PDA

View Full Version : Odd changes to 4473 " race" questions


Falstaff
07-15-2012, 8:02 PM
I dont think race should even be on the 4473 at all; i have entered the word "human" on my 4473's " race" question in the past.... What is ATF trying to prove here?


Previous 4473:
10. Race (Ethnicity) (Check one or more boxes)

American Indian or Alaska Native
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latino
Asian
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
White
===================================
New 4473:

Separate sections:

10a: Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino
Not Hispanic or Latino

10b: Race (check one or more boxes)
American Indian or Alaska Native
Black or African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
White
==================
So, EVERYone must answer the Hispanic Latino section, and it's no longer a "race" like the others, but an "ethnicity"?

And so you can now be:

American Indian or Alaska Native Hispanic/Latino
or Black or African American Hispanic/Latino
or Asian Hispanic/Latino
or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Hispanic/Latiino

http://www.atf.gov/f...tf-f-4473-1.pdf

dustoff31
07-15-2012, 8:08 PM
It looks like they finally figured out that Hispanic or Latino is not a race.

But really, I believe it's there just "because". Because over the years the gov has become so obsessed with race that they have to inject it into everything that they possibly can. It could be helpful in a NICS check, but other than that, has no real purpose that I can see.

QQQ
07-15-2012, 8:15 PM
They did the same thing on the most recent census.

Mssr. Eleganté
07-15-2012, 8:21 PM
In the past, the FBI assumed that all "hispanic/latino" people checked "hispanic/latino" as their race on the 4473. Recent studies have shown that a large segment of the "hispanic/latino" community self-identify as "white". The new 4473 allows hispanic/latino gun buyers who identify as white to check both boxes. When they do this the FBI just ignores the "white" box and puts them back into the secret "hispanic/latino" race category that they are no longer allowed to admit exists.

bloodhawke83
07-15-2012, 8:23 PM
I just mark that all applies. :D 3 boxes for me.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

littlejake
07-15-2012, 8:24 PM
My AZ CCW permit application grouped white and Hispanic into one.

But dustoff31 has hit on it. There's a difference between ethnicity and race. They don't slice it and dice it as finely -- but, a person could be white (race) with Irish ethnicity.

( I just looked at the Florida CCW app and it does not even list Hispanic.)

senorpeligro
07-15-2012, 8:26 PM
My AZ CCW permit application grouped white and Hispanic into one.

But dustoff31 has hit on it. There's a difference between ethnicity and race. They don't slice it and dice it as finely -- but, a person could be white (race) with Irish ethnicity.

( I just looked at the Florida CCW app and it does not even list Hispanic.)

There's no such such thing as "race" as intended by these questions. We're all too similar.

Fjold
07-15-2012, 8:45 PM
I have an old 4473 from the 70's that asks:

"Are you a drunkard?"

orangeusa
07-15-2012, 8:48 PM
Wow, that's fantastic. They should have added 'are you a wife-beater?'

I have an old 4473 from the 70's that asks:

"Are you a drunkard?"

G-forceJunkie
07-15-2012, 8:52 PM
Wow, that's fantastic. They should have added 'are you a wife-beater?'

I think that was ok back then :)

FXR
07-15-2012, 8:55 PM
I have an old 4473 from the 70's that asks:

"Are you a drunkard?"

:useless:

erik_26
07-15-2012, 8:55 PM
I wish you could check 'AMERICAN'

Paladin
07-15-2012, 9:10 PM
Previous 4473:
10. Race (Ethnicity) (Check one or more boxes)

American Indian or Alaska Native
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latino
Asian
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
White
===================================
New 4473:

Separate sections:

10a: Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino
Not Hispanic or Latino

10b: Race (check one or more boxes)
American Indian or Alaska Native
Black or African American
Asian
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
White
==================
The key thing to notice is, like the Census Bureau, they do NOT have a racial category (item 10b) for the indigenous peoples of Central and South America, so vast majority are categorized as "white" and the cover up of the extent of the colonization of America continues....

Acc to Jared Taylor's C-SPAN presentation of The Color of Crime: Race, Crime and Violence in America (1999) (link at:
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/ID/128178 ), acc to the 1990 US Census, 52.9% of Los Angeles was said to be "white," but when you factor in that ~91% of Latinos are categorized as whites and deduct them from the white category, you find that LA was actually only 17% white! -- a big difference, esp culturally.

dantodd
07-15-2012, 9:24 PM
Wow, that's fantastic. They should have added 'are you a wife-beater?'

No, but I wear one.

morfeeis
07-15-2012, 10:37 PM
I wish you could check 'AMERICAN'
Unless they're here on a visa then i agree 100%.

gunsmith
07-15-2012, 10:48 PM
its important for the govt to have this info - the liberals are invested in racist gun laws

waffenfabrik_
07-15-2012, 10:54 PM
I have an old 4473 from the 70's that asks:

"Are you a drunkard?"
http://www.hark.com/clips/hvbglbwpjs-im-a-drunkard

<object width="496" height="370" class="hark_player"><param name="movie" value="http://cdn.hark.com/swfs/player_image_fit_image.swf?pid=hvbglbwpjs&quote_hoffset=16&quote_voffset=163&quote_width=396&quote_size=12&quote_color=ffffff"/><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"/><param name="allownetworking" value="all"/><param name="wmode" value="transparent"/><embed src="http://cdn.hark.com/swfs/player_image_fit_image.swf?pid=hvbglbwpjs&quote_hoffset=16&quote_voffset=163&quote_width=396&quote_size=12&quote_color=ffffff" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" width="496" height="370" wmode="transparent"></embed></object><br/><a href="http://www.hark.com/clips/hvbglbwpjs-im-a-drunkard" style="font-size: 9px; color: #ddd;" title="Listen to I'm A Drunkard on Hark.com">I'm A Drunkard</a>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phJMlsdABkY

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/phJMlsdABkY?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/phJMlsdABkY?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/phJMlsdABkY?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I must be drunk too; I can't get these to work.

senorpeligro
07-15-2012, 10:56 PM
its important for the govt to have this info - the liberals are invested in racist gun laws

Even asking for this BS, unscientific information, promulgates racism. Why is this so hard?

model63
07-16-2012, 2:43 AM
The key thing to notice is, like the Census Bureau, they do NOT have a racial category (item 10b) for the indigenous peoples of Central and South America, so vast majority are categorized as "white" and the cover up of the extent of the colonization of America continues....


My 2:45 a.m. ramblings....
If there is a conspiracy or cover up on the extent of colonization, we can blame our forefathers poor application of Darwin's principles or not getting that memo on Mendels pea experiments worked into legislation. Given the rather embryonic state of DNA in say 1848 (when the Hispanic term took hold) coupled with the pace and size of government bureaucracy it would seem easy to understand why things have evolved into how they are today...

I would surmise he reason there wasn't a category of Central/South American is because it would be seen as redundant. They were small in numbers historically and for purposes of linguistics and maybe a tad bit of prejudice, anyone south of border was thought one in the same (Mexican'ish) and adequately captured in the White + Hispanic bucket as a subset of the once larger White+ Non-Hispanic bucket. Personally being culturally 'White' on one side of my family roots and culturally 'Latino/Hispanic' on the other with a lot of Heinz 57 in between the old world ad the new, the old census choices were inadequate and needed revision, especially on non-4473 forms that said 'check only one'. At least the 4473 allows more than one if they are statistically looking at 'bi-racial' data for gun purchasers or potential threats down the road.....although if SHTF I am sure things will get tribal and I'll be grouped in with the Red and Green Flag with a snake instead of the Stars and Stripes.

Read up on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo Article 8,9,10. In short when Texas became a state (as well as other part of the Southwest to Cali), the American's had to do something with all the Mexican's (Spanish {European}and Indian blood) living in the newly acquired territory...As part of the treaty, Mexico for it's people in the new US land wanted recognition of property rights (we know how that turns out) and full citizenship for those that chose American citizenship (some could choose Mexican but had to GTFO or live here and die here with less rights/protections than they previously had) Ironically, IIRC those that wanted to remain Mexican and had their kids born on this soil were to be American kids :eek: (imagine that as we are debating that still to this day)... esp clear come 10+ years later with the XIII-XIV-XV Amendments). For lack of a better term, east coast non-miscegenized whites had to technically classify these folks as white and extend rights on paper at the time, something that only some were able to take advantage of much easier if they had command of English :eek:... (can I get an Amen on the origins of English only laws and ballots?)...and again not so much for the 3/5 and Indian's folks in the same area. The Hispanic distinction was one for whites (Latino is often seen as self-titled) to differentiate between the two which has promulgated to this day.

Being American, unlike anywhere else I've ever been is a state of mind and commitment to certain beliefs and ideals, much more so than happenstance of soil or birthright. For the purpose of science we are all one race, but for the purpose of politics, entitlement and power we are anything but.

The War Wagon
07-16-2012, 4:59 AM
As long as "Cracka," "Honky," & "Eeeeevil Whitey" remain on the form, I'm good to go. :rolleyes:

Dutch3
07-16-2012, 5:30 AM
They have changed the 4473 to comply with the new federal regs.

When registering a K-12 student in school, the same questions are on the registration form. It is interesting to note that in our district, of all the parents who check "Hispanic" for ethnicity, virtually none of them choose a race category. They just leave it blank.

One or two of them might check "white" or "American Indian or Alaska Native", but 99% apparently don't want to identify with any of the existing "race" categories.

Under Federal law, both sections are supposed to be completed. Yes/No for Hispanic, and then up to 5 races can be selected, but it is not supposed to be left blank.

California allows one or both to be blank for state reporting purposes, so our system has "Ethnicity Missing" and "Race Missing" fields for the export into the CALPADS reporting system.

taloft
07-16-2012, 6:55 AM
When I did a dros last week they circled Not Hispanic or Latino and then circled white. I was thinking that it was redundant but, what do I know.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-16-2012, 8:04 AM
I have an old 4473 from the 70's that asks:

"Are you a drunkard?"


Now they go to meetings. Which makes them alcoholics. :)


The Raisuli

haole_50
07-16-2012, 9:17 AM
Mine indicates "TERRAN"! (for the ingnorant that means earther)

IVC
07-16-2012, 10:26 AM
Racial "checkboxes" are tricky business.

For example, banks were pushed by PC regulators to achieve "racial equality" in lending, which forced them to lend to less-than-qualified borrowers, which in turn contributed to the housing bust.

It's a matter of time before antis start incorporating racial statistics into their propaganda. Race is a highly emotional category and easy to exploit, so "statistics" showing that "whites are arming much more than minorities" is not hard to imagine as another angle of attack.

tonelar
07-16-2012, 10:28 AM
Funny, I thought mine said "Terracian".

The Gleam
07-16-2012, 11:18 AM
If I write in "Talladega" will they accept that as "race"?

Or are they going to get all pretentious and say "that's no race; Formula One is a race!".

===========================:auto:

oni.dori
07-16-2012, 12:42 PM
I just mark that all applies. :D 3 boxes for me.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I do the same, just to eff with their statistics (two for me).

Dreaded Claymore
07-16-2012, 3:18 PM
There's no such such thing as "race" as intended by these questions. We're all too similar.

Even asking for this BS, unscientific information, promulgates racism. Why is this so hard?

This. Population geneticists can tell you conclusively that races do not exist. They are an invention used primarily to persuade people that slavery and murder are acceptable.

Ethnic groups are cultural rather than biological categories. Ethnicity does exist, but it is not very relevant most of the time.

Paladin
07-16-2012, 10:43 PM
This. Population geneticists can tell you conclusively that races do not exist.
Cool! Then it is impossible to accuse police of "racial profiling."
Cool! Then George Zimmerman (and everybody else) does not have to worry about racial "hate crime" charges since races do not exist!
Cool! "Affirmative action" must also be impossible, and thus should be repealed. White candidates for police and firemen jobs, not just college applicants, have something to celebrate (but that assumes "whites" exist, and since we know that race does not exist, no one can celebrate.... or be upset....)
Cool! That means there won't be a "beat whitey night" in 2012, unlike in 2011 (Wisconsin) and 2010 (Iowa)...
Cool! That means the the NAACP, black student unions, and United Negro College Fund will close their doors and the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson will get to stay in their pulpits. That means that we can tell AG Eric Holder to ST(heck)U when he says "we're a nation of cowards" when it comes to talking about race.
2Fy2DnMFwZw
Bummer! Forensic pathologists are wrong in categorizing skeletal remains by race.
Drug makers should not, and acc to you, cannot test drugs for different dosage requirements, effects and side effects on populations of different races since "we're all the human race" and "race is just a social construct."

Let's all hold hands now and sing: "Kumbaya, my Lord. Kumbaya!"

ib-Qiyklq-Q

Paladin
07-16-2012, 10:57 PM
I would surmise he reason there wasn't a category of Central/South American is because it would be seen as redundant. They were small in numbers historically and for purposes of linguistics and maybe a tad bit of prejudice, anyone south of border was thought one in the same (Mexican'ish) and adequately captured in the White + Hispanic bucket as a subset of the once larger White+ Non-Hispanic bucket.Um, we're talking about the recent changes in 4473 and the recent US Census categories, and for the past few DECADES, illegal immigration has been a big and constant issue. So the question remains: Why does the US gov't, as seen in the new 4473 and the US Census Bureau, refuse to provide an appropriate racial category for the native/indigenous people groups from Central and South America who have compromised the largest influx of immigrants, both legal and illegal, since at least the 1970s???

South and Central Americans are often proud of their heritage and do not like being categorized as "white" since their ancestors were not Europeans or even from that continent. Many of their ancestors trace back for thousands of years to the Americas. Before that, anthropologist and population geneticists tell us that most of them came across from Asia. But they don't consider themselves Asians.

model63
07-17-2012, 2:38 AM
Um, we're talking about the recent changes in 4473 and the recent US Census categories, and for the past few DECADES, illegal immigration has been a big and constant issue. So the question remains: Why does the US gov't, as seen in the new 4473 and the US Census Bureau, refuse to provide an appropriate racial category for the native/indigenous people groups from Central and South America who have compromised the largest influx of immigrants, both legal and illegal, since at least the 1970s???

South and Central Americans are often proud of their heritage and do not like being categorized as "white" since their ancestors were not Europeans or even from that continent. Many of their ancestors trace back for thousands of years to the Americas. Before that, anthropologist and population geneticists tell us that most of them came across from Asia. But they don't consider themselves Asians.

There is a lot here and I agree for the most part on your points politically about illegal immigration being a problem.

As for your second point about refusal by the US government I don't think there are many choices here but White or Indian or African based on our how we throw around the term race non-scientifically and historically did not allow for checking more than one box. They (South and Central American's) may not like how the US does it, but so what? I don't see anyone claiming their 'race' from El Salvador to be Salvadorian...no such thing exist.

I think you really want a detailed breakdown by geography and perhaps nationality/citizenship of immigrants that disrupting the balance and face of our long established power structures in America... your concerns seem more circled around the constant reinforcement of those peoples 'culture' into the US...and to me it makes the bucket of Hispanic all the more appropriate. Groups tend to like to define themselves as what they are and not be defined as those that conquered them.. Those groups promote the narrative they want to be told about being like Olmecs, Mayan, Aztec, Incan, or even Atzlan but in so doing they are in denial of the equally powerful Spanish influence they have in nearly all things and maybe in greater denial historically of their Asian/Polynesian ancestry. I may be mistaken, but I would guess you care less about the mix in % of Indian vs. White Spanish blood (non-scientific racial mix) these guys have as immigrants as you do about their cultural and financial impact on US and address those problems at the nation/state level (where they are coming from).

In my experience, in travel and in talking with most any Spanish speaking person south of Mexico they are less PC about their about their social ranking in relation to each other usually with the top of the scale being people that can trace their ancestry puritanically to Europe, then mixed bloods followed by indigenous Indian's and people of African ancestry.

So to put it short, at least for the census, they are not asking the right question to get your data how you are looking for it.... for the 4473, I'd like to tell them none of your business but if you must know white or white+Hispanic should suffice as that is how the cops will run you when pulled over.... Hispanic Male...

bloodhawke83
07-17-2012, 7:48 AM
I just did one yesterday, marked all that applied.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Cowboy T
07-17-2012, 9:18 AM
It looks like they finally figured out that Hispanic or Latino is not a race.


That's correct. Just have a look at Pele', King Juan Carlos of Spain, and Cesar Chavez. Oh, and then there are the Peruvians of Chinese and Japanese ancestry.

"Hispanic" is a set of cultures. It doesn't have a damned thing to do with genetics. Now, most Latinos that I see in this country look to me like Native Americans. Gee, big surprise there, eh? ;) When I was a kid, I met some folks from New Mexico that I originally thought were Mexicans. Nope, they were Apaches, didn't speak Spanish, they spoke both Apache and English. Blew me away back then at that age.

Therefore, I see no reason for the "Hispanic" category to be on the 4473 at all. Will they also include, "Gaelic", or "Chinese", or "Gujarati", and all the other myriad cultural families? How about "Jewish", since many Jews I've met have told me they consider themselves to be "racially Jewish"? Should we do that?

Californio
07-17-2012, 9:49 AM
The whole thing is Funny. My Basque Relatives, they colonized San Francisco in 1776, they all have Blue Eyes and Blond hair color as children which turns to brunette later. I had my daughter answer Hispanic/Californio on the High School entrance papers just to Screw with the Bureaucrats.

We are Americans with American Constitutional Ideals, should not matter what traits we have or what we look like, it is the Ideals that matter.

The question is just more devisive BS.

Dreaded Claymore
07-17-2012, 10:08 AM
Cool! Then it is impossible to accuse police of "racial profiling."
Cool! Then George Zimmerman (and everybody else) does not have to worry about racial "hate crime" charges since races do not exist!
Cool! "Affirmative action" must also be impossible, and thus should be repealed. White candidates for police and firemen jobs, not just college applicants, have something to celebrate (but that assumes "whites" exist, and since we know that race does not exist, no one can celebrate.... or be upset....)
Cool! That means there won't be a "beat whitey night" in 2012, unlike in 2011 (Wisconsin) and 2010 (Iowa)...
Cool! That means the the NAACP, black student unions, and United Negro College Fund will close their doors and the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson will get to stay in their pulpits. That means that we can tell AG Eric Holder to ST(heck)U when he says "we're a nation of cowards" when it comes to talking about race.
Bummer! Forensic pathologists are wrong in categorizing skeletal remains by race.
Drug makers should not, and acc to you, cannot test drugs for different dosage requirements, effects and side effects on populations of different races since "we're all the human race" and "race is just a social construct."

Let's all hold hands now and sing: "Kumbaya, my Lord. Kumbaya!"


I think I gave you the wrong idea about what I think about race...

If I'm interpreting your post correctly, and it is sarcasm, we're mostly in agreement. For instance, I think that affirmative action does more harm than good, and is unfair. I also think that Jackson and Sharpton aren't helping anyone.

I didn't mean to say that some human populations don't have genetic and somatic differences from other populations. People from (for instance) Japan tend to differ in certain characteristics when compared to people from (for instance) Mongolia. And if you find a corpse or a skeleton, you can compare it, and its DNA, to what you know about different human populations, and make a pretty darn good guess about where it came from.

What I'm saying is that population biologists can tell you that these different populations do not line up with our traditional ideas of "races." Traditionally, we peg anyone from sub-Saharan Africa as "black." But there are a lot of different population groups in Africa, which differ from each other a lot. Even though two African populations may both have similarly dark complexions and really curly hair, they look completely different to a population biologist (and, often, to each other.)

That's why testing medicines for different effects on different "racial" categories is not actually useful. Two different patients might be classified as "black" or "African," but depending on where their ancestors came from, they might be as genetically different from each other as someone from, say, France (traditional racial category "white").

If drugs were being tested for different effects on patients from the Great Rift Valley and patients from the Serengeti region, you'd have something. But they're being tested for different effects on "blacks," which, biologically, is meaningless.

Also, if race isn't a primarily cultural construct, you'd have a lot of trouble explaining why Spaniards were always classified as "white" even though they are descended from Moors and look more like Arabs than like Europeans, and why Irish and Italians were classified for decades as "not white" but are now classified as "white."

freespool
07-17-2012, 11:00 PM
I can't claim to be an expert, but I'm pretty sure racial (and gender) differential pharmacology is abundantly shown, and that genetic relationships back up what the eyes tell you, as a general reality, in keeping with the basic model of speciation. Dogs are a similarly good example. Your last sentence brings it back to why race would be on a 4473.