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

>  Some argue that Europe is in grave danger of becoming a totalitarian
> government system because the citizens have no way of keeping governments
> in check, and they are passing stricter and stricter laws, restricting
> more and more liberties, as time passes. Europeans don't shoot back, but
> instead they submit.

That's only correct for an issue like guns, because far fewer people in 
Europe care about having a gun than in the US (as far as I can tell).  If 
any government in Europe changed the law on guns, basically nobody would 
care apart from a small minority.

Take a different issue, say tax on fuel, and suddenly people do "shoot 
back" - certainly in the UK there was havoc when fuel prices went too high, 
the government knows it cannot do anything silly here else the country will 
be brought to a standstill.

I suspect other issues which a lot of people actually care about would have 
similar outcomes if the government tried to do something they didn't like.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:54:02 -0800, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> 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.

"High quality" garbage is still garbage.  Just because everyone's doing 
it doesn't mean it's right or what we should do.

>> 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.

Somewhat, yes - some of the places that strike me as being less owned by 
corporations, though, are places like China......

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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.
> 

It is very difficult to get a permit to sell a machine gun. It is not
all that difficult, depending on the state, to get the tax stamp
required to own one. Get finger printed, pass a background check, and
talk to the local LEO. Then pay $200 for a tax stamp when you buy the
weapon. On the state level, there are probably some extra hoops to jump
through.

The guns are the hard part. They have to be made before May 19th 1986,
so the prices are through the roof. Or they can be home-made, if you pay
a different tax and get the correct stamp. Those can only later be
transfered to the military or police.

All this assume I read the National Firearms Act, and remember it
correctly. I recommend you do not assume that.

Post a reply to this message