On 9-3-2016 2:17, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:45:54 +0100, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
>> On 26-2-2016 2:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:27:47 +0000, scott wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> In Utah, I remember there being an issue with someone from outside
>>>>>>> the US (maybe it was someone from the UK) trying to buy alcohol
>>>>>>> with their regular ID - which didn't include a photo.  Utah
>>>>>>> requires (or at least required at one time) a photo ID for
>>>>>>> purchase.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's easy to solve, you walk round the block, buy a gun, then go
>>>>>> back and ask again for a drink :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> hem... don't need the same ID to buy a gun? ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Nope, no mention in 2nd amendment about requiring photo ID to buy a
>>>> gun ;-) Seriously though, it seems in Utah to buy from a "dealer" they
>>>> need to run a criminal background check (which I assume means they'll
>>>> want to see ID?), but private sales are legal and subject to no such
>>>> requirement, so it shouldn't be too hard to come into possession of a
>>>> gun without ID.
>>>
>>> Heh, that's certainly true.
>>>
>>>
>> So, you have the interesting situation where it is easier to buy a gun
>> than a bottle of booze; where there is a policeman standing inside the
>> booze store but not in the gun store...
>>
>> Weird country. Maybe a topic for the brothers Coen.
>
> Yep.
>
> But here where I live, weed is also legal, so I suspect we don't have
> high crime.  Or maybe we do, depending on the meaning of 'high' you
> apply. ;)
>

I have followed that with interest. Here (NL) we have been discussing 
for decades whether weed should be legalised or not (while the rest of 
Europe looked on with disapproving eyes about our semi-liberal and not 
too successful experiments about it) without coming to a decision. In 
the meantime, weed has been grown into something closer to a hard drug, 
and one might seriously reconsider the initial question yet again.


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message