General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why are folks more concerned about guns than the loss of lives! [View all]rrneck
(17,671 posts)Why would you frame your statement in the context of religious belief? Because you think others revere it? Maybe they do, but when you follow suit you have already lost.
I don't think background checks are prohibited by the second amendment. I'm not aware of anyone that does. I haven't seen that argument made, although just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Background checks for new firearms purchases have been the law of the land for some time and they seem to work quite well.
So why don't you advocate for a "tag" that will inform the government of your relationships with people. You know, an object that will facilitate a record of who you know or meet that will last forever in a government database. That "tag" will have a serial number, and if the powers that be want to know who you know, all they have to do is pull up that number and check the log to see where that "tag" has been. Of course, nobody in the bowels of any federal agency is required to tell you when you have been tracked, but there will have to be severe penalties for non compliance on your part.
Now, our current administration would never use such a data mining opportunity for nefarious purposes. And there has never been an administration corrupt enough to abuse the power of government in such a manner for its own political ends. Certainly no administration would dream of exploiting current data mining technology to suppress support for illegal wars, regressive tax policy, and the exploitation of 99% of the population.
Administrations change. Do you think we're out of the woods yet? Do you think there will never be another Dick Cheney? The pushback against thirty years of conservative looting has barely begun. It would be unwise to give a potentially corrupt government yet another convenient window into your private relationships for the illusion of security.