kmcguffee

On the point that the ballistic fingerprint of a gun changes as quick as you claim it does. When I talked to him about it he quoted numbers in the 30,000 round range to change the fingerprint. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

That is kind of broad. We have had confiscations in the US before there was registrations of firearms. You go first on the examples. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

I know a few police officers from there. I have not worked in an FEU but I have a friend who has 30 years in a federal FEU who will disagree with you. I am a police officer. I have a little experience in the matter. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

It doesn't have to still be accurate to be identified. My service pistol has over 4,000 rounds through it and can still be identified from rounds that were fired through it when it was new. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

The Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occasion that the rights in the constitution are not absolute. It goes back to the old "yelling fire in the movie theater" analogy. Right to ownership is not being taken away by registering or ballistic fingerprinting. That is quite a leap you are taking. It will take drastically more than that to make it unidentifiable with the original weapon. The fact that it might not work everytime does not make it an invalid technique. An example where one murderer fired a lot of rounds is interesting but most murderers and criminals do not. In my experience they are not the types that go out and practice marksmanship regularly. You are right about the cost though. It would be immense. The BATF is not the only agency that has FEUs and does ballistic fingerprinting. It is a lot less effective for a state to have fingerprinting than an entire country. It is too easy to transport weapons across state borders thus bringing in an unfingerprinted weapon. It is a little harder (not impossible though) to smuggle weapons into the US. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

Just because there are ways to defeat the technique does not make it invalid. You can defeat fingerprinting but we still use it. You can defeat DNA but we still use it. Even if it was purchased illegally the police will still have a lead. It will still point to the original owner and they can interview him/her to get leads. It if was stolen then they can start looking at suspects in the crime where it was stolen. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

The biggest difference is that taking a baby's DNA is an invasion of an individual's body where we are given a reasonable expectation of privacy by the Supreme Court. A gun has no reasonable expectation of privacy as to its identity just like your car. Everyone has to register their car. What is the difference? If this will save people's lives why shouldn't we do it. If in the sniper case we could have ID'ed the owner of the gun that killed the first victim it could have possibly saved the lives of nine people. Isn't that worth a little inconvenience on the part of "law abiding citizens". "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

Hell no, I wouldn't. I would also prefer that it be unalterable too. Current ballistic fingerprinting can be altered (by changing barrels, scarring the inside of the barrel) or change over time (although it requires a tremendous amount of firing to change it). The alterability isn't a reason to not do it though. Fingerprinting can be altered and change over time but we still use it. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

I carry a Glock 22 concealed for my job. It actually is kind of a pain especially when I'm wearing shorts and a t-shirt. I own a 12 gauge shotgun and a 7mm Remington Magnum for hunting. I'm not a gun nut but I need them for my job and hunting. While in the military I qualified on just about every military weapon available. That kind of dulled my enthusiasm for casual sport shooting. As for the ballistic fingerprinting, I believe that it would be slightly useful. The biggest problem is the expense and the fact that it would take 30-40 years to really see any results due to the number of weapons on the street that would not get fingerprinted. Criminals would also quickly learn how to beat it but it would probably help to solve a few cases. It is not a silver bullet though. I also think we need tighter gun control in the US. I just haven't heard of a plan that is actually manageable. Every plan I have heard would just harass legal owners and the criminals would blow it off. I can't think of a good one either. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

Good post J. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

Yes, and so far we are trying to do that diplomatically with N Korea and Pakistan. Isn't that what you support? Iraq has shown a total unwillingness to deal with us diplomatically. We tried that before they invaded Kuwait and they ignored us. We tried that with the weapons inspections after the Gulf War and they have ignored us. We let them snub their nose at us and the UN for far too long. The US government says that it is possible to modify the Taepo dong 2 to carry a nuclear warhead but most non-government groups say that it cannot. I haven't tested it myself so I don't know for sure. Neither of those countries is spouting the rhetoric that Iraq is. The capability to use something does not equal the willingness to use it. N Korea is part of the axis of evil because of their support of terrorism not because we expect them to attack us. We are still diplomatically engaged with them. We are not with Iraq. Everything we do diplomatically has good and bad points. We always have to compromise to come to a solution. We just have to pick the option that gives us the most benefit for the least amount of pain. No one is just going to help us out of the goodness of their heart. Sometimes we have under estimated the amount of pain in the deals we make. We will do it again in the future. Diplomacy is not always the best option. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

I thought you supported going throught the UN for everything we do. We bomb Irag in response to their repeated attacks on our aircraft enforcing the UN no-fly zone. Should we stop enforcing the no-fly zone? Do we not have a right to self defense while enforcing this no-fly zone? When they fire at us are we supposed to shut everything down and start talking to them again? I don't get your point. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

You did the right thing. Need us to take up a collection and help you out? "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

Thanks Chris. I know I won't convince anybody of anything. I just like debating on this subject. It is a good way to pass my non-skydiving time and keep me up on the current world situation. I'm still too inexperienced in skydiving to get involved in those debates. I'm still listening and learning. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

I don't guess this guy has seen the recent satellite photos showing new buildings in the places where we destroyed their old chemical and nuclear research facilities. Those are probably just baby food factories. I love this! That is an interesting way of describing the situation when Butler left. Butler was completely frustrated with Iraq's lack of cooperation when he left. I guess it depends on your definition of "small discrepancies". I think Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would disagree with this. The Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti governments would shit bricks if we tried to pull out our Patriot Missile Batteries. LOL, kind of like their invasion of Kuwait was a last resort and their constant badgering of our planes patroling the UN mandated No-fly zone is a last resort. Aaaaaaaah..............lovers of peace to the end. [sniffle]brings a tear to my eye[/sniffle] Thanks for the laugh. I needed that. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

Let me correct it for him. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

It is a word with a negative connotation that gays use to label people who disagree with homosexuality. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

Nasty Zoomy! "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

North Korea does not have ICBMs. They have an ICBM development program which was suspended in 1998 due to the US's promise to help them build two nuclear reactors and some other committments. I believe the suspension is scheduled to end in 2003. It might have already been raised. Up until now North Korea has never flown a missile over 1,000 miles. The NoDong2 was the longest at 800 miles. The Taepo Dong 2 (3700 mile range) cannot carry a nuclear warhead and cannot be modified to do so(there are conflicting reports on the modification potential though). It also has never been tested. The US is approximately 5500 miles from North Korea. Most analysts don't believe North Korea will develop a nuclear ICBM that can reach the US mainland before 2010. I really don't see how you can support this argument. They may have the potential to be a greater threat, but they are not currently a greater threat. When was the last time that a North Korean or Pakistan government back group attacked American interests? I can't remember one in the last 10 years. Iraq was linked to an attempted assassination attempt on Bush Sr. back in 1993. Clinton did nothing in response. They are firing and lighting up our planes patrolling the no-fly zones on a weekly basis. These no-fly zones are UN mandated not US. They are a current threat. We've known about their nuclear weapons program for a good while. I was briefed on it while I was in the Army back in the mid 90s. Maybe the Pakistan link is new but not the NWP. Clinton negotiated for it to be shut down but I think everyone has always taken that with a grain of salt. I think we are probably a country whose alliances are in our best interest at the time. That is an interesting line of thought. I don't think we deal with Russia and China differently just because they have nuclear weapons. They are not violating UN resolutions on a daily basis. They are not firing at our planes while those planes are trying to enforce those sanctions. There is more to it than just nuclear weapons. The bottom line is that Saddam is only scared of a complete invasion by the US. Will we actually have to do that? I hope not and I really don't think so, but the threat of it is the only thing that has made him budge an inch. Exactly. That is what we have got to do. The problem is that we have set a precedent in the past that we are a paper tiger, weak willed, and not willing to fight a sustained war. Until we shake that view we are negotiating from a position of relative weakness. Other countries are willing to do it. Vietnam was willing to do it. We've have got to get tougher mentally. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

Great advice! It's nerve racking to go to someone's door thinking they might come out shooting. Definitely don't be reaching for a pen while they're screaming "let me see your hands!" "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

The sources I read mentioned helicopters and electronics equipment to patrol the border. The sources were from the US government not Human Rights Watch. No not a foreign country but he used them against the Kurds. The Northern no-fly zone is what is preventing further chemical attacks against the Kurds. That is a good question. It is one that the weapons inspectors are supposed to answer. Satellite imagery seems to indicate that he is well on his way to developing them. If Hussein will comply completely with the plan set up after the Gulf War we can find out, but he never has. That is being done and they can't agree on anything. Are you suggesting that we send in a group of men to be attacked by Iraq so that we can justify a war? Are you volunteering for this mission? Do we have to let him attack us in order to be justified? If we needlessly throw away a few lives away in order to prove that Hussein is aggressive, not willing to cooperate, and a psychopath (things we already know) will that make everyone feel better about going to war with them? Maybe the French will volunteer for this mission and we can kill two birds with one stone. It absolutely does not allow us to "kidnap" anyone. We can detain people while the inspection is occuring. If you'll remember how the inspectors were harrassed and interfered with during the last inspections you will understand why this is in the proposal. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

The party ran on the need to expel foreign forces from Pakistani soil which is a basic tenent of the Wahabi Sunni religion. This not necessarily anti-American. It is against Musharraf's policy of allowing foreign troops into Pakistan. The province you talk about being pro-Taliban was pro-Taliban before 9/11 and contributed to the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan in the early 90's. It is really no great surprise. Iraq still has the 6th or 7th largest military in the world. They are not by anyone's definition 'defenseless'. Pakistan has no ICBM's. They are considered a regional threat, not a global power. I think you are mixing this up with a recent sale of Harpoon missiles to Oman not Pakistan. We have sold Pakistan equipment to help them better patrol their border with Afghanistan like Apaches and electronics equipment. Aaaah, yes, let's talk to Iraq about our problems some more. It's gotten us so very far in the last decade hasn't it. And the UN has been really helpful too. With Russia, China, and France economically tied to Iraq and Iraq owing them huge sums of money I'm sure they will support all of our initiatives just like they have in the past. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

Innocent Americans have already died here. That will continue even if we don't do anything. That is an interesting point of view and set of priorities. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

I'm in law enforcement but not a lawyer. This is how the Federal Laws read (I'm not familiar with the local/state laws). You must have a warrant to search any area considered to have a "reasonable expectation of privacy". There are different levels to the privacy and there are exceptions. One of the exceptions is the "vehicle exception". With a vehicle the officer only has to have "probable cause" to conduct a search. The reasoning of the court is that since a vehicle is mobile it would not make sense to have the officer get a warrant after "probable cause" is established. If you give the officer consent they can also search the car, or whatever else you consent to, but your lack of consent does not give them "probable cause" to search. If the officers do not have a warrant then the prosecution must prove that the "exception" was valid if they find something and the case goes to court (the probable cause must exist before the search began). If the officers get a warrant then the defense must prove that the warrant is illegal in some way. If you don't want them to search and you don't have something illegal in plain view then just so "no". If you don't have anything to hide it would probably be better to let them search. The vast majority of police officers are good guys and just trying to do their job (contrary to some earlier poster's opinion). It doesn't cost you much to assist them. BTW, they do keep records of vehicles searched. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

The golden rule. You only have to receive one shot to know why. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin