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.

 

Trump Administration Considering Social Credit Score System to determine Who Can Buy a gun.

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

🤔




posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I'm still trying to figure out how this works. You have modern tech companies, who work so quickly to establish new baselines for user interaction and social behavior that they might as well be from another dimension where everyone is the Flash, AND legislators, who think "Yahoo" is something they have to install to their new phone and generally take years to come to a conclusion about hot-button issues like, "the devil and pop music" or "gambling and steroids in major league baseball?"

Because that sounds like the biggest circle jerk since the Circle Jerks.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU2018
No, but the two are not the same, what works for one, might not work for the other.
And I imagine the gun violence in chicago probably has plenty of people around with guns. Sometimes with the people with guns aiming them at each other.
But. The mass shootings of late, some were in places that had plenty of police presence around, still had plenty of casualties. Whrn your gun is shooting dozens of rounds in less that a minute, that is dozens of rounds possibly hitting their target before anyone can react, weather or not they have a gun.

But, lol, this wild idea the op is about, if it's even being seriously considered probably ain't gonna solve either situation.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

It would be stupid indeed. I can't find any actual source for Trump wanting this, and OP used infowars as his source to bash Trump.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Chance321
I remember back over 12 years ago when us tin foil hat wearing members warned of this, how we were laughed at and dismissed.

Another warning. This is just the tip of the iceberg.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: Chance321
I remember back over 12 years ago when us tin foil hat wearing members warned of this, how we were laughed at and dismissed.

Another warning. This is just the tip of the iceberg.


Id bet money that something like this will eventually be done. Lets not forget about Lockhead, Bowing, Grummen etc..It pays well to be a government contractor, Google already has the info all this does is unties peoples hands and lets the authorities use it.... for your own protection of course lol



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

No. Limited to residents only. That would require going through a FFL as a mediator which would require NISC check. However KY doesn’t have that restriction so I can private purchase at a gun show in KY or so I have heard. Not positive on that one.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 02:10 PM
link   
They're considering it, calm down people it isn't law or even proposed law. This is what you want them to do.

Hopefully after some reasonable consideration they say it's a terribly stupid idea that will never work.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: LSU2018
No, but the two are not the same, what works for one, might not work for the other.
And I imagine the gun violence in chicago probably has plenty of people around with guns. Sometimes with the people with guns aiming them at each other.
But. The mass shootings of late, some were in places that had plenty of police presence around, still had plenty of casualties. Whrn your gun is shooting dozens of rounds in less that a minute, that is dozens of rounds possibly hitting their target before anyone can react, weather or not they have a gun.

But, lol, this wild idea the op is about, if it's even being seriously considered probably ain't gonna solve either situation.


I doubt anything is gonna solve it. Whether it's a spoiled brat, a kid who came up with nothing, etc., nothing is gonna stop it. I have a pistol, two rifles, and a shotgun and nary none of them were purchased by me, they were all handed down from family members. If someone wants to kill, they'll find a way. If they ever found a way to take the guns, it would open another door to something else as, or more sinister. People run you over with cars, blow you up, throw children off of second and third stories, and the list goes on.
edit on 4-9-2019 by LSU2018 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 02:14 PM
link   
But if Facebook, et al habitually bans and squashes conservative viewpoints, then wouldn’t that reflect in significantly lower scores among those more likely to purchase firearms versus those that are not likely?



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: roadgravel

Infowars is the source.


Not only that, but I just went through five or six of the 'sources' in OP and at least 2 of them aren't even an article, just the title and a link back to infowars... and the rest all appear to be the exact same article, copied and pasted.

I'd be curious to see who is actually considering this within the administration, and what proof that it's actually been discussed actually exists...
but we all know it would never fly.
You can't allow the blanket surveillance of citizens to be used in deciding what they can buy- they need to hold onto that card for a fight they can win. If that data was allowed to be mined to deny people their rights, it wouldn't be a month before that data was used to decide who can be voted for- and then who can vote... and then they'd be forced to stop collecting that data.
No- they're using that data to do evil things we can't see.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

How do you make sure the other guy is not a criminal or other type of prohibited person?



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I don't remember which MSM, probably CNN, but I remember seeing an article about social credit right after one or a string of recent mass killings but it disappeared quickly and haven't heard anything since.

Most likely another one of hundreds of off-the-cuff statements President Trump has made when impromptu fast talking the media and American people. He gets passionate and has ideas like any of us but has more freedom to say whatever he wants because he's a very powerful and intimidating guy compared to previous Presidents of the late 20th and the 21st centuries.

I don't know much about what checks are currently required to buy a gun through a licensed dealer. What I'd like to know is, does the applicant have to put at least 2 referrals and must those referrals qualify as knowing the applicant for a certain number of years plus?

I understand not everyone has family members that they can use as a referral, but most do. Wouldn't those be highly preferred? Does whoever doing the background check call the referrals like they do when consideing to hire someone for a job opening? The job opening is apparently important enough to do so, why not owning a gun?

Process them on a case by case basis and if that takes too long or is too tedious, simply pay the employees needed to do it with money from the Federal Government that I'd imagine wouldn't be impossible to pass legislation on. Or would it be? Is it either sweeping restrictions from a Democratic administration or none from a Republican one?
edit on 4-9-2019 by FlyingSquirrel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyingSquirrel

The news article was about social media giants doing it not Trump. Trump was not in the article at all. The OP hates Trump so much he sourced infowars.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: funbobby
a reply to: Ahabstar

How do you make sure the other guy is not a criminal or other type of prohibited person?


"Are you legally permitted to purchase this firearm?"
"Yes"

It's now on the shoulders of the purchaser to have been honest and forthright, not on the seller.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Make it a crime to lie. Liberals tell me all the time if it's a crime to own a gun then it will stop people from having it. So if it's a crime to lie, then no one will do it obviously.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Infowars got the story from The Daily Caller, who got it from the Washington Post behind a paywall.

The title starts out-
“White House considers”
Note the word considers.

Then the article starts off -
“The White House has been briefed on a proposal”
Note the word briefed.

This is a non-story bit of propaganda from the usual sources it seems to me.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

you left out the part where you asked that. That ought to cover you. We don't really have private sales here.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yeah well, liberals are the physical manifestation of hive mind, only the mind shared by the hive is a retarded one and functions poorly. Here in the real world, we realize that people lie, people cheat, people steal, and people kill... and laws that primarily restrict the freedoms of honest, forthright, upstanding, law abiding citizens are draconian and the symptom of a fascist government.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: funbobby
a reply to: burdman30ott6

you left out the part where you asked that. That ought to cover you. We don't really have private sales here.


I have no idea where "here" is. I'm in Alaska and yeah, our rules allow private sales with little state level impunity.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join