(Untitled)

[tinocherubini]

Well, my mother - as I noted earlier - is out of the hospital and in rehab. She did not get to come home for Easter so we visited her there. She’s improving but has kind of plateau-ed - they’re trying to balance out her meds and her advanced COPD isn’t making it easy for them. Lesson learned DO NOT SMOKE! Her ultimate prognosis is pretty good

Comments

[nomadmwe]

So why do they need my prints?

Yeah, that kinda puzzles me if they're doing a background check anyway.

I mean, part of me can see it - you're getting licensed/buying something which is specifically made to hurt or kill people. Sure, sure. Hunting, target shooting, all that - but in the end, a gun is a weapon. So I can see them wanting to be sure that should something "go wrong" they can expedite the process to deal with it. It's not giving up a right, it's giving them more identifying information.

That said, I can also see where you're coming from - and appreciate that you're a proponant of gun control as well as gun ownership. It's a rare and good combination. :)

This reminds me, I should think about going shooting with a friend of mine to See What It's Like, and maybe getting a license as well, just so I can Know How They Work and have a clue about them, y'know?

[tinocherubini]

Warning: It's addicting - especially if you're pre-disposed to martial arts. If you ever want to go, let me know. I know a couple of ranges who will rent guns for use on premisis - one in the Worcester area that's rather nice and not at all sketchy.

The right I'm concerned with is Privacy. Right, guns are designed ultimatly to kill things. So are swords. Should I have to get fingerprinted to buy one? What about fighting knives? Bows? Sling-shots? All the above are weapons, all as leathal as firearms yet none are as closely regulated. The logic that I should be forced to give up my privacy because I now have to POTENTIAL to be dangerous is a rather slippery slope. Both you and Ben are rather dangerous with a blade or unarmed - should you be fingerprinted & registered?

It ain't an easy discussion and I'm not trying to solve it, I'm just talkin'

[tinocherubini]

Erm hmm. In the words of my favorite fish-eating fiend, that's a tricksy arguement my precious. The other side of the coin is they just coerced me into voluntarily providing information they had no legal right to - especially if you're a strict interpreter of the 2nd Ammendment (which, for the record, I'm not).

Again, I gave them my prints, I took the classes happily & I plan on taking more because I'm a responsable guy. I support regulating ownership in the same why I support licensing drivers & pilots. It's a public safety issue pure and simple. I'm jest sayin' I can understand WHY people get pissed off at this state.

[tinocherubini]

No, I don't think you're trying to trick me at all, I was talking about the argument being tricky and was just doing it in a Gollum voice.

I suppose the underlying question is does the increased security (to society I presume) of 'ensuring' I'm me via fingerprinting balance the loss of my privacy in having my fingerprints on record. Biofactoring isn't required for a passport, a driver's license, a pilot's license or any other state issued license or permit that I'm aware of. What makes this so different? FInally, YOUR asking for references etc when renting to someone isn't illegal search and seizure as you're a private individual negotiating a private agreement. Different standards apply when a governmental entity gets involved.