Still Hating America. - Page 165

Adder · 03-13-2007, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yes, it's worked amazingly effectively in DC to reduce murders and other gun-related crimes.

I don't recall ever arguing that it would.

eta: Also, its great to draw conclusions from an experiment in a 69 sq mile area that is completely surrounded by places in which access to guns is pretty wide open.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 03-13-2007, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Before the law the criminals had guns and I didn't.

After the law the criminals have guns and I don't.

What's the difference?

Dude, I want the rusty car in the front yard and the howitzer in the back. What fun are 400 acres of land if you can't do a little blasting?

Spanky · 03-13-2007, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
It isn't that big of deal. Nor is it that big of a deal for the cops to just peak in the window of your house. Or maybe open the door if it is unlocked.

Can they enter my house now without a warrant or exigent circumstances where they couldn't before?

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder Or maybe even kick the door down and strip search your ass.
.

Is there some provision in the Patriot act that would allow the cops to kick down my door and strip search my ass without a warrant or withou exigent circumstances.

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder And why should I care if the government is listening to my phone calls or intercepting my emails?
.

If I make a call outside the united states into the United States or make a call in the united states to outside the United states some other government can listen in legally. If anyone and his brother can listend to those legally, why should I care about the Feds listening also.

Can the Feds now listen to my internal US calls without a warrant or without exigent circumstances?

Spanky · 03-13-2007, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
Um.. that is why she was granted aslyum in this country.

I thought Fatwas crossed jurisdictional boundaries.

Adder · 03-13-2007, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Can they enter my house now without a warrant or exigent circumstances where they couldn't before?

Is there some provision in the Patriot act that would allow the cops to kick down my door and strip search my ass without a warrant or withou exigent circumstances.

...

Can the Feds now listen to my internal US calls without a warrant or without exigent circumstances?

Try responding to the whole post next time. It means little to point out the falls in the middle of my intentionally grandiose extrapilations.

Quote:

If I make a call outside the united states into the United States or make a call in the united states to outside the United states some other government can listen in legally. If anyone and his brother can listend to those legally, why should I care about the Feds listening also.

Because it is pretty easy for you to avoid being prosecuted in Iran, even if they are listening. And because even if you aren't going anything criminal (actually, especially if that is the case) it is none of the governments damn business what you are talking about. And most significantly, because we have a constitution that says the Feds can't do that without a warrant.

Adder · 03-13-2007, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I thought Fatwas crossed jurisdictional boundaries.

I have no idea if there is a fatwa, but I rather doubt it given that she is not anyone of particular significance.

And, of course, even if there was, that would still be reason for asylum.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 03-13-2007, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
I don't recall ever arguing that it would.

eta: Also, its great to draw conclusions from an experiment in a 69 sq mile area that is completely surrounded by places in which access to guns is pretty wide open.

Given our success interdicting drugs from Canada and Mexico, I'm reasonably sure a national ban on handguns would have approximately the same results.

ltl/fb · 03-13-2007, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Given our success interdicting drugs from Canada and Mexico, I'm reasonably sure a national ban on handguns would have approximately the same results.

There is a pretty significant difference in that guns require fairly complex manufacturing, and not a whole lot (if anything) has to be done to crops to make them marketable drugs -- and some of it can be done after the stuff gets here. Also guns are harder to get rid of if you are about to get caught -- can't really flush them down the toilet.

Adder · 03-13-2007, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Given our success interdicting drugs from Canada and Mexico, I'm reasonably sure a national ban on handguns would have approximately the same results.

I'm not so sure about that. There isn't the same kind of demand of gun as for drugs. They are less consumable, and importing them would be far less profitable.

But, of course you are right that people would still be able to get guns. But I don't think on the same scale.

That said, this all makes for an interesting hypothetical, but that is all it will ever be.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 03-13-2007, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I thought Fatwas crossed jurisdictional boundaries.

Fatwas have about the same significance in Islam that opinions of counsel have in the law -- they do little more than give comfort to someone that their interpretation of Islam isn't laughable to at least one person with a degree, and can also give them a piece of paper to wave around.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 03-13-2007, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
There is a pretty significant difference in that guns require fairly complex manufacturing, and not a whole lot (if anything) has to be done to crops to make them marketable drugs -- and some of it can be done after the stuff gets here. Also guns are harder to get rid of if you are about to get caught -- can't really flush them down the toilet.

Depends on the drug. I'd guess tooling a gun factory wouldn't be much more difficult than setting up a heroin lab. Other than rifling the barrel, you should be able to do the rest of the process in any high school shop.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 03-13-2007, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
I'm not so sure about that. There isn't the same kind of demand of gun as for drugs. They are less consumable, and importing them would be far less profitable.

But, of course you are right that people would still be able to get guns. But I don't think on the same scale.

Well, not on the same scale for the reasons you point out in the first para. I suspect that it would be just as easy/hard and expensive/cheap to buy illegal guns as it would to buy illegal drugs. Drug importers aren't flushing drugs down the toilet. That's the mules. And lakes will still exist.

I don't think it's hypothetical. I suspect that in our lifetime, or at least that of our children, handguns will be banned. Only long-bore rifles and shotguns will be permitted, and only then with restrictive licensing requirements. But it will take another 100 years before handguns are really gone.

Cletus Miller · 03-13-2007, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
guns are harder to get rid of if you are about to get caught -- can't really flush them down the toilet.

I guess you haven't seen the Kohler TV ad with the hot plumber.

Apropos of Nothing · 03-13-2007, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yes, it's worked amazingly effectively in DC to reduce murders and other gun-related crimes.

It's worked better in New York, once there was an emphasis placed on the enforcement of illegal possession of a handgun as a primary, rather than secondary, offense. And once the cops started the whole "quality of life/broken windows" thing that Rudy hopes will make him president -- cops were amazed at how many subway turnstile jumpers were packing illegal heat.

SlaveNoMore · 03-13-2007, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Spanky
So as far as libertarian goes - Sebby = Bronze, Slave = Silver, Less = Gold.

I'm a Humanist