Skip to main content

View Diary: NRA's lobbying creates policies that hamper criminal investigations (187 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Know what else hampers investigations? The 4thA. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ER Doc, theatre goon, FrankRose

    Warrants! Can you believe the nerve of that soft-on-crime ACLU wants the cops to get a warrant for each search?!?!

    Think of the children victimized by crime!


    •  If you think I'm in any way in favor of... (5+ / 0-)

      ...everything the cops and D.A.s want, you really don't have a clue about me. But let's remember that the NRA's campaign contributions have gone in overwhelming percentrages to right-wing candidates and incumbents who aren't exactly in the ACLU camp except when the organization is doing specifically 2nd Amendment-related stuff. If the NRA had been spending its time for the past 30 years working on the 4th, it wouldn't be weakened the way it has been.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu May 09, 2013 at 03:40:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And their contributions are largely failures. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Maddow did a segment on this a few months back.

        She showed how ?planned parenthood? had like a 98% success rate - like 98% of the candidates they contributed to ended up winning.
        While something like 5% of the candidates that the NRA contributed to ended up winning.

        So it's really not worthwhile to remember nra campaign contributions. Congress critters are not retiring from their elected office and taking lucrative lobbying positions from the nra. So the financial / funding side of the nra is really not worth of attention at all.

        Yet it remains. What you are doing is you are supporting a tracking method that is constrained by the laws of physics to be unable to provide an adequate number of unique identification mixtures and with enough of a mistake possibility in collecting samples so as to increase the chance of false identifications.

        What you are doing is claiming that obstruction of implementing such an inadequate and error-prone system is hampering investigations. You've shown me what you do.

        It looks to me like you believe that the inadequacy and errors are acceptable as long as the investigations continue.

        •  In 2012, the NRA overwhelmingly failed... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener, FogCityJohn

          ...with the candidates it supported at the federal level. But that's not been true in previous elections. Moreover, it's not true for state elections, where just a little money from the NRA can make a much bigger difference than a lot of money for Congress. In Connecticut, the NRA has contributed $350,000 to state legislative candidates since 1996, according to the Sunlight Foundation. Fifteen sitting legislators have received funding from the NRA.

          This pattern can be seen across the country. As you are, I am sure, well aware, since 1986, the NRA has had tremendous success at getting state gun laws loosened coast to coast, although it's had big problems with New York and California. The hundreds of thousands spent on state contests (and on issue advertising) have been quite successful.

          Your cramped viewpoint on the efficacy of taggants is based on the application of much cruder technology than is now available even in the absence of concentrated research, which would hone what can be done effectively 15 years after the last federal study about taggants was completed. You wouldn't want to use today the mobile phone technology available in 1998, would you?

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:50:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Taggants are self-defeating (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Taggants can work if they are used in a very limited number of applications, in small amounts. Imagine the contamination if every major urban fireworks display spread taggants over an entire city (I believe the Boston bombs used powder taken from bulk fireworks). Imagine the difficulty of getting a taggant-based conviction if someone could sweep a handful of dust up from the floor of a firing range (or Civil War re-enactment) and collect hundreds or thousands of different taggant samples to contaminate a crime scene with.

            Putting taggants in everything defeats their usefulness.

            •  LIberally sprinkling taggants at a crime scene.. (0+ / 0-)

              will not confuse the cops. they don't use a dust pan to gather evidence.  They examine bomb parts that have taggants fused in the metal (or whatever).

              Same tired argument, "but what if.."

              “Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent.”

              by frenchy339 on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:55:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's called a revolver. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Shamash, PavePusher, andalusi

                It's also called "policing your brass".

                If either of these are done then all the cops have of the powder taggant is what was flung through the air and settled on the ground.

                MB used to think these things through. What happened to him?!?! Where has the rational thinker gone?

              •  Sigh (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                they don't use a dust pan to gather evidence
                Actually, they do. Microtaggants are designed with magnetic layers so you can sweep the crime scene with a magnet and pick them up.

                From a taggant study done by the explosive industry, who last I checked was not in the pocket of the NRA:

                Furthermore, if taggants were required in all explosives, future bombing crime scenes would be contaminated with countless different taggants. A taggant from a criminal bomb would not be distinguishable from those taggants at the scene resulting from the legitimate use of explosives to produce building materials such as concrete, mortar and stone and the construction of roads and highways. The finding of multiple taggants would seriously complicate the investigation and certainly any eventual prosecution, further eroding any value gained from a tagging program.
    •  Stomp your foot when you act that way. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber

      It's what my 5 year-olds do.

      "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

      by nosleep4u on Thu May 09, 2013 at 05:11:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site