XPost: rec.radio.shortwave   
   From: bit_bucket@gmx.com   
      
   On 11/17/2011 1:44 PM, flipper wrote:   
   > On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:23:40 -0800, John Smith   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 11/16/2011 7:24 PM, flipper wrote:   
   >>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:59:32 -0500, Kevin Alfred Strom   
   >>>    wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 11/16/2011 4:45 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:   
   >>>> [...]   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> But the language of the bill is sufficiently broad to allow   
   >>>>> interpretation beyond commercial interests alone, to include persons   
   >>>>> conducting flea markets, garage sales, or one on one transactions.   
   >>>>> To the degree that it's had a chilling effect on flea markets on the   
   >>>>> local level, in areas where economic distress has made flea markets   
   >>>>> a significant segment of the shopping culture.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> What we need is a whole new culture of privacy.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> A climate in which not only can corporations, banks, and governments   
   >>>> not restrict or tax or control our private transactions in any way   
   >>>> -- but a climate in which it is universally acknowledged that they   
   >>>> also have _no_ right to even _know_ what those transactions are.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> They are here to serve us, not the other way round. They are the   
   >>>> peons, and we are the rulers -- not the reverse. They have no right   
   >>>> to know ANYTHING about our transactions.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> We, on the other hand, have the absolute right to know everything   
   >>>> about theirs, and restrict them if we so choose.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> A whole new mindset, of unalterable and immovable steel and will, is   
   >>>> needed.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I doubt, however, that a generation of cowed and bowed dependents   
   >>>> and yes-men can produce such a thing.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> With every good wish,   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Kevin Alfred Strom.   
   >>>   
   >>> You might have a different opinion if you were burglarized and all   
   >>> your stuff was sold by 'private transactions' through a second hand   
   >>> dealer front man.   
   >>>   
   >>> Btw, the information only becomes available to the police in the event   
   >>> of a criminal investigation and it's only that transaction. There is   
   >>> no routine 'reporting to the government'.   
   >>   
   >> Isn't that the reason we initially hired "cops" for?   
   >   
   > What is the 'reason' you are mysteriously alluding to?   
   >   
   >>   I mean, I realize   
   >> they are no longer doing a job for the people, the citizens -- and are   
   >> mostly revenue generators for the town, city, county, state, feds, etc.   
   >   
   > Just how does a murder, burglary, theft, etc. investigation 'generate   
   > revenue'?   
   >   
   >>   But, really, watching every dollar trade hands is NOT what we have   
   >> public servants and authorities for,   
   >   
   > And the bill doesn't do that, even for the limited group "secondhand   
   > dealers" it addresses. It requires them to keep their own records,   
   > which is no more information to no more people than the persons   
   > involved in the transaction.   
   >   
   > The only occasion for government to even know a transaction took place   
   > is in the event of a criminal investigation.   
   >   
   >> we don't have them to "punish" us   
   >   
   > Depends on who 'us' is. 'Punishment' is pretty much the whole concept   
   > behind a prison system.   
   >   
   >> ... we simply need to remind them to do the original job they were   
   >> created for   
   >   
   > You mean like search and seizure police powers?   
   >   
   > Of course, if you're a criminal the best thing is to not keep any   
   > records they can search and seize, isn't it?   
   >   
   > On the other hand, knowing who you're dealing with is pretty much SOP   
   > for legitimate business even if for no other reason than they don't   
   > want to be screwed by some fly by night huckster.   
   >   
   >> and the things you mention are already taken care of ...   
   >   
   > And just how is it "already taken care of" when a criminal front man   
   > doesn't 'know who' he bought the stolen goods from and paid cash so   
   > it's untraceable?   
   >   
   > I suppose we could go back to the bright light and rubber hose   
   > methods.   
   >   
   >> let's just get the public servants and cops to do the job for the people.   
   >   
   > I don't know what 'job' you have in mind since criminal theft rings   
   > seem to be off your radar screen.   
   >   
   > But let's get one thing clear. I never said this particular law was   
   > well worded, 'ideal', or even adequate. All I said is that Internet   
   > and media hysterics misrepresent both the intent and functioning of it   
   > and your "watching every dollar trade hands" is an example.   
   >   
   > But, to the point that started this sub thread, there is nothing   
   > whatsoever in that law which requires any seller, secondhand or not,   
   > to get the 'identity' of a -->buyer<-- (of a radio or anything else).   
   >   
   > Btw, it isn't just the poor schmuck who got robbed that's screwed   
   > because, no matter how much 'good faith' you had in buying, if the   
   > 'used' radio you bought from the "secondhand dealer" was stolen it   
   > isn't yours. It goes back to the rightful owner and you're out   
   > whatever you paid for it so Mr. "Don't know who and paid cash" is   
   > screwing you too.   
   >   
   >> Regards,   
   >> JS   
      
   Gee, just when we thought we had enough, another complete imbecile ...   
   how special ...   
      
   Regards,   
   JS   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)