of Flossmoor, the State of Illinois or the US of A will try to consfiscate my plane. If there is anything that bugs me about this it is that it was an adminstrative decision by the FAA rather than a legislative action that put aircraft records on the web. John, you make too many assumptions and then act on them as if they are truth.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #65 July 19, 2007 Quote It doesn't actually bother me at all for airplane ownership records to be public. Please take a good look. I have no paranoid fear that the City of Flossmoor, the State of Illinois or the US of A will try to consfiscate my plane. If there is anything that bugs me about this it is that it was an adminstrative decision by the FAA rather than a legislative action that put aircraft records on the web.Quote Interesting point. As I did some research on the points in this thread it appears to me that DOJ under Reno re-wrote the rules and the time frame from 24 hours to 90 days. I know the trace data is the first sale info to the dealer. Is all the discussion in this thread about just that info, the NICS records, or a combo of all the above?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #66 July 19, 2007 QuoteIt doesn't actually bother me at all for airplane ownership records to be public. I have no paranoid fear that the City of Flossmoor, the State of Illinois or the US of A will try to consfiscate my plane. What if there were several national organizations and dozens of powerful politicians actively working to end private aircraft ownership? Would that change your mind? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites normiss 892 #67 July 19, 2007 think downtown Chicago...."in the interest of safety of our city" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #68 July 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteIt doesn't actually bother me at all for airplane ownership records to be public. I have no paranoid fear that the City of Flossmoor, the State of Illinois or the US of A will try to consfiscate my plane. What if there were several national organizations and dozens of powerful politicians actively working to end private aircraft ownership? Would that change your mind? You mean, like the ATA and the pols they have in their pockets, and, of course the Feds Against Aviation)... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #69 July 19, 2007 QuoteIf it comes to pass my guns will be reported stolen and buried in a hole somewhere. Millions will likely do the same. It's a boating accident, get it straight wll ya? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #70 July 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhat if there were several national organizations and dozens of powerful politicians actively working to end private aircraft ownership? Would that change your mind? You mean, like the ATA and the pols they have in their pockets, and, of course the Feds Against Aviation) Show me where they're trying to ban private aviation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #71 July 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat if there were several national organizations and dozens of powerful politicians actively working to end private aircraft ownership? Would that change your mind? You mean, like the ATA and the pols they have in their pockets, and, of course the Feds Against Aviation) Show me where they're trying to ban private aviation. Apparently you don't keep up with the aviation news. If they ATA and FAA have their way GA will be priced out of the sky. Mayor Daley is trying to ban GA in his city. Disney has managed to ban GA over its park. GA is banned over huge areas of the western and southern USA.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #72 July 19, 2007 QuoteIt doesn't actually bother me at all for airplane ownership records to be public. Please take a good look. I have no paranoid fear that the City of Flossmoor, the State of Illinois or the US of A will try to consfiscate my plane. Ah, but that is just the tip of the iceberg, you see. From your name and address, which you willingly provided, above, and through public records, I have been able to quickly and easily find out the following information about yourself. You are 62 years old. You have previously lived in the other Illinois cities of Glenwood, Richton Park, Chicago and Homewood. Your relatives are Alexander, Matthew, Peter, Alex and James. You previously had a mortgage, taken out in 1988 from First Savings & Loan, on a two-story home at 402 N. Arizona, Glenwood. It was 1700 sq. ft., 39 years old, valued at $113,000. There was a quit claim deed against it in 2001, for Gail Kallend. Apparently you turned this house over to your former wife in a divorce? The home you live in now is a one-story residence, 2400 sq. ft., 55 years old, 1.5 car garage, appraised at $172,000. Photo attached. Annual property taxes are $4220. The house is owned by Susan Sitton, with whom you apparently now live? So, do you really want anybody in the public to be able to find out that much personal information about yourself, just because the FAA splashes your aircraft owner info online? P.S. Nice house! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #73 July 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteShow me where they're trying to ban private aviation. Apparently you don't keep up with the aviation news. If they ATA and FAA have their way GA will be priced out of the sky. Mayor Daley is trying to ban GA in his city. Disney has managed to ban GA over its park. GA is banned over huge areas of the western and southern USA. Ah, I was hoping you would go there. Because now you have opened up the door for gun/plane comparisons. There are types of places where you can't take a gun, but that doesn't mean that they are banned. These are deemed "reasonable restrictions", in the name of crime fighting. So likewise, just because there are a few places where you can't fly your airplane, that doesn't mean that people are trying to ban private aviation. Those are just deemed "reasonable restrictions". It may be for anti-terrorism reasons, military training areas or national park noise restrictions. Whatever the justification, our elected representattives have deemed them prudent. And as you are fond of saying, since you voted them into office, you are responsible for these restrictions. If those aviation restrictions chaff you so much, I'll expect more sympathy from you in the future when I complain about gun restrictions. Okay? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #74 July 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteIt doesn't actually bother me at all for airplane ownership records to be public. Please take a good look. I have no paranoid fear that the City of Flossmoor, the State of Illinois or the US of A will try to consfiscate my plane. Ah, but that is just the tip of the iceberg, you see. From your name and address, which you willingly provided, above, and through public records, I have been able to quickly and easily find out the following information about yourself. You are 62 years old. You have previously lived in the other Illinois cities of Glenwood, Richton Park, Chicago and Homewood. Your relatives are Alexander, Matthew, Peter, Alex and James. You previously had a mortgage, taken out in 1988 from First Savings & Loan, on a two-story home at 402 N. Arizona, Glenwood. It was 1700 sq. ft., 39 years old, valued at $113,000. There was a quit claim deed against it in 2001, for Gail Kallend. Apparently you turned this house over to your former wife in a divorce? The home you live in now is a one-story residence, 2400 sq. ft., 55 years old, 1.5 car garage, appraised at $172,000. Photo attached. Annual property taxes are $4220. The house is owned by Susan Sitton, with whom you apparently now live? So, do you really want anybody in the public to be able to find out that much personal information about yourself, just because the FAA splashes your aircraft owner info online? P.S. Nice house! It is. There are four errors in your homework, but you get an "A-". Nothing there that can't be discovered easily by anyone who has a phone book, and I'm still not concerned about having my plane confiscated.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #75 July 20, 2007 ......I'm still not concerned about having my plane confiscated. Probably not. Because there is no emotional frothing at the mouth lobby trying to do that............................................................................................................yet."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 3 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
JohnRich 4 #66 July 19, 2007 QuoteIt doesn't actually bother me at all for airplane ownership records to be public. I have no paranoid fear that the City of Flossmoor, the State of Illinois or the US of A will try to consfiscate my plane. What if there were several national organizations and dozens of powerful politicians actively working to end private aircraft ownership? Would that change your mind? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 892 #67 July 19, 2007 think downtown Chicago...."in the interest of safety of our city" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #68 July 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteIt doesn't actually bother me at all for airplane ownership records to be public. I have no paranoid fear that the City of Flossmoor, the State of Illinois or the US of A will try to consfiscate my plane. What if there were several national organizations and dozens of powerful politicians actively working to end private aircraft ownership? Would that change your mind? You mean, like the ATA and the pols they have in their pockets, and, of course the Feds Against Aviation)... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #69 July 19, 2007 QuoteIf it comes to pass my guns will be reported stolen and buried in a hole somewhere. Millions will likely do the same. It's a boating accident, get it straight wll ya? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #70 July 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhat if there were several national organizations and dozens of powerful politicians actively working to end private aircraft ownership? Would that change your mind? You mean, like the ATA and the pols they have in their pockets, and, of course the Feds Against Aviation) Show me where they're trying to ban private aviation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #71 July 19, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat if there were several national organizations and dozens of powerful politicians actively working to end private aircraft ownership? Would that change your mind? You mean, like the ATA and the pols they have in their pockets, and, of course the Feds Against Aviation) Show me where they're trying to ban private aviation. Apparently you don't keep up with the aviation news. If they ATA and FAA have their way GA will be priced out of the sky. Mayor Daley is trying to ban GA in his city. Disney has managed to ban GA over its park. GA is banned over huge areas of the western and southern USA.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #72 July 19, 2007 QuoteIt doesn't actually bother me at all for airplane ownership records to be public. Please take a good look. I have no paranoid fear that the City of Flossmoor, the State of Illinois or the US of A will try to consfiscate my plane. Ah, but that is just the tip of the iceberg, you see. From your name and address, which you willingly provided, above, and through public records, I have been able to quickly and easily find out the following information about yourself. You are 62 years old. You have previously lived in the other Illinois cities of Glenwood, Richton Park, Chicago and Homewood. Your relatives are Alexander, Matthew, Peter, Alex and James. You previously had a mortgage, taken out in 1988 from First Savings & Loan, on a two-story home at 402 N. Arizona, Glenwood. It was 1700 sq. ft., 39 years old, valued at $113,000. There was a quit claim deed against it in 2001, for Gail Kallend. Apparently you turned this house over to your former wife in a divorce? The home you live in now is a one-story residence, 2400 sq. ft., 55 years old, 1.5 car garage, appraised at $172,000. Photo attached. Annual property taxes are $4220. The house is owned by Susan Sitton, with whom you apparently now live? So, do you really want anybody in the public to be able to find out that much personal information about yourself, just because the FAA splashes your aircraft owner info online? P.S. Nice house! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #73 July 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteShow me where they're trying to ban private aviation. Apparently you don't keep up with the aviation news. If they ATA and FAA have their way GA will be priced out of the sky. Mayor Daley is trying to ban GA in his city. Disney has managed to ban GA over its park. GA is banned over huge areas of the western and southern USA. Ah, I was hoping you would go there. Because now you have opened up the door for gun/plane comparisons. There are types of places where you can't take a gun, but that doesn't mean that they are banned. These are deemed "reasonable restrictions", in the name of crime fighting. So likewise, just because there are a few places where you can't fly your airplane, that doesn't mean that people are trying to ban private aviation. Those are just deemed "reasonable restrictions". It may be for anti-terrorism reasons, military training areas or national park noise restrictions. Whatever the justification, our elected representattives have deemed them prudent. And as you are fond of saying, since you voted them into office, you are responsible for these restrictions. If those aviation restrictions chaff you so much, I'll expect more sympathy from you in the future when I complain about gun restrictions. Okay? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #74 July 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteIt doesn't actually bother me at all for airplane ownership records to be public. Please take a good look. I have no paranoid fear that the City of Flossmoor, the State of Illinois or the US of A will try to consfiscate my plane. Ah, but that is just the tip of the iceberg, you see. From your name and address, which you willingly provided, above, and through public records, I have been able to quickly and easily find out the following information about yourself. You are 62 years old. You have previously lived in the other Illinois cities of Glenwood, Richton Park, Chicago and Homewood. Your relatives are Alexander, Matthew, Peter, Alex and James. You previously had a mortgage, taken out in 1988 from First Savings & Loan, on a two-story home at 402 N. Arizona, Glenwood. It was 1700 sq. ft., 39 years old, valued at $113,000. There was a quit claim deed against it in 2001, for Gail Kallend. Apparently you turned this house over to your former wife in a divorce? The home you live in now is a one-story residence, 2400 sq. ft., 55 years old, 1.5 car garage, appraised at $172,000. Photo attached. Annual property taxes are $4220. The house is owned by Susan Sitton, with whom you apparently now live? So, do you really want anybody in the public to be able to find out that much personal information about yourself, just because the FAA splashes your aircraft owner info online? P.S. Nice house! It is. There are four errors in your homework, but you get an "A-". Nothing there that can't be discovered easily by anyone who has a phone book, and I'm still not concerned about having my plane confiscated.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #75 July 20, 2007 ......I'm still not concerned about having my plane confiscated. Probably not. Because there is no emotional frothing at the mouth lobby trying to do that............................................................................................................yet."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
