It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DOJ Wanted to Scan License Plates of Gun Show Attendees

page: 2
20
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
The "Automatic number plate recognition" really took off in the early 2000's, here in the US - you'll note this one example is from early 2009. It was a natural extension of the massive surveillance programs put in place to "combat terrorism." Mostly we borrowed and expanded on what was being done in the UK and Europe.




posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Profiling is wrong...

Unless it's racial...






*not an accusation to anyone currently in the thread.

**don't agree with either profiling attempt.

***explaining to avoid the knee jerkers.


Yes, profiling is wrong.
Especially when parking in a parking lot means only that you have your car parked there. The person driving the car may not even be at the gun show. Even if the person is at the gun show, it doesn't mean that they purchased a gun. There are plenty of vendors that sell things that are not weapons at those shows, including militaria, as in uniforms, medals and gear.
They are targeting anyone parked there... not just firearms buyers.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

It is NOT the same thing.

Not EVEN CLOSE to being.

I did say it seemed really shady. I'm agreeing with you here!


Yeah it was shady.

Can't believe I am thanking the ACLU on this.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

Question: In NY, if you can't buy the firearm you wanted, presumably in NY...can you go to say, NJ and buy it there and then bring it home to your home in NY State, (or city)?



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: stosh64

Question: In NY, if you can't buy the firearm you wanted, presumably in NY...can you go to say, NJ and buy it there and then bring it home to your home in NY State, (or city)?


Probably not, I'm guessing the NJ dealer would(upon seeing your permit to purchase or similar NY item) not sell a gun that is not legal in your state. Would get him in a whole heap of trouble.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
So I'm finally starting to really see what others have been saying for a long time. This goes well beyond simple information gathering, this is clearly the government intentionally trying to provoke a group of individuals. It really is becoming more and more apparent with each passing day.

I really don't know what they intend to accomplish by doing this, I've read all the theories here. I just can't see anyone in the government truly believing they will get the outcome that they planed(and desired) for.


edit on 2-2-2015 by MisterSpock because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-2-2015 by MisterSpock because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: stosh64

Question: In NY, if you can't buy the firearm you wanted, presumably in NY...can you go to say, NJ and buy it there and then bring it home to your home in NY State, (or city)?
I think the rule is if you present an NY driver's license as part of your identification, the seller must abide by any restrictions placed by that state.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: stosh64

Our fore fathers didn't allow all men to have guns either, so it is debatable to what they wanted.


What? are you for real? Why bother writing the 2nd amendment if it was really intended for the few to carry arms, say the police?

Your argument makes no sense. It clearly stats the "people". In every historic sense when the "people" are mentioned, they are always talking about the civilian population, the "people".

Its spelled out pretty clearly, just because you don't like something, don't sit here and try to change its meaning to fit your agenda.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Cool way to ignore completely what I said.
I said they did not allow all men to have guns.
It was regulated who could have them and who couldn't.

They did not just allow anyone and everyone to have them no questions asked.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: neo96

Cool way to ignore completely what I said.
I said they did not allow all men to have guns.
It was regulated who could have them and who couldn't.

They did not just allow anyone and everyone to have them no questions asked.

Since we are taking this path.
They didn't require a license to carry either.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Mikeyy

They wrote it cause they wanted to have guns, but they did not allow everyone to have them.

Cause not all of them considered all men equal.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Nope they did not, still doesn't change who they allowed to have and not have them.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: neo96

Cool way to ignore completely what I said.
I said they did not allow all men to have guns.
It was regulated who could have them and who couldn't.

They did not just allow anyone and everyone to have them no questions asked.


Yeah and ?

Forget the time period ?

All of the colonies turned states had to sign off on the constitution.

And they DID LEAVE the amendment process to change what they knew was wrong at the time.

The constitution would have never been ratified, or approved otherwise.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: butcherguy

Nope they did not, still doesn't change who they allowed to have and not have them.

You would be okay if we stuck to the original program and did not require licenses , permits or registration?



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: butcherguy

Nope they did not, still doesn't change who they allowed to have and not have them.

You would be okay if we stuck to the original program and did not require licenses , permits or registration?


The constitution is the only license anyone needs.

And it is FREE.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Generally when something like this is announced, it means they have already been doing it.

The goal here is to get a database with everyone's bread crumb trial.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

All they have to do is to drive one of those cars that can drive by cars in a parking lot and read from the side of the equipped car the plates of anything it passes. This is standard tech in some places. They don't need a fixed place or station to do that. Hell, this business is fairly typical today. it reads everybody's plates and instantly reports on the status of that car/plate. On our toll roads in Austin they have removed all of the toll takers and a camera flashes as you drive under the overhead rig. Don't have a toll tag? No problem, your plate tells them who you are and it also images your face. You get the bill in the mail even if you are an out-of-state visitor.

The time will come when speeding tickets are almost entire done automatically with radar hooked to the plate reading devices or a coordinated coupling of the time it took you to pass two stationary locations of the recorders. My tollway excursions without a TXTAG--not that I speed over the 80mph limit--will shortly bring without fail a letter with the when and where of my travels.

So they can tracking me to a gun show or gun store is par for the course just as they track us on the internet and on our phones' position if not also capturing our actual messages and who you talk to. That is our world today.
edit on 2-2-2015 by Aliensun because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Hmm... I'd say one of the realest threats of "registration" or "documentation" or etc. is that ANY data can be manipulated... Look at hackers, or what-not. Can't the smart ones alter time codes, or dates, or etc. to their convenience? Same with RFID. Can't a hacker, probably with minimal equipment, or even just a cell-phone, totally skewer stuff for better/worse?

Here's what I don't get: Public officials/officers/employees are PUBLIC, yet they get to use secrecy in day to day stuff, or even conventions like the Bohemianbergers? (I mean, even the stuff from OP article's source has been redacted.) But when it comes to PRIVATE citizens... Gotta give up all that privacy... Just to trust in government's protection and integrity, even though they are often found to be in the wrong, like they're humans, or something... Only difference is that they want power so much as to work (cough!), or trade for it...

Oh, and govs obviously deserve weaponry monopolies... But only certain ones.
edit on 2/3/2015 by japhrimu because: the word "often" added



posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 03:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: stosh64

Not quite what our forefathers envisioned.


What, Muskets and Cannons?

No, I don't suppose it is what they envisioned.




posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 03:21 AM
link   
Oh, and I don't really think the license plate readers are as concerning as those cameras at every intersection... You know, the ones that no one ever sees the footage of, or gets to use in court? Just saying... (I'm assuming those are facial recognitioners that FBI just said they activated recently? Maybe not.)

My prediction: License plate readers, I'm guessing, increase governments' revenues, so when more $ is needed, more nit-picking can be expected. "If you don't have anything to hide... Don't worry, they'll find something." There are some crazy "laws."



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join