On 02/26/10 04:52, Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>>   If that kind of law (ie. all handguns illegal, confiscated without
>>>> recompensation) was enacted in the US, it would most probably result in a
>>>> civil war.
> 
>> Except that a couple of dreaming idealists with pistols and shotguns 
>> aren't going to last 7 seconds against the entire might of the US 
>> military, the largest army on the face of God's Earth.
> 
>   Yeah, sure. The US Army is going to attack its own country and its own
> citizens, especially at a large scale, resulting in thousands and thousands
> of casualties, millions and millions in property damage and a full-fledged
> civil war, plummeting the economy of the country so low that the current
> crisis is paradise in comparison. I don't think so.

	That's one scenario. Another is that few will die, and most will
comply. I doubt it, but I doubt it will be anywhere near as bad as your
scenario were this to pass.

	Remember: *Many* people in the US are against guns, and want them banned.

	I think you're assuming that the ban will be sudden. Make it happen
slowly (over, say, 2 decades), and the outcome may be quite muted. The
people did lose certain rights with the PATRIOT act, and for all the
"anger", no one really did anything about it. Heck, probably most people
who claimed to be upset by it ended up re-electing their congressmen.

	Now of course, these weren't freedoms people felt about as strongly as
the 2nd amendment, but a lot of people did have really strong feelings
about some of them (library monitoring, questionable detentions where no
charges are filed and no access to lawyers is given for years - although
not sure if the PATRIOT act was directly responsible for this one...).
Then you have a ridiculous amount of surveillance - some even illegal
despite the PATRIOT act, but no matter: Retroactive immunity was given.
People were upset, and then elected as president one of the people
responsible for the immunity (someone who said he opposed it, too).

	Follow the PATRIOT act model. Sit around till a bunch of events happen
that scare everyone (e.g. terrorist attacks). Pass laws that allow the
forceful removal of guns from *certain* individuals who seem to have a
high risk profile, and the rest is much easier.

	(Just saw that Patrick pointed this out).

	Americans can get quite upset if they think the government will go
after them. But there's no uniform "us" in the US (no pun intended) like
there may be in some European countries. If they push legislation with a
lot of sweet talk about how this is mostly for Mexican origin folks to
keep drugs and its violence out of the US, or Ali who seems to make lots
of calls to weird people in the Middle East, I think most Americans,
given the right circumstances, would be fine with it. (The exact
argument *was* given regarding the telephone monitoring - "If you're not
calling Afghanistan, you don't need to worry"). After all, it's not
_that_ rare that you get a congressman publicly stating that it's OK to
remove certain civil liberties (I think even freedom of speech) from
Arabs/Muslims. Wouldn't surprise me if they got re-elected as well.

	To be honest, when it comes to the effectiveness of protests to change
policies, the US simply sucks. I don't know about Finland, but in some
European countries it works a lot better (perhaps France would be an
example...).

	I also get the feeling that at least in some European countries, when
politicians do things that are wildly unpopular, they often get replaced
quickly. How often do you guys pass laws just to ensure crimes already
committed by the government or corporations don't get punished, or pass
laws simply to avoid having to follow rulings meted out by the courts? I
don't really know - perhaps it's common and doesn't hit the news here often.

-- 
If you ate pasta and antipasta, would you still be hungry?

Post a reply to this message

On 02/26/10 08:31, Darren New wrote:
> Then again, that's not how it would be done these days, as evidenced by
> the fact that nobody started shooting when the USA started locking up US
> citizens of japanese descent during WW2.
	
	But they weren't _really_ Americans, now, were they ;-)


-- 
If you ate pasta and antipasta, would you still be hungry?

Post a reply to this message

On 02/25/10 17:19, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Happens in the US as well - that's how something like PATRIOT gets passed.

	But the PATRIOT act is milder than what was passed in a number of
European countries - some before 2001.
	
> Governments are owned by corporations - doesn't matter where you are in 
> the world.  The golden rule applies - he who has the gold makes the rules.

	I think the degree of "ownership" varies quite a bit from place to
place, to be honest.

-- 
If you ate pasta and antipasta, would you still be hungry?

Post a reply to this message

On 02/25/10 14:55, Darren New wrote:
> It just wouldn't get enforced. The federal government has no forces to
> do that other than the military, and a fairly recent poll (like a few
> years ago) asked "would you assist in wide-spread confiscation of
> firearms from US citizens" of the general soldiers and about 70% said
> they wouldn't.

	While I tend to agree, I wouldn't put any stock into that poll. Find
soldiers (of any country) who've done nasty things, and I'm sure most of
them would have years earlier said and believed that they wouldn't do it
even if ordered to.


-- 
If you ate pasta and antipasta, would you still be hungry?

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 	I think you're assuming that the ban will be sudden. Make it happen
> slowly (over, say, 2 decades), and the outcome may be quite muted.

It's actually been in progress since the '40's or so.

> 	To be honest, when it comes to the effectiveness of protests to change
> policies, the US simply sucks. I don't know about Finland, but in some
> European countries it works a lot better (perhaps France would be an
> example...).

Yep.

> 	I also get the feeling that at least in some European countries, when
> politicians do things that are wildly unpopular, they often get replaced
> quickly. 

That's definitely one of the problems here, yes.  There are a few hot-button 
issues that never get touched, because they know that either way they vote 
they'll be out at the next election. That's why (for example) it's still up 
to the courts whether and how abortion is legal or not.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 02/26/10 08:31, Darren New wrote:
>> Then again, that's not how it would be done these days, as evidenced by
>> the fact that nobody started shooting when the USA started locking up US
>> citizens of japanese descent during WW2.
> 	
> 	But they weren't _really_ Americans, now, were they ;-)

That, and the fact that it was pretty much the same way witch hunts worked, 
where the people turning in the "japanese" got to keep their property.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         I think you're assuming that the ban will be sudden. Make it happen
> slowly (over, say, 2 decades), and the outcome may be quite muted.

  I don't think it's possible to repeal an amendment over the span of
2 decades. It's instantaneous: At one moment the amendment is valid,
the next moment it has been repealed. I don't think there's any middle
ground there.

  It happened with the 18th (in December 5th 1933, to be exact).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>         I think you're assuming that the ban will be sudden. Make it happen
>> slowly (over, say, 2 decades), and the outcome may be quite muted.
> 
>   I don't think it's possible to repeal an amendment over the span of
> 2 decades. It's instantaneous: At one moment the amendment is valid,
> the next moment it has been repealed. I don't think there's any middle
> ground there.
> 
>   It happened with the 18th (in December 5th 1933, to be exact).

I think Neeum meant a slow ban on guns in spite of constitutional 
protections. For example, it's now very difficult to own machine guns, in 
spite of the 2nd amendment not giving them special treatment.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

On 02/27/10 04:01, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>         I think you're assuming that the ban will be sudden. Make it happen
>> slowly (over, say, 2 decades), and the outcome may be quite muted.
> 
>   I don't think it's possible to repeal an amendment over the span of
> 2 decades. It's instantaneous: At one moment the amendment is valid,
> the next moment it has been repealed. I don't think there's any middle
> ground there.

	Well, yes there is. In the US, there's a ban on a number of kinds of
guns. That's already a partial ban.

-- 
Depend on the rabbit's foot if you will, but remember, it didn't help
the rabbit.

Post a reply to this message

On 2/27/2010 10:01 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>> I think you're assuming that the ban will be sudden. Make it happen
>>> slowly (over, say, 2 decades), and the outcome may be quite muted.
>>
>> I don't think it's possible to repeal an amendment over the span of
>> 2 decades. It's instantaneous: At one moment the amendment is valid,
>> the next moment it has been repealed. I don't think there's any middle
>> ground there.
>>
>> It happened with the 18th (in December 5th 1933, to be exact).
>
> I think Neeum meant a slow ban on guns in spite of constitutional
> protections. For example, it's now very difficult to own machine guns,
> in spite of the 2nd amendment not giving them special treatment.
>
You might be surprised, but even the NRA, for the most part, *agrees* 
with the idea that there is a sane point, beyond which you need to be an 
idiot to think someone should own one. And, I have, personally, no 
problem with people having such things "at firing ranges". Somewhat less 
so when its, well... for example, a racist, right wing, borderline white 
supremacist, evangelical preacher, found dead in his closet with a dozen 
of them, wearing multiple wetsuits, and his neck squeezed shut by 
several of his own ties. (And that isn't to mention the disturbing thing 
in a certain region of his anatomy *under* the wet suits.)

As much as I distrust, and am made uneasy by, the idea that, "Everyone 
would be safer if it was like the wild west, and everyone had a shot 
gun!", mentality, its nice to know even the gun advocates (well, most of 
them) have some point where they say, "Ok.. Maybe there is a point that 
goes a hair too far here."

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message