At best that leaves only the rare pre 1986 automatics already in private hands, only in some states (totally illegal under any circumstances in many other states), only if you can first pass an expensive background check more stringent than the one federal agents must pass. Sounds like some serious regulation to me.

What you, me, or others consider firearms means nothing. I gave you the law as written, it includes those, they are illegal, so there are effective regulations on firearms already....that doesn't mean they're sufficient. Those words are different words, that's why they're spelled and pronounced differently. Speed limits are effective laws, but not sufficient to regulate vehicle use.

Why do so many firearms lovers fear being on a registry? I've always found that insane, like every other purchase you make isn't tracked or something. There's no purchase privacy anymore, for anything.

It doesn't take any money to ban certain firearms, certainly not a boatload, and not the ocean of cash health care costs. That's a red herring. All it takes is for representatives to vote the way their constituents want them to by 98%.
Perhaps in that sense it would take money, because in order to get them to vote as the people want, campaign finance reform is necessary, and that will cost money, but it's the best thing our country could possibly spend money on.

I support a slightly modified second amendment and universal health care. My interpretation allows for regulations, registration, universal background checks even for family transfers, bans of certain types, seizure from violent convicts and mental patients (impossible without a registry, btw), etc. Yes, I understand that's not how the constitution is written today, but the constitution is a living document. In California, we have most of that as state law already, including an outright ban on fully or selectively automatic weapons.

Btw, you suggest....Try to make people feel welcome.
I was responding in kind to your off hand assumption that, without your derisive "warning", he would be "dumb" enough to make an assumption about you. Then you go on to say making assumptions is dumb. Care to rethink? Had you been more thoughtful and less derisive in making that point I likely would have ignored the hypocrisy.

For me, I read about it like a decade ago online since I am into computers, security, privacy, etc. with other *geeks!

Carnivore, which intercepted all of any targets internet traffic without a warrant, was fully implemented by 1997 and has since been replaced with software like NarusInsight that records all internet traffic through any isp....again with no warrant.
If you believe governments aren't capable of seeing everything you've ever done online, you're fooling yourself. There's no such thing as real internet privacy.
This is hardly new, but it remains upsetting.

@Mordhaus Yeah. Transparency and privacy issues don't mix well.

I run into this where I work. Personnel decisions are made and the managers can never tell us the details. We just have to trust. [Of course, if we know the employee personally, we can ask them directly.]

Same here. That kid has a right to privacy. He also should have a right to see the proceedings of why he was expelled. I don't know if he can. If he can, then he can decide to make public the reason he was expelled.

Blatant invasion of his privacy bubble.

Your video, Privacy is NO LONGER a Social Norm, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

"Only 3% of people who use google have actually read the terms and conditions that they agreed to. "

3%?? I would have been amazed if it was as high as 0.3%.
3% would be (conservatively) over 10 million people. I doubt it's anywhere close to that.

I am not sure that privacy as a concept is even possible in a world with machine learning algorithms and big data. That's not a value judgment; I don't think privacy is worthless, I just find it increasingly untenable.

Machine learning has gotten so good, that even if you anonymise data, it's now pretty easy to tell a lot about you. Your digital fingerprint is there and an AI will be 99% correct about your age, gender, politics, sexual orientation, etc, even without you giving up that data.

Interesting. But I have to say that I find the idea of a "privacy-minded" group of individuals who hold the belief that "information should be free" to be extremely hypocritical. What they -should- say is, "we believe that other people's information should be freely available to us".

IOW, somewhat typical 4chan attitudes.

These links may interest you. Second link may freak some people out.

How to permanently remove the things Google knows about you.
https://www.expressvpn.com/internet-privacy/how-to-permanently-delete-your-google-history/

See all the things Google and Facebook have collected on you personally.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/977559925680467968.html

The next generation is growing up with their lives already documented and shared online, without their consent. They will find our reactions to the Cambridge Analytica scandal and to Snowden, and perhaps even the very notion of personal privacy itself, to be absolutely baffling.

People walked right into this themselves. No, the data wasn't stolen, because it's part of the general online business model to collect and sell it. A few people raised alarm about this for years. No one listened.
Even now nothing will change, because:
1) We've allowed the collection and sale of user data to become irreversibly entrenched into the world economy, and
2) The same majority of the populace who already showed apathy in the face of privacy-advocate's concerns will not change their lifestyles over this.

Private background checks is full of privacy, communication, and liability issues, true, but that could be solved in various ways.
In gun store private sales, that's how California does it.
Does it stop all criminal sales? Clearly not. Does it minimize them and hold illegal sellers who ignore the law accountable for what others do with the guns they illegally sold, making illegally selling a criminal your gun insane? Yes.
If it was the law nation wide, would it severely curtail the illicit gun trade, and have a positive impact on gun crime rates? Absolutely, zero question.
Would it stop it altogether? Duh, no, no law is a panacea, the death penalty doesn't stop all murders, but it definitely stops most. That is not how law works. No law has EVER stopped the crimes they regulate altogether except those that legalize the crime out of existence....like legal marijuana eradicated illegal pot smokers completely.

They are arguing about invasion of privacy, by kids on a trampoline, through a gaping hole in the wall.

This has the odor of being staged.

The NRA successfully lobbied to make sure states didn't have to report people to the national registry, and also successfully lobbied to make the system underfunded and not searchable, so nearly useless, so it's just a lie that the NRA supports strengthening the federal registry, they have been at the forefront insisting it remain lax, useless, and toothless for decades.

The insane are not convicted of being insane, it's a medical diagnosis not a conviction (except the convicted criminally insane), so subject to stringent privacy laws with severe consequences if a Dr tells anyone improperly, and they know it and fear being sued and sanctioned. That means most aren't reported at all.

In many states, private gun sales have zero background checks, so no list stops the insane from buying guns privately and legally.

I didn't express disapproval of the demand for sex work.

I am creeped out by men who bring sex into the workplace.

I am a huge fan of Dan Savage. He is a deeply moral man who is helping people become more fully themselves. That includes sexual expression in the privacy of the home or other agreed upon public spaces, while respecting the agreements made consensually between adults.

I also didn't say anything about the women being forced to look the way they do. It is their free choice to sell barter themselves on their sexual attributes in an arena that has nothing to do with sex -- a shooting range.

And I think it is creepy that men want this. To bring sex out of the dating world. Out of strip clubs. Out of sex clubs. And into a mundane world of a shooting range. It has implications about the treatment of women, the objectification of women, that creep me out. The blindness of it creeps me out.

Anyway.

Glad to know you weren't talking about me. Because I don't recognize myself in the way you talk about the conversation I have been engaged in. Sooo many times I say -- I didn't say this. I didn't say that.

It does get frustrating having a conversation on the Sift (not just you) where my words get twisted and embroidered.

And I love it when someone says something that shows I am incorrect or have stated something that doesn't clearly communicate my point of view. It helps me understand the world a little bit more, helps me see my own bias, and teaches me to communicate better. (Like blaming Keanu -- that was a huge mistake.)

Thanks for engaging with me. I appreciate you taking the time.