I had my doubts at first but it's a GREAT video
As always, it's probably in the wrong section, and may have been posted already
As always, it's probably in the wrong section, and may have been posted already
Good points that are very true. Any thought of being "under the radar" for normal folks is out of the question in this digital world.BLUF: It's a long tangential post that goes far beyond the scope of the video.
That was a good video that should prompt some thinking if you haven't already had that realization. I think his reasoning holds true for the city/county level of policing but fails beyond that. His comments about registration are the more important discussion I think.
I've asserted for years that 4473's are defacto registration; the changes in tech the past few years have made this a moot point that doesn't concern me anymore. That concern has been superseded by one far more dangerous. The government does not need a registration, big tech has the registration for them. I don't need to see that you own a firearm; I can conclude with certainty that you own one based on your electronic purchases of ammo, range passes, firearms accessories, web viewing habits (gun forums, videos watched, etc.), locations you visit, etc. Big data provides that information.
"But that info is held by companies, not the government". I would have agreed with that sentiment in the past, but no longer.
Within the past few months we have started publicly seeing (It's been happening within limits behind the scenes for some time) the joining of the federal (and state to some extent) government with big tech for purposes of "identifying" people. Following the Jan. 6 riots financial institutions provided personal info to the govt. about customers that had financial transactions in and around D.C. immediately before or after the 6th. Scary, but sounds reasonable if you were trying to find true insurrectionists.
Consider the reports of the previous week that DHS is hiring companies to examine public data about citizens for watch lists and no-fly lists. The bar that this sets (identify people that may be prone to toxic messaging by "domestic extremists") is laughably low. Responding to a troll on a forum can be interpreted as "influenced". We've seen for years the stance taken by big tech against conservatives. Now these same groups get to be involved in classifying who is or isn't a threat.
Having a carry license isn't the big target on your back when you get pulled over for speeding. Being listed as a domestic extremist because you believe the 2A is meant to prevent tyranny is a big target.
I could go on for a long time but I'll get off my soapbox
Enter your email address to join: