Of course not. But that's not what is being proposed. What is being proposed is some central database. Please, by all means, "keep medical records" -- just don't keep them centrally. Because we've seen time and again that centralized records are easily -- and often -- abused.
But also, it's kind of a stretch from "medical records" to "keeping TABS on people like Zimmerman" ... I mean, in some sense, they DO "keep tabs" on people like Z: evidence was attempted to be introduced at the trial about previous calls he had made to the cops on both the non-emergency and emergency (911) phones. A judge decided whether to admit it or not. That seems fine to me.
> In fact, you seem to be implying ...
Which is it? A fact? Or what seems to be an implication?
> the same argument that opponents of gun ownership make, the one
> by which something that can be misused ought to be banned outright.
If you want to switch gears and talk about central gun registration, yes: I'm on record here as saying that I'm against it for similar reasons: there's no scenario that such a thing would help stop gun crime, and it's the kind of thing that on its own is easily abused. If you want to ban gun ownership, go work on that; in the mean time, this half-baked "We'll make a list!" idea is dumb.
There's an underlying priciple, which I think I'm also on record here as saying: law enforcement, in a society like ours, SHOULD be difficult. Anything whose sole purpose appears to be "to make law enforcement easier" is usually something I'm against. In the case of guns, I think the answer is clear: require manufacturers to adequately keep records of who they ship them to; require stores to adequately keep records of who they sold to; etc. ENFORCE THIS. If you want to track a gun, make a few phone calls. Work down "through the tree" instead of having a big pile of leaves to sift through any time you want.
This is the same approach I have to the metadata issue: get a court who can review cases leading to warrants, then go read their mail or whatever it is you think you need to further the case. If it's "too slow" then fix the process, don't route around it by saying "just give me everything, I'll deal with it" (and I promise not to let it be abused, you'll have to trust me).
This is what the 4th ammendment means to me, Charles Brown's earlier chiding notwithstanding.
The way to fix the NYPD/FBI problem is also within our grasp, if anyone took the time to consider that what they are dfoing is building a database that is a "construtive nuissance" -- it nearly begs crooked cops and others to abuse it. So: you have to track usage and tie it to need; you have to audit the process; and you have to punish those who abuse it: swiftly and surely. If you go monkeying around in the database, you are fired or given a job that doesn't require access anymore.
The IRS used to have a big problem with stalkers getting tax data on celebrities and politicians until they built such a system. Then they fired 100 people for abuse. Now they don't have that problem much anymore.
/jordan