December 7, 2015 at 8:39 pm #45824
Brevard SheriffDecember 8, 2015 at 12:12 am #45828
I like it that law endorsement is making positive position statements.December 8, 2015 at 12:25 am #45829
Good for him. There have been a couple others doing something in recent days. One was Geneva County in AL I think.December 8, 2015 at 2:03 am #45831
Its about time . Good thing is , there are many more like him out there running Sheriff Departments . Here is one the late Andy Rooney missed in his “…did you ever notice ?…..” monologs .
Considering the political climate of the country , and gun ownership laws by state , did you ever notice that the only thing missing in the requirement of a Concealed Carry Permit is another C ?
= CCCP ( USSR )December 8, 2015 at 2:24 am #45834
I watched the DETROIT Chief of Police, James Craig, say the same thing! It was almost unbelievable, but beautiful. He has actually made these statements multiple times now.
The only thing I don’t understand is how he’s still police chief – in Detroit – after heretical statements like these:
“A lot of Detroiters have CPLs (concealed pistol licenses), and the same rules apply to terrorists as they do to some gun-toting thug,” Chief James Craig said. “If you’re a terrorist, or a carjacker, you want unarmed citizens.”
“If you’re sitting in a restaurant, and you aren’t allowed to have a gun, what are you supposed to do if someone comes in there shooting at you? Throw a fork at them?”
I have a bit of a hunch that Chief Craig may not be Barack’s best bud these days – he doesn’t seem to be reading the memo. Watch out, Chief – pretty soon DOJ will be coming to YOUR Department to do an investigation.
"Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land."December 8, 2015 at 10:59 am #45839
This is just hypothetical, and I sure don’t want to be planting ideas in anyone’s powerhungry head, but consider the relationship between two government databases, (1) the existing (and arbitrary) “No-Fly” list, allegedly for terrorist suspects, though seemingly unassuming and (at least, physically) harmless people have turned up on it, and (2) the proposed (and duplicate) “No-Buy” list, whose membership would be automatically forbidden to buy firearms (or perhaps any number of other items, depending on current wind direction and velocity, temperature, humidity, or feverishness of presidential brow.
If one’s ID gets entered into the first database, so is it also immediately digitally replicated on the second.
And surely, if anyone ought to be prevented from purchasing any of the forbidden items, might not the argument be extended to say that any such individual ought also to have person, vehicle(s), and premises immediately searched, and any item on the forbidden list confiscated? Voila! Instant, and individualized firearms confiscation! No need for a sweeping new unconstitutional law outlawing all weapons at once — separate entry of individuals onto the list would amount to an individualized bill of attainder. Go get John’s weapons, but leave his neighbors, Charlie and Mike, alone, for a while. (We’ll get to them later, after John’s been disarmed.) Disarming the nation, one citizen at a time. What a concept!
Of course, our constitutional scholar pretendsident would never try anything like that.
Cry, "Treason!"December 8, 2015 at 3:44 pm #45847
L Tecolote, you’ve hit that one on the head. That’s exactly what I fear also. Teddy Kennedy got stopped in the airport more than once due to “his” name being on the “no fly” list, and John Lewis (D-GA) has been stopped multiple times in a month many times for the same reason. A Fox News reporter took his new bride to Turkey (apparently when it was still somewhat safe to go there to some of the resort areas), and he subsequently had trouble boarding because he’d visited Turkey. An active duty Marine was also not allowed to board an aircraft, all for the same reason.
Those were allegedly due to “wrong/same name” issues, but who’s to say AG Lynch won’t make good on her threat to take action against those who open their mouths (or type on their keyboards) something that she and her minions deem to be anti-Muslim rhetoric? Maybe we’ll end up on the no-fly list and by extension, the no gun list.
Another member of the Forum just didn’t get the concept you raised when I was trying to get it through to his brain – the one gun at a time concept. I have no doubt that’s part of the strategy with mental health and medication issues as well. I recently took advantage of my “free” annual physical as part of my insurance coverage, and a couple of weeks later I received an email from some company I’d never heard of, informing me of the great “service” now available to me. All I had to do was enter a user name and password, and I could forever after just log right in and look at ALL of my records from that physical – not just the lab results (which my doctor gives me a copy of automatically as a courtesy – on paper). Having worked with electronic medical records for many years in a government setting, I’ve shuddered at the entire concept! I called my doctor’s office and learned the following:
1. All health care providers are REQUIRED to provide electronic access to patients’ medical records, thus the new availability on line for the data from my physical.
2. It’s too expensive to set up the servers and employ the personnel to maintain such records in house, so they contract out to companies that aggregate a whole lot of doctors’ and hospitals’ records.
3. Those records are then available “in the cloud” (oh, that sounds so peaceful and safe!!!) – which means it’s just now out on somebody ELSE’s server in a company you’ve never heard of.
4. Oh – but it’s “very secure!” Yeah, like all the data Blue Cross gave up about me and my family with THEIR data theft. Or all the data FedGov gave up on my and my family with THEIR data theft a few months ago, as a former federal employee.
And don’t think for an INSTANT that FedGov doesn’t have complete access to all those electronic medical records. I can’t cite chapter and verse, but I have zero doubt that there’s some provision buried somewhere in some document (HIPAA or Obamacare) that allows FedGov to look at our lists of past diagnoses, medications, etc. That’s all part of what’s available (and has been for many, many years) in the MIB (used to stand for “Medical Information Bureau”), the life/health/long term care version of the credit bureau. You’d be amazed at what’s in there (and anyone can get a free copy of what’s in there, just like an annual free credit report) by contacting MIB through their web site. Every insurance company uses them whenever you apply for any type of insurance. And we think FedGov doesn’t have access to that if insurance companies do?
Yep. There will be administrative reasons to come by and knock on doors due to “individual circumstances” that have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment – so say the courts already (Lautenberg is but one example of the courts kicking the 2nd Amendment to the curb, as well as the ex post facto laws prohibition of Art. 1 Sec. 9.
He’s got a cell phone and a pen…. The 2nd Amendment can stay clearly written in the Constitution, so says the constitutional attorney. We have his word on it. (I DO have a distant relative that’s apparently on the no-fly list, by the same name. Wanna guess how I found that out, but was fortunate enough to barely make my plane WITH my wife anyway? I’m just waitin’ for my door knock.)
"Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land."December 8, 2015 at 4:22 pm #45850
My brother-in-law is on the list. Every time he goes on a trip they stop him. He now has an FBI letter that tell them he is not the criminal on the list but they still stop him and call it in. The terrorist list is out dated and is not good for stopping anyone from purchasing a weapon.December 8, 2015 at 4:39 pm #45853
A New York Sheriff also made a similar statement.
This isn’t that surprising, actually. Rural New York is sane. We’re just under oppressive control by the NYC Liberals strangling or voice via democratic tyranny.December 8, 2015 at 5:07 pm #45856
I know that there are at least 100 people in the US with the same first and last name as me. I’ve bumped into several that even have the same middle initial as me. My last name is not particularly common but after nearly 400 years in the country, it isn’t rare either. I shudder to think that I would be denied my rights because one of those others with my name gets on the wrong list. Very few names in this country are unique to just one individual.
Obamacare mandated all medical records become electronic. To reduce costs and all that.
For some years now Massachusetts has been moving old criminal/court records into electronic form and they are using that new database to deny people gun licenses. There was one case where a guy in his 60’s or 70’s was denied a license renewal because they found a court record of him stealing a chicken when he was something like 14 years old. That he had a clean record for 50 or 60 years meant nothing to them. He took them to court and they eventually had to yield and give him his license but it was a prolonged battle. You can be assured that medical records will be used against people to fit the liberal agenda.December 8, 2015 at 10:37 pm #45874
It is nice to know that at least some LE personnel are on the side of the Constitution and sanity.
BUT: Also keep in mind what technology is now available to these same folks. This photo is 4½ years old (there’s been much technology advancement since then). It shows approximately 700,000 people at a rally in Canada for game 7 of the 2011 Stanley Cup finals.
This technology is neither sate of the art, or new. To be amazed, either click your mouse on a given point in the photo, or move your mouse pointer to a specific spot, or use your mouse wheel to zoom in at any point in the picture – and then keep zooming. And then keep zooming.
How easy is it to be picked out of a crowd, particularly with facial recognition technology that they have today?
And do you suspect that they’re allowing the general public to see their top of the line imagery capabilities?
Remember that just one of the methods they used to break the case of that Illinois cop that claimed to have been chasing two white guys and a black guy, was his email. They went through HUNDREDS of text messages he’d sent, and over 30,000 (!) emails (if memory is correct, it was either 32,000 or 35,000). I don’t even know if I’ve EVER sent 35,000 emails, and I’ve been on the internet almost since it became generally available to the public. So – ask yourself how they managed to go back and analyze over 30,000 of just one person’s emails.
Medical records? Financial transactions? Email? Whereabouts (through cell phone and facial recognition)? Background checks? Unique computer identifier when you log on? IP address whenever you’re on line? And therefore, what web sites you’ve EVER visited for any reason? What emails you’ve sent, and to whom? Just what is it that they DON’T know about you, and can pull up very quickly if/when they truly want to.
"Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land."
December 9, 2015 at 1:21 am #45899
- This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by GeorgiaSaint.
GS, your are right. I was looking into Google map and found an image of the front on my house, can you believe it.December 9, 2015 at 1:33 am #45902
Big Bother is watching you because you bother him.
Cry, "Treason!"December 9, 2015 at 4:27 am #45913
Freedom, the vast majority of properties in almost any significant sized city in the world (even Russia) are pictured, by address, on Google Maps. I once found what looked like a mall or something in Winnipeg, Manitoba, where you could travel up and down the indoor hallways – not just the streets outside. Google has mapped the vast majority of the reasonably civilized world photographically, and you can “travel” along the streets just as if you were walking or riding a bike, go around corners, look at the neighbors’ houses, then look back at the satellite view and see what’s in those neighbors’ (or yours) back yards. China, Vietnam, Burma, Iran, and most of Africa (except for South Africa) haven’t allowed general photographic mapping, though even most of those have allowed individual places of general interest to be photographed. Play around with Google Maps and you’ll be astounded at what all Google has amassed. Europe? North America? Much of South America (except Venezuela, particularly)? They’ve almost all allowed Google to come in and take a complete photographic tour for you and anyone else to see, at will. Don’t even for a moment think that governments don’t have all of that, of course.
We know some people that literally purchased their new retirement house that way (an already existing home), in a city they’d never been to before (other than possibly the husband). It was all done through photographs, and particularly traveling along the streets in that city via Google Maps, looking in back yards of neighbors, looking at the front yards, seeing what the house USED to look like a year or two ago before it was fixed up for sale, etc. Heck – you can see (in the HISTORY photos of our house) who we voted for in 2008 despite the poorly blurred out campaign sign in our yard. Like some of us have been saying, our privacy and our liberties are eroding, and it’s mainly the older folks that can compare today with the way it was 40 to 50 years ago that are aware of it. The 20-something crowd ain’t got a clue, with few exceptions!
Are your eyes opening?
"Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land."December 9, 2015 at 6:29 pm #45927
Are they updating this by way of building permits so they now go to all the permitted addresses and add the new images? I think Google is part of the government NSA.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.