The Gun Liberty Index - with extra Patriotism!

Are actually two examples of why Americans should be preparing armed insurrection.
Or doesn't the Second Amendment act to protect all those other rights anymore?

Just saw a thing on Fox News about Colorado law enforcement saying saying they won't enforce any new gun control regs.

Regardless, I'm fully in support of criminal background checks for anyone who wants to buy, sell, gift, handle, etc. guns. It's ten fucking dollars - and if you shop around (yes, different police stations charge different amounts) you might get it cheaper.

This background check only says you are clear to deal with weapons....of any type. You don't have to register any weapons into this data base, which is fair.

Call me crazy (wait, don't - then I can't have weapons!) but this is a happy medium that might actually accomplish something and doesn't dig too deep into our Constitutional/States rights. It won't put a burden on the taxpayer.

Shooting/hunting/fishing/etc. is an activity that the participants pay for with no burden on tax payers, and needs to stay that way.

• Automatic weapons banned or heavily restricted; these weapons are un-libertarian - in a single conscious action, you can kill multiple people.
• Background checks required at point of transfer
• Mandatory registration of all guns
• No government data on who owns guns.
• Concealed carry requires license, available to anyone who can pass a background check.
• Mandatory reporting of transferred, lost, or stolen firearms of any sort.

"O2C, you idiot", you're saying to yourself, possibly furiously typing, "This is logically impossible. The last four are contradictory! And you know registration is the first step to confiscation! When did you become a gun grabber?" Ignoring the last bit, normally, you'd be right. But I got to thinking, and realized that's not actually true.

Wordforge, I give you now an exclusive look at possibly the greatest idea in gun control since the two-handed grip.

When you register your gun, or apply for a CCW license, normally everything goes into a database that anyone with some appropriate level of access can read. Theoretically, there's a high bar - search warrant or the like - but can you really trust every cop, every bureaucrat, every gun-grabbing politician or district attorney? NO! Of course not! To say nothing of an invading force of Soviet-backed Cubans! (this is a Red Dawn reference, you humorless, movie-hating so-and-sos)

So we make it impossible for them to read. First, encrypt each row of the database with a canonical unique gun identifier - the make, model, and serial number of the gun concatenated together as the key, e.g. SIG-SAUR-P226-0123456789. Now the database exists, but it's unreadable to anyone in government or out without the weapon they're interested in sitting in front of them. Cops find a murder weapon? Run the number against the database and the corresponding record will decrypt and be readable, but they can't see any other records. No one can.

This is a slow process though (like, needs a large parallel array of computers to partition the DB into to run in a matter of minutes, given the number of guns and speed of decryption). Fine for occasional use, but what about just verifying licensure? A second database, but this one is unencrypted. It doesn't store any real information though, but rather a hash (MD5 or SHA-1, or something longer) of the data on the license in some canonical form. Then cops can ask for your license, scan it (it should contain identification as well as gun information), verify that the electronic data matches the printed data, and ask the database if the hash exists. If it does, the license is verified. If it doesn't, the weapon can be confiscated and run against the encrypted database. This check is a fast operation.

But more importantly, the hash contains no information at all, so it's impossible to use it to work backwards from the database to get a list of gun owners, or their addresses or the like. During the licensure process, all the various entities involved - training centers, government, anyone else, will all have these hash databases. The canonical form of the data should be such that gun buyers and licensees can generate the hashes on their own computers so they can ensure no data ever touches a government hard drive. Come to think of it, they should be able to do the encryption that way as well.

And there you have it - registration and licensure without any possibility of tracking for anything less than completely legitimate law-enforcement. No form 4473. No possibility of mass confiscation or tracking via either database.

Okay, it's 1:15 AM, so I expect you all to be able to shoot this down (pun half intended) by tomorrow. But as of right now, I think I'm onto something here.

Here's another idea: Federal, State and local law enforcement shall not be armed with any weapon that is not legal for civilian ownership. Any regulatory hoop-jumping demanded of civilians will also be demanded of every government employee at any level.

This is as good a place as anywhere to leave this:

No guns banned, a few require license, government isn't allowed to have data on gun owners -my opinion-

The problem with what you're saying about encrypting gun info is that the suppliers keep records with the information you need for warranties, etc. That information might not be available right now, but they use patterns.

In other words, the keys to decode your database aren't hard to find.

See, if that were true, you'd never have to be at all concerned about government gun-grabbers as soon as you first have guns. From then on, your control of government will stop any government gun-grabbers, right?

Unless, of course, control of government is more complicated than that, and a hundred times more complicated than asking who has the guns.

Good point, and the one I suspected would be attacked first because of the regularity of the key.

Revision 1.1:
Option 1: use a UUID which the manufacturer doesn't track as the key instead of the canonical unique gun identifier. This would require existing guns to be brought in for stamping, but it's trivial to keep the stamping equipment from being connected to the registration DB, nor is it necessary for the government to do the stamping. This does away with the key regularity problem, and the key space is >> the number of guns that will ever be manufactured.

Option 2: require all gun databases to use the encryption scheme, including customer/warranty databases from manufacturers.

I like option 1 better. Yep, it's a PITA, but it's less intrusive than option 2.

No guns banned or government involvement in any way.

Anything else is unconstitutional.

My preferred gun ownership/regulation regime:

1. All adults 18 and over who aren't otherwise disqualified (VIOLENT felon, those with diagnosed psychological disorders, etc.) eligible to own firearms.

2. "Firearms" shall be defined as any handgun, rifle, shotgun, or other projectile firing weapon, single shot or repeating of any variety, wieldable/operable by a single person and having a total muzzle energy less than 15,000 ft-lbs. "Firearms" shall not be construed to mean crew-served weapons, ordnance, or explosive/incindiary devices.

3. Instant, no-charge background checks for buyers for all purchases of firearms. No waiting periods shall be imposed. Ammunition purchases may require adult status and valid ID only.

4. No feature, length, or unreasonable appearance restrictions. Guns disguised as other items require shall-issue license.

5. No magazine capacity limits.

6. Belt-fed, fully-automatic, and/or motor-driven weapons require shall-issue license.

7. Concealed carry requires shall-issue license ONLY in incorporated areas. Unlicensed concealed carry and open carry lawful outside incorporated areas.

8. Supressors with sound levels in excess of 100dB with standard ammunition freely available and require no license; greater sound attenuation requires shall-issue license.

9. Firearms may be loaned to close family members for extended durations. Firearms may be loaned to ANYONE short-term (e.g., hunting trips, outings to the shooting range).

10. No registration.

11. No taxes on guns and ammunition apart from general sales taxes.

12. No restrictions on ammo design. Tracer, incindiary, and armor-piercing (defined as having a penetrator composed of steel, tungsten, etc.) require shall-issue license. No unreasonably burdensome regulation of reloading equipment or supplies.

13. No imposition of mandatory features.

14. No undue transportation requirements shall be imposed. A personal automobile will be construed as an extension of a person's home; a firearm (loaded or otherwise) carried within shall not require a license.

15. No storage requirements shall be imposed except (1) for weapons requiring special license or (2) where persons with particular psychological disorders are domiciled.

16. No fees shall be imposed on the transfer of firearms.

17. Posession of firearms by minors under adult supervision lawful everywhere. Posession of firearms by minors in non-incorporated areas only requires parental permission.

18. States may require additional training, certification, fees, etc. for shall-issue licenses and may impose additional safety regulations, provided such are not unreasonably burdensome.

19. A person shall have the right to defend himself or other persons against violence with deadly force. A person shall have no obligation to retreat in the face of aggression. A person shall have the right to defense of his habitation.

20. States may require timely reporting of lost or stolen firearms.

No laser-columnated thermal plasma emitter devices?

...sweet, we can classify them as "teaching aids".

Why?

To kill someone without attracting attention, of course.

Perfectly rational for self-defensive purposes.

Suppressors don't work like that.

You put a suppressor on a gun, shoot that gun and I guarantee you that you will still attract plenty of attention.

Suppressors do not act like they do in the movies.

Suppressors are useful to lower the sound somewhat so that instead of feeling like your standing to a jet engine on a 747 going full blast you're just standing next to a gas powered leaf blower.

Suppressors are useful in hunting as well since they reduce the distance the sound travels.

And even in places like the UK suppressors are encouraged to be used to avoid noise pollution and limit liability from hearing damage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor

Places that ban suppressors are almost always ignorant of how suppressors actually work and believe like you do that it silences the sound.

If that was true there would be a huge black market in silencers and threaded barrels because criminals would always use them.

Here is a lesson from Cracked.com

5 Ridiculous Gun Myths Everyone Believes (Thanks to Movies)

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_1857...-believes-thanks-to-movies.html#ixzz2O33xnx64

^Thanks for the info. I guess I should have looked up how loud 100 dB actually is, because it's still really fucking loud, but still quiet enough to not cause as much hearing damage.

I'm pretty sure that as soon as a manufacturer like WickedLasers comes up with a 5w handheld laser, those will be the next thing Dianne Frankenstein starts lying about.

So one may shoot one's .22 in one's own back yard (into a proper backstop or bullet trap) (or woodchuck) without annoying the neighbors.

Silencers should be mandatory! And not just for guns - Leaf blowers, small dogs, hair dryers, children on planes, garbage disposals... All should come standard with a silencer!

Seriously, quieting an unpleasant noise is a good thing.

Especially leaf blowers!

Teddy Roosevelt regularly used a silencer when he went hunting. In fact, silencers were once a common staple for sportsman.

That's why "suppressor" is a more accurate term for those devices.

You're right. Let's have some more legislation. We can call that one Volpone's Law. Reductio ad absurdum.

Quite the contrary. Sarcasm in return for sarcasm, especially with a soupçon of Latin added, is the ultimate recognition.

If it's a fine idea to ask more and settle for less (the art of compromise?) then no government involvement in any way.

Bump

Thank you for reminding me of this.