The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
During the process of handing in the weapon for testing--the police mis-interpreting statements in the associated questioning which most likely occurred.seamusTX wrote: I don't understand. If you don't have something to hide, what are you afraid of?
- Jim
Here's a picture from a previous thread.seamusTX wrote:Yes. Glock strikers leave a unique mark. - Jim
KC5AV wrote:Well, I have a Glock .40S&W. Maybe they'd like to test mine, too.
Also, the rifling on a G40 is not conventional (polygonal)seamusTX wrote:Yes. Glock strikers leave a unique mark.
- Jim
If this would actually work, they should just ask for the guilty party to step forward. I normally support LEO in doing their jobs, but this has too many concerns for me. If it fails to produce anything, will they expand their search to EVERYONE that owns a Glock? If it succeeds, will ballistic fingerprinting become a requirement for all gun owners? Why not go ahead and take DNA at birth? Build the database and when anything happens, just look up the person responsible & go pick them up.seamusTX wrote:The problem is asking people to provide what could be evidence against themselves
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/ ... 6/05/70886The Eternal Value of Privacy - Wired.com wrote:The most common retort against privacy advocates -- by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures -- is this line: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"
Some clever answers: "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me." "Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition." "Because you might do something wrong with my information." My problem with quips like these -- as right as they are -- is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.
drw wrote:http://www.wired.com/politics/security/ ... 6/05/70886The Eternal Value of Privacy - Wired.com wrote:The most common retort against privacy advocates -- by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures -- is this line: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"
Some clever answers: "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me." "Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition." "Because you might do something wrong with my information." My problem with quips like these -- as right as they are -- is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.
They will likely say that they did everything that they could, and try to transfer some blame to those people.KC5AV wrote:What are they going to do if the 15 other folks still refuse to submit to their illegal search?
seamusTX wrote:They will likely say that they did everything that they could, and try to transfer some blame to those people.KC5AV wrote:What are they going to do if the 15 other folks still refuse to submit to their illegal search?
I'm just speculating, though.
- Jim