I read an interesting article (in Finnish) on someone's opinion about
the basic difference between European governments and the government of
the United States.

  This basic difference is that in Europe the government grants the
citizens rights and freedoms, while in the US it's the other way around:
There it's the citizens who grant the government their rights (to govern
them).

  And this is why they have the second amendment to their constitution:
To ensure that that's the way things will be. In Europe, if the government
goes bad, there's little the citizens can do about it, but in the US the
citizens have the concrete power of keeping the government in check, and
this is the power granted by the second amendment.

  Throughout Europe there has been a trend, during the last years, of
governments passing stricter and stricter laws regarding guns. For example
Belgium recently outlawed all handguns and confiscated (or tried to) all
handguns without any recompensation to their owners. (As an ironic but
at the same time sad result of this, where Belgium previously had about
1 million legal handguns accounted for by officials, who knew who owned
them and where, now Belgium has something like 700 thousand illegal
handguns which officials have no idea where they are, ostensibly making
them much more dangerous than before.)

  In Finland there has been talk about a similar law (and I guess similar
results, as Finland *never* learns from other countries).

  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. The US citizens wouldn't submit to such governmental control,
would deduce that the government has gone bad, and would shoot back.

  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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp 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.

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.

But yeah, this is the whole "we don't trust our government here" that also 
drives having juries and etc etc etc.

That's why all the arguments here over whether a firearm is appropriate for 
hunting game or something like that are simply smokescreens.

-- 
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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> But yeah, this is the whole "we don't trust our government here" that also 
> drives having juries and etc etc etc.

  You know, sometimes I feel that this kind of sentiment should be more
prevalent in Europe as well. It sometimes seems that European governments
get way too cocky and think they can pass whatever laws they want and
restrict people's freedom in whatever way they want (just not too fast;
people accept changes more easily if they happen slowly) and all citizens
will just submit. Sadly, they are right.

  (Of course not everything is right in the US either. For instance,
a private company suing an individual for 2 million dollars because she
copied a couple dozen of songs, and *winning*, is just wrong. There's
absolutely no sense of proportion between the severity of the crime and the
punishment. It's not *that* bad here, but we are quickly getting there.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:28:15 -0500, Warp wrote:

> It sometimes seems that European governments get way too cocky and think
> they can pass whatever laws they want and restrict people's freedom in
> whatever way they want

Happens in the US as well - that's how something like PATRIOT gets passed.

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.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   (Of course not everything is right in the US either.

There are way more problems than that here. :-)

-- 
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

>>   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.

Really, such arguments sound very, very silly to me. The US government 
can do what ever the hell they like, and there's really not especially 
much the US people can do about it. Just like every other country on Earth.

> It just wouldn't get enforced. About 70% said of soldiers
> they wouldn't.

Seems plausible.

> But yeah, this is the whole "we don't trust our government here" that 
> also drives having juries and etc etc etc.

Now, see, if you don't actually trust the government, then you accept 
that you've already lost. The government has so much power that if they 
want to get rid of you, they *will* get rid of you, and there's nothing 
that you as an individual can possibly do about it.

It's like companies who don't trust their sysadmin. Uh, guys, you 
realise that the sysadmin is GOD, right? They can do absolutely 
ANYTHING, and you can't stop them. So you'd *better* make sure they're 
trustworthy before you hire them!

> That's why all the arguments here over whether a firearm is appropriate 
> for hunting game or something like that are simply smokescreens.

Well, I wouldn't want to live on a country where it's legal for any 
random crazy person to own a gun. Not that all gun owners are crazy, you 
understand - just that it only takes one of them to be crazy to cause a 
whole heap of trouble...

Face it, there are already people driving cars which you really wouldn't 
want behind the wheel.

Post a reply to this message

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.

> Really, such arguments sound very, very silly to me. The US government 
> can do what ever the hell they like, and there's really not especially 
> much the US people can do about it. Just like every other country on Earth.

  There is. They can shoot back.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>>>>   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.

The entire country isn't going to resist. Half a dozen zeolots will, the 
rest will just quietly accept it. Half a dozen zeolots are not difficult 
to control when you have a huge army at your disposal.

>> Really, such arguments sound very, very silly to me. The US government 
>> can do what ever the hell they like, and there's really not especially 
>> much the US people can do about it. Just like every other country on Earth.
> 
>   There is. They can shoot back.

Oh, sure, like that's *really* going to work.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> The entire country isn't going to resist. Half a dozen zeolots will, the 
> rest will just quietly accept it.

  Clearly you aren't an American.

> >> Really, such arguments sound very, very silly to me. The US government 
> >> can do what ever the hell they like, and there's really not especially 
> >> much the US people can do about it. Just like every other country on Earth.
> > 
> >   There is. They can shoot back.

> Oh, sure, like that's *really* going to work.

  Civil wars erupt even if "it's not *really* going to work" all the time.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> The entire country isn't going to resist. Half a dozen zeolots will, the 
>> rest will just quietly accept it.
> 
>   Clearly you aren't an American.

You noticed. :-)

>   Civil wars erupt even if "it's not *really* going to work" all the time.

I am unconvinced that

1. There will be a cival war if the government does something the people 
don't like.

2. Not having guns makes it impossible to force the government to change 
its policy.

This whole idea that "without guns the government will enslave the 
people, but as long as people carry guns the government can be held in 
check" seems utterly ridiculous to me.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I am unconvinced that

> 1. There will be a cival war if the government does something the people 
> don't like.

  I'm pretty sure there would be a civil war if the US government tried
to appeal the second amendment and confiscate all firearms. That's because,
as I wrote earlier, the second amendment is seen by many Americans as a
safeguard against a totally corrupt government. It gives the people the
power to keep the government in check.

> 2. Not having guns makes it impossible to force the government to change 
> its policy.

  Guns make it easier to keep the government in check. If you suddenly have
a million fully armed people taking over the government, that cannot be
taken lightly.

  (I'm not saying that guns are the *best* way to keep a government in check.
I'm just pointing out what seems to be the case in the US.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Guns make it easier to keep the government in check.
> 
>   (I'm not saying that guns are the *best* way to keep a government in check.
> I'm just pointing out what seems to be the case in the US.)

And it seems to me that being able to own guns gives the American people 
a nice illusion of safety when in fact they don't really have any.

But hey, fortunately I don't have to live in America. :-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> And it seems to me that being able to own guns gives the American people 
> a nice illusion of safety when in fact they don't really have any.

  I'm not so sure. As I have said, I don't think the American government
would dare confiscate all firearms. Their economy would plummet and it
would result in countless casualties and property damage.

  And if they don't dare doing that, what else don't they dare doing
because of the same reason? People do have power there.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> And it seems to me that being able to own guns gives the American people 
>> a nice illusion of safety when in fact they don't really have any.
> 
>   I'm not so sure. As I have said, I don't think the American government
> would dare confiscate all firearms. Their economy would plummet and it
> would result in countless casualties and property damage.
> 
>   And if they don't dare doing that, what else don't they dare doing
> because of the same reason? People do have power there.

There are other countries where certain policies would be political 
suicide. You don't need guns for the people to have power.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> 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.

Except the *military* follows the same rules, you see. The people in the 
military are defending the constituion, not the leaders.

If you had a coup by part of the military, the other part would fight 
against them. If you had (say) a President try to stay in power longer than 
2 terms, how would he get the military to support that? Shoot the congress?

> Really, such arguments sound very, very silly to me. The US government 
> can do what ever the hell they like, and there's really not especially 
> much the US people can do about it. Just like every other country on Earth.

I dunno. It seems we're having a fair amount of trouble in the middle east 
right now, just from IEDs and AK-47's. You'd have a heck of a hard time 
having the military actually force people to do something, rather than force 
them not to.

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.

> Now, see, if you don't actually trust the government, then you accept 
> that you've already lost. The government has so much power that if they 
> want to get rid of you, they *will* get rid of you, and there's nothing 
> that you as an individual can possibly do about it.

Not as an individual, no. But once can certainly fight back against soldiers 
with handguns as long as those soldiers aren't trying to actually kill you. 
Cops and soldiers don't want to get shot any more than you do.

The difference is that you're acting as if the entire government is one 
beast with power. It's not. It's a bunch of warring individuals. The reason 
you used to be able to overthrow the king and take over was the king and the 
noblemen who swore allegiance to him were the only people with any military 
might. If the average citizen owned a suit of armor and a war horse and just 
didn't take them out very much, you'd have far fewer noblemen abusing their 
positions.

> Well, I wouldn't want to live on a country where it's legal for any 
> random crazy person to own a gun. Not that all gun owners are crazy, you 
> understand - just that it only takes one of them to be crazy to cause a 
> whole heap of trouble...

The trouble hits the news because it's so rare. And the rules are generally 
strict enough that the crazies wind up with illegal guns anyway.  Most 
anyone can own a gun. Not too many are allowed to carry one in a way you 
can't easily see it, and even fewer actually do.

> Face it, there are already people driving cars which you really wouldn't 
> want behind the wheel.

True. But not because they're trying to kill you with the automobile, but 
because they're careless while using it. But since the point of "using" a 
firearm is to either shoot or intimidate, you wouldn't get too many 
accidents, as owners just wouldn't take them out of the safe accidentally. 
The people whose responsibility includes actually using a firearm every day 
know how to do it safely, probably better than drivers.

Granted, in the "wild west" days, many many people carried firearms 
regularly, and the murder rate was very high, but it's hard for me to say 
whether this was due to the lack of law enforcement, the environment, 
selection bias, or because everyone was carrying firearms. Probably 
comparing the murder rates with those in large cities of the time would help.

-- 
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

Invisible wrote:
> The entire country isn't going to resist. Half a dozen zeolots will, the 
> rest will just quietly accept it. Half a dozen zeolots are not difficult 
> to control when you have a huge army at your disposal.

I think when the army is called out to supress a riot, you're suddenly going 
to find there's a whole bunch more than half a dozen zeolots.  I don't think 
the whole Tiennaman Square thing would have gone down around here. Heck, 
we're *still* talking about the three or four people shot in the 1960s on a 
college campus by the local army.

> Oh, sure, like that's *really* going to work.

Seems to work in the middle east.

-- 
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

Invisible wrote:
> 1. There will be a cival war if the government does something the people 
> don't like.

We did once.  You don't think there would be all-out war in this country if 
Congress decided to repeal the constitution we have pass Sharia law instead?

> 2. Not having guns makes it impossible to force the government to change 
> its policy.

It's not *just* the guns. The guns are what keep the government from 
changing the rules to the point where they can't be changed back. The guns 
are what happen when the government officials stop following their own rules.

So far, they're still following the rules, for the most part. We haven't had 
any president declare an "emergency" that canceled elections, nor has 
Congress reinstated slavery.

Understand that guns are the "I'd rather die than live under this system" 
sort of thing, not the "I don't like what that senator just said" sort of 
thing. They'd only come in to play if you were actually willing to shoot at 
soldiers.

> This whole idea that "without guns the government will enslave the 
> people, but as long as people carry guns the government can be held in 
> check" seems utterly ridiculous to me.

That's becasue you're exaggerating it into absurdity and then arguing it's 
absurd. There are a bunch of checks and balances built into the system, such 
as the military not being loyal to the *people* running the government but 
to the *laws* of the government.

-- 
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 Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:16:26 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> the largest army on the face of God's Earth.

You haven't seen the Chinese Army.....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 2/26/2010 2:16 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Well, I wouldn't want to live on a country where it's legal for any
> random crazy person to own a gun. Not that all gun owners are crazy, you
> understand - just that it only takes one of them to be crazy to cause a
> whole heap of trouble...
>
> Face it, there are already people driving cars which you really wouldn't
> want behind the wheel.

Yeah, tried that argument recently with my father, and all I got was the 
"statistics for home invasion", "criminals will always have guns, even 
if you don't", and the ever popular, "look at the increase in home 
invasions in country X, where people are losing gun rights." Grrr...

-- 
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

On 2/26/2010 7:15 AM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> I am unconvinced that
>
>> 1. There will be a cival war if the government does something the people
>> don't like.
>
>    I'm pretty sure there would be a civil war if the US government tried
> to appeal the second amendment and confiscate all firearms. That's because,
> as I wrote earlier, the second amendment is seen by many Americans as a
> safeguard against a totally corrupt government. It gives the people the
> power to keep the government in check.
>
Problem is, its not. Pretty much ever madman and dictator in history has 
gotten into power by a) giving the majority what they **seemed** to 
want, and b) convincing a significant number of those that are not in 
that majority that they can get what they want too, if they side with 
them. Armed citizens, in that scenario is not a means to "prevent" civil 
war and fascism, its a means to guarantee it. Its like I have said to a 
lot of people about the whole paranoid idiocy you always get about Satan 
hiding among liberals... Sure, if he a) existed, and b) was a complete 
fracking idiot, that is where he would be. If he was real, intended to 
cause the greatest chaos, strife and war, wanted to form a huge army, 
and needed to gather followers to arrange these things to happen, he 
would found of bloody fracking mega church, hand out guns as door 
prizes, whip up the pre-existing paranoia, persecution complexes, and 
fears, of believers, then tell them, "March with me, and everything will 
be fixed!"

Hell, even the paranoid people are not logically consistent about this. 
They try to push in evangelical and Biblical literalist ideas into the 
army, while fighting to prevent joe six pack losing his right to shoot 
beer cans, and coincidentally, the neighbors house, behind them, but are 
***sure*** that liberals are all out to... what? Take away everyone's 
guns, then convince the, often, in this day and age, borderline criminal 
(they throw out gays, lesbians, and other "undesirables", and until 
recently refused to use women in combat at all, so don't **have** 
anything other than convicts to pick from), nearly all believers, to put 
themselves in concentration camps? WTF?

Truth is, there is a sane level of gun ownership, and sane ways to keep 
them, and yes, some countries are being bloody damn stupid about even 
allowing that. But, the US policy is pretty much protected, protested as 
great, railed about, in terms of its endangerment, and hugged like a 
warm blanket, by people that are completely, batshit, insane, and I 
wouldn't trust with a water pistol, never mind a semi-automatic.

-- 
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

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

>  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

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 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.
> 

The various bans have been challenged on Constitutional grounds before.
There was a recent case in . . . Tennessee I think. I don't recall if it
got to SCOTUS, but the goal was to weaken the National Firearms Act (the
ban). There was also a law passed in Montana that intends to do away
with the NFA in-state. Since it was only passes last year, it will be
some time before it gets tested.

What I find amusing is that the NFA ban is based on Congress's
assumed/presumed power (Commerce Clause) to regulate items that affect
inter-state commerce, even if those items never cross state lines, or
are not even sold. The same power is what gives the various drug
enforcement agencies their clout. Get rid of one, and the other is
likely to fail on precedent. Amusing because, in stereotypes of
political leaning, the right wants to own guns and ban drugs, while the
left wants to ban guns and use drugs.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 

Prime them right, and phrase the question right, and even after they
have done nasty things you could get the same percentage.

What it comes down to is how easily the 'powers-that-be' can dehumanize
the people they want shot. Few would agree to shooting a fellow citizen
who is involved in an uprising to preserve their Constitutional rights.
Many might agree to shooting a domestic terrorist who is attempting a
violent overthrow of the local government, and killing fellow soldiers
and law enforcement as a means to that end.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> The various bans have been challenged on Constitutional grounds before.

Just recently they overturned the Washington DC ban, but that's special 
because Washington DC isn't a state, so only federal laws apply there.

They also decided to allow guns in federal parks (like the grand canyon 
park, for example) as long as the state would allow guns there. Which was 
somehow hailed as a terrible blow to gun regulation for some reason.

-- 
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

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
> 
> Prime them right, and phrase the question right, and even after they
> have done nasty things you could get the same percentage.
> 
> What it comes down to is how easily the 'powers-that-be' can dehumanize
> the people they want shot. Few would agree to shooting a fellow citizen
> who is involved in an uprising to preserve their Constitutional rights.
> Many might agree to shooting a domestic terrorist who is attempting a
> violent overthrow of the local government, and killing fellow soldiers
> and law enforcement as a means to that end.

A few points that I am reminded of:

* The 1989 uprising in China was not put down immediately because the 
troops who finally did the job had to be brought in from another region 
of China.  This was before Twitter and the Internet, so the government 
had far less difficulty keeping people ignorant of what was going on. 
According to my recall of the report, the local-area troops were deemed 
too sympathetic to the uprising (and may have refused to fire on people 
they knew), whereas the troops brought in were deliberately misled on 
the nature of the "enemy" they faced.

* I don't think it's terribly hard to institute a reign of terror; not 
so much because the average man is amenable to manipulation, but because 
you don't have to rely on corrupting the regular populace (although if 
you can, it helps).  Every society, apparently, has enough people who 
will obey any order, if they are paid in the proper coin, to staff a 
Gestapo of suitable size.  For some of them, obeying the order to 
terrorize ordinary citizens *is* the reward.

* Going on from this, some nations are particularly amenable to police 
state rule, by virtue of being so tribal in nature that everyone outside 
the tribe is dehumanized by virtue of that fact alone.  So when one 
tribe gains power, oppression of the other tribes follows as certainly 
as night follows day.

* It has been reported to me that during the Clinton administration, 
some US military personnel were asked if they would fire upon fellow 
Americans if ordered to do so.  At least one responded that he would be 
more inclined to fire upon the person giving the order.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 03/31/10 18:24, John VanSickle wrote:
> * It has been reported to me that during the Clinton administration,
> some US military personnel were asked if they would fire upon fellow
> Americans if ordered to do so.  At least one responded that he would be
> more inclined to fire upon the person giving the order.

	I'd guess it depends on what kind of American ;-). These days the
powers on high keep implying that they will assassinate American
citizens if they're deemed terrorists or terrorist recruiters. These
Americans just happen to have names like Ahmed, which I suspect will
make the shooting easier.

	Besides, if you want to get soldiers to shoot Americans, just don't let
them know they're Americans. I don't think it was ever a "strong"
protection.

-- 
No, Taco Bell is NOT the Mexican Phone Company!

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:

> Besides, if you want to get soldiers to shoot Americans, just don't let
> them know they're Americans. I don't think it was ever a "strong"
> protection.

I was in the U.S. military for twenty years.  Anyone trying to turn our 
military into a force for oppressing fellow Americans is going to have 
to make radical alterations to our military's culture.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 4/3/2010 8:18 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>
>> Besides, if you want to get soldiers to shoot Americans, just don't let
>> them know they're Americans. I don't think it was ever a "strong"
>> protection.
>
> I was in the U.S. military for twenty years. Anyone trying to turn our
> military into a force for oppressing fellow Americans is going to have
> to make radical alterations to our military's culture.
>
> Regards,
> John
Hmm. Like recent, but failed, attempts to replace more balanced 
religious representatives with evangelicals, while actively excluding 
other religions, by people that have been fairly clear that they don't 
exactly think that a) all Christians, and especially b) non-Christians, 
should necessarily have the same rights, or even, in some cases, 
citizenship?

Yes, it would require a radical restructuring, but the nature of the 
animal is that it is authoritarian driven, and teaches the people in it 
to follow orders, so.. if the authority is telling you that X set of 
ideals are more important than defending the constitution itself, or 
citizens that disagree with that X set of ideals, you have a major problem.

The difficulty is, in a nut shell, such changes do not happen instantly, 
but by degrees, and it takes people not just standing up and protesting 
them to keep them from happening, but political powers **listening** to 
those protests. Its not hard to imagine several of the thing that 
changed this year going the other way, including an increase, instead of 
a rethink, of Evangelism in the military, had we ended up with McSame 
and Falin. The first of which seemed to do a 180 the moment he might get 
elected, and sided with the crazier people in his party, and the later 
of which... well, some people still seem to think she isn't one of the 
crazies herself, but some people also think that the movie 2012 was a 
documentary.

Its only necessary to get the majority looking one way, and the minority 
afraid to say anything, then mix in some "excuses" that the majority 
will believe. They might not be willing to shoot anyone, specifically, 
but they might be willing to shoot them in a properly staged situation, 
where things get violent, and the orders they **where** given **seem** 
somehow lawful, based on the majority philosophy and claimed threat 
presented as a factual one, by people making a grab for power.

In other words, you don't have to order them to shoot someone. You just 
have to arrange matters so that they won't have a choice, and it will 
*appear* to be in defense of an ideology that they have been trained 
into following, as part of their service. There are already "some" that 
would fall into that category, and have suggested so. There could have 
been more, if the trend of replacing chaplain with ones who had a 
specific agenda had continued.

-- 
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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 4/3/2010 8:18 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
>> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>
>>> Besides, if you want to get soldiers to shoot Americans, just don't let
>>> them know they're Americans. I don't think it was ever a "strong"
>>> protection.
>>
>> I was in the U.S. military for twenty years. Anyone trying to turn our
>> military into a force for oppressing fellow Americans is going to have
>> to make radical alterations to our military's culture.

> Hmm. Like recent, but failed, attempts to replace more balanced 
> religious representatives with evangelicals, while actively excluding 
> other religions, by people that have been fairly clear that they don't 
> exactly think that a) all Christians, and especially b) non-Christians, 
> should necessarily have the same rights, or even, in some cases, 
> citizenship?
> 
> Yes, it would require a radical restructuring, but the nature of the 
> animal is that it is authoritarian driven, and teaches the people in it 
> to follow orders, so..

...and has recurring training on the topic of orders that are illegal 
and which must not be obeyed.  Every year the promotions testing covers 
topics like the Law of Armed Conflict, which prohibits targeting 
non-combatants, hospitals, houses of worship, and other assets which 
have no military value.

The shift to the all-volunteer military has affected our services in 
ways that most civilians do not appreciate, and this change is most 
certainly *not* reflected in the way that civilian news organizations 
report on the military.  "Do as you're told and don't ask questions" is 
not a valued idea in the U.S. military, and has not been for decades.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> "Do as you're told and don't ask questions" is 
> not a valued idea in the U.S. military, and has not been for decades.

Indeed, the ability of soldiers to think for themselves is generally viewed 
as one of the primary strengths of our military over others of other more 
authoritarian countries, especially those worried about the military taking 
over.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Yes, we're traveling together,
   but to different destinations.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/4/2010 6:46 PM, Darren New wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> "Do as you're told and don't ask questions" is not a valued idea in
>> the U.S. military, and has not been for decades.
>
> Indeed, the ability of soldiers to think for themselves is generally
> viewed as one of the primary strengths of our military over others of
> other more authoritarian countries, especially those worried about the
> military taking over.
>
I don't disagree. But, not everyone that has their grubby fingers in the 
process *wants* that to be as true as it is. In fact, I would peg it as 
one *big*, but quickly denied, reason for the choice of contracting out 
private armies, with their own weapons, in a few recent wars, all of 
whom seem to have either been idiots, or racist religious fanatics who 
*do* target civilians, and the like.

A lot of people still have a very tribal attitude, and would like 
nothing more than to see the US military "reflect" that attitude. And, 
again, its hardly impossible, if distorted the right way, to hold two 
radically contradictory concepts, like, "Don't do bad thing, like blow 
up hospitals.", and, "Those people's hospitals don't count in the former 
statement." The sort of people that think that the military needs to, 
"Protect the constitution.", while as the same time, "Force the ideals 
of our, and only our, god on everyone.", already do this. Its called 
cognitive dissonance, and radical types have it in spades.

-- 
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