Another WIN for gun control...

[notquiteright]

FFS, the marketing data a retailer's POS keeps on file regarding customers and their purchasing history DOES NOT get transmitted to the credit card processing service. The credit card processor doesn't know that you purchased ham, cheese, bread and mustard at the grocery store. The store might know that if you put in your shopper's reward card but all the credit card company knows is that you spent $16.39 at the grocery store.

Doesn't get transmitted right now. Like I said the best thing you typed was you have no idea how it would work...

Just an FYI, my wife spent her career adjusting computer programs for DoD, insurance corporations, HR departments- which are quite a challenge due to all the catagories involved, and a whole slew of Big Box Retailers from Enterprize systems to online retail programs. Creating a program that searches the purchases for firearm sales once the visa card is pushed into the card reader isn't all that difficult. Fraud detection programs can be adapted to search purchases for firearm sales.

Computers are not hamstrung by your limited understanding of programing or computer capabilities...

 

[Lutherf]

Doesn't get transmitted right now. Like I said the best thing you typed was you have no idea how it would work...

Just an FYI, my wife spent her career adjusting computer programs for DoD, insurance corporations, HR departments- which are quite a challenge due to all the catagories involved, and a whole slew of Big Box Retailers from Enterprize systems to online retail programs. Creating a program that searches the purchases for firearm sales once the visa card is pushed into the card reader isn't all that difficult. Fraud detection programs can be adapted to search purchases for firearm sales.

Computers are not hamstrung by your limited understanding of programing or computer capabilities...

So you're suggesting that all transactions processed by credit card will be be transmitted in detail to the processor and then the processor will filter everything by product type? While I understand that you have no problem with such a program when it comes to guns how do you feel about the possibility that the same system could easily be used to figure out whet kinds of medications people are taking? How do you feel about the tracking and frequency of sex toy purchases? How do you feel about tracking junk food purchases so that data can be sent to the Healthcare Marketplace to better refine insurance options? Going with your thinking on this it all boils down to "Wherever government has a compelling interest in knowing personal information of citizens then the government is free to use the services of private industry to obtain that information".

 

[Glitch]

Ahhh someone has taken up the mantle of gone and best forgotten never served Swamp 'Warrior'...

As I told him numerous times, the Supremes have never ruled it was unconstitutional (though they might now that three liars have been added to the court.) Congress when dominated by the Republican'ts haven't written new law. Wonder why, they claim to fully embrace the 2nd A and 'what part of uninfringed don't you understand???

IIRC soon private sales will require background checks and 4473's. However, I see few actually doing that. Few FFL holders are audited, average is around once a decade, punishment is a joke. I don't believe private sales will be scrutinized any better. Now there you go, pretending all who aren't MAGA Rabid Right ranters somehow hate individual rights. You don't see past your bias. I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. I have the scars to back my commitment...

MAGA Rabid Right whiners see any disagreement with their world view as 'Hating'... rights, America, heritage, Archie Bunker or whatever crap is the whine of the day....

They did not hold the National Firearms Act of 1934 unconstitutional in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) because the Supreme Court was under the thumb of a leftist fascist dictator who was in the process of replacing the entire Supreme Court when they disagreed with him. If you knew anything about history you would know that between 1937 and 1943 FDR replaced all nine Supreme Court justices when they ruled 11 of his 15 New Deal programs unconstitutional in 1936. Nobody was going to defy a fascist and keep their position, not even the Supreme Court with their life-time appointments. Which makes every decision by the Supreme Court between 1937 and 1945 (the year the fascist leftist filth died) questionable at the very least.

Private sales will never require a background check. Congress does not have the authority, as the Supreme Court already informed the Democrat filth in Congress in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). You truly are uneducated, that much is very obvious. You should have gotten an education instead of a leftist indoctrination, it would have served you better.

 

[Glitch]

Sad that you don't know the difference between different types of firearms

I know them better than you ever will.

 

[Citizen]

I know them better than you ever will.

Based on your comments, I doubt it

 

[natman]

So you're suggesting that all transactions processed by credit card will be be transmitted in detail to the processor and then the processor will filter everything by product type? While I understand that you have no problem with such a program when it comes to guns how do you feel about the possibility that the same system could easily be used to figure out whet kinds of medications people are taking? How do you feel about the tracking and frequency of sex toy purchases? How do you feel about tracking junk food purchases so that data can be sent to the Healthcare Marketplace to better refine insurance options? Going with your thinking on this it all boils down to "Wherever government has a compelling interest in knowing personal information of citizens then the government is free to use the services of private industry to obtain that information".

You're asking them to consider something on principle. Most liberals have difficulty with this. No restriction is too unconstitutional, as long as it's directed at people they don't agree with.

 

[notquiteright]

So you're suggesting that all transactions processed by credit card will be be transmitted in detail to the processor and then the processor will filter everything by product type? While I understand that you have no problem with such a program when it comes to guns how do you feel about the possibility that the same system could easily be used to figure out whet kinds of medications people are taking? How do you feel about the tracking and frequency of sex toy purchases? How do you feel about tracking junk food purchases so that data can be sent to the Healthcare Marketplace to better refine insurance options? Going with your thinking on this it all boils down to "Wherever government has a compelling interest in knowing personal information of citizens then the government is free to use the services of private industry to obtain that information".

Oh the old slippery slope. I realize some live in fear of the government. However, as it sits now private industry can and does watch every website you visit. Don't fear the gubmint, fear the 'job creators'.

Yes, someday corporations from health to sex toys will see all you purchase. But until then VISA watching firearm purchases is a very good idea as the ATF is all but toothless...

 

[notquiteright]

They did not hold the National Firearms Act of 1934 unconstitutional in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) because the Supreme Court was under the thumb of a leftist fascist dictator who was in the process of replacing the entire Supreme Court when they disagreed with him. If you knew anything about history you would know that between 1937 and 1943 FDR replaced all nine Supreme Court justices when they ruled 11 of his 15 New Deal programs unconstitutional in 1936. Nobody was going to defy a fascist and keep their position, not even the Supreme Court with their life-time appointments. Which makes every decision by the Supreme Court between 1937 and 1945 (the year the fascist leftist filth died) questionable at the very least.

Private sales will never require a background check. Congress does not have the authority, as the Supreme Court already informed the Democrat filth in Congress in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). You truly are uneducated, that much is very obvious. You should have gotten an education instead of a leftist indoctrination, it would have served you better.

As we have seen recently, the Supreme Court does on occasion overturn decades old precedent. Congress has been controlled by Republicants multiple times, for a period the White House and both chambers of Congress. No new law to replace NFA.

Well you should be very happy now, the MAGA Rabid Right radicals have a very favorable Supreme Court. Three Federalist Society picks lied about holding 'settled law' as the law. Who knows maybe they will rule NFA is unconstitutional, and we can buy full auto, suppressers, Rambo weapons. Hell they may rule using the FBI back round checks unconstitutional.

So no need to pretend FDR was a fascist. You echo the never served swamp 'warrior' so well....

 

[SMTA]

A police department is a civilian agency. No one expects a police department to sell arms to civilian individuals. And yes, that is an absolute definition. All else is just spin. What is the purpose of an AR15?

Snort. To shoot.

 

[SMTA]

You don't need a human killing machine to do any of that.

Ho hum
So do cars, alcohol, drugs
Moderation and common sense always prevail

 

[Lutherf]

Oh the old slippery slope. I realize some live in fear of the government. However, as it sits now private industry can and does watch every website you visit. Don't fear the gubmint, fear the 'job creators'.

Yes, someday corporations from health to sex toys will see all you purchase. But until then VISA watching firearm purchases is a very good idea as the ATF is all but toothless...

Don't give me this "slippery slope" crap. You're fine with having gun owners identified with this rule but don't want it for anyone else. That's straight up harassment.

 

[SMTA]

So what civilian agency does the government sell weapons of war to? And what you doubt to be the definition of a weapon of war is irrelevant

Ho hum
Stupid terminology is not relevant

 

[SMTA]

Oh the old slippery slope. I realize some live in fear of the government. However, as it sits now private industry can and does watch every website you visit. Don't fear the gubmint, fear the 'job creators'.

Yes, someday corporations from health to sex toys will see all you purchase. But until then VISA watching firearm purchases is a very good idea as the ATF is all but toothless...

Nothing will change, and nothing will happen
No worries

 

[Glitch]

As we have seen recently, the Supreme Court does on occasion overturn decades old precedent. Congress has been controlled by Republicants multiple times, for a period the White House and both chambers of Congress. No new law to replace NFA.

Congress, and now the States since the McDonald decision in 2010, lack the constitutional authority to enact any law with regard to the right to keep and bear arms. Or are you not able to comprehend the meaning of "shall not be infringed?" The National Firearms Act of 1934, the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 are all unconstitutional.

Well you should be very happy now, the MAGA Rabid Right radicals have a very favorable Supreme Court. Three Federalist Society picks lied about holding 'settled law' as the law. Who knows maybe they will rule NFA is unconstitutional, and we can buy full auto, suppressers, Rambo weapons. Hell they may rule using the FBI back round checks unconstitutional.

So no need to pretend FDR was a fascist. You echo the never served swamp 'warrior' so well....

Not favorable enough. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 still has not be held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and it needs to be. Healthcare is another one of those powers, like abortion, where the US Constitution did not give the federal government any authority. Therefore they are prohibited from exercising that power.

Personally, I will not be satisfied until the Supreme Court undoes every unconstitutional act the fascist FDR created, including the unconstitutional, and criminal, Social Security.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

Why do you think that matters? If you're the FBI and you want to stop domestic terrorists then you track EVERY purchase made at a sporting goods store, tie the identities of those who shop there to their social media accounts, track their phones and then arrest them for suspicious behavior. Remember, you're the goverrnment and you can do whatever the **** you want in the name of stopping domestic terrorism.

If the program is that evolved, there's no need for this new merchant code.

 

[jdog21]

Sounds like we need new privacy laws so they government cannot see what we purchase and how much we purchase. Whether thats ammo, guns, or milk, eggs.

 

[Glitch]

Sounds like we need new privacy laws so they government cannot see what we purchase and how much we purchase. Whether thats ammo, guns, or milk, eggs.

No new laws are necessary. The Fourth Amendment is more than sufficient to the task. It only requires a federal government to actually comply with the US Constitution instead of intentionally violating it, like the Democrats are doing now.

 

[mrjurrs]

Such would be direct violations of the 2A.

No it's not. It's a violation of the court decision that said so. And now we know that a court decision is based only on the politics of the court.

 

[Rucker61]

No it's not. It's a violation of the court decision that said so. And now we know that a court decision is based only on the politics of the court.

That's the way it works.

 

[Citizen]

Ho hum
So do cars, alcohol, drugs
Moderation and common sense always prevail

Yeah, and that is the sole purpose of cars, alcohol, drugs

 

[RF667799]

Yeah, and that is the sole purpose of cars, alcohol, drugs

You continue to claim- in the face of all reason- that killing is categorically the sole purpose of guns? Are you trying to be so laughably wrong?

 

[Citizen]

You continue to claim- in the face of all reason- that killing is categorically the sole purpose of guns? Are you trying to be so laughably wrong?

I never said it was the sole purpose of all guns. Why are you trying to change the subject. Now lets focus on weapons of war.

 

[RF667799]

I never said it was the sole purpose of all guns. Why are you trying to change the subject. Now lets focus on weapons of war.

No. You've either never been able to, or refused to define those in any way that makes any sense.

 

[DebateChallenge]

No it's not. It's a violation of the court decision that said so. And now we know that a court decision is based only on the politics of the court.

You do understand what the 2A says, don't you? Its quite cut and dry. What you're advocating would make gun ownership into a privilege not a right. Gun ownership as defined by the 2A is a right not a privilege.

 

[mrjurrs]

You do understand what the 2A says, don't you? Its quite cut and dry. What you're advocating would make gun ownership into a privilege not a right. Gun ownership as defined by the 2A is a right not a privilege.

Nope. Source for your claim. The 2nd says zero about the acquisition of a weapon. If it is that much of a right, why isn't the government buying guns for those that can't afford them?