|
Octatonic posted:Tell that to a Corsican Quebec is part of Canada too and you'll piss people off just as much.
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
Does a place stop being a colony just because it's been colonized a really long time? I'm actually legit curious about what people think about that. Is it a function of time, culture, legal status? What about places like Martinique? What about Puerto Rico, to bring things back to the US?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Octatonic posted:Tell that to a Corsican I think the French already told em.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Octatonic posted:Does a place stop being a colony just because it's been colonized a really long time? I'm actually legit curious about what people think about that. Is it a function of time, culture, legal status? What about places like Martinique? What about Puerto Rico, to bring things back to the US? Not to derail, but in very brief this was a core problem for the Fourth Republic with regards to Algeria. France had, for ages, maintained that Algeria was not merely a colony but rather part of France proper. Thus initial resistance to Algerian independence came from the sentiment not that a colonized people were trying to exercise their own sovereignty, but rather that a province was attempting to secede from metropolitan France. This put de Gaulle, and others who eventually came around to the inevitability of parting with Algeria, in the rather contorted position of pretending that independence was what they had always had in mind, as culmination of France's benign civilizing mission, which ran entirely counter to the bog-standard orthodoxy of republican thought on the constitution of the nation (and incidentally was part of the reason the OAS tried to kill him).
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Syjefroi posted:Here's a fun slow news day piece:
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
St. Pierre and Miquelon send delegates to France's National Assembly and are patrolled by units of the French national police. Its citizens have French suffrage and citizenship. I want to visit sometime because it just sounds too weird.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:St. Pierre and Miquelon send delegates to France's National Assembly and are patrolled by units of the French national police. Its citizens have French suffrage and citizenship. I want to visit sometime because it just sounds too weird. Wonder what the situation is with our part of the Virgin Islands?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Syjefroi posted:Here's a fun slow news day piece: The likelihood of any of this happening is left as an exercise to the reader.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Octatonic posted:Does a place stop being a colony just because it's been colonized a really long time? I'm actually legit curious about what people think about that. Is it a function of time, culture, legal status? What about places like Martinique? What about Puerto Rico, to bring things back to the US? Sort of, there's people at the UN that define these things. This was much more important when the UN was originally formed, but there's still "colonies" on the "non self governing entity" list: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_non-self-governing_territories
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Nessus posted:This came up in the gun thread du jour. Essentially, they are concerned that if smart guns become available, all other non-smart guns will be banned, and confiscated. Therefore, it is imperative that the technology be suppressed. If it is, mysteriously, impossible to get a "smart gun" in, say, New Jersey, you can't say they're available, and therefore you cannot immediately confiscate all the old guns!
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Nessus posted:This came up in the gun thread du jour. Essentially, they are concerned that if smart guns become available, all other non-smart guns will be banned, and confiscated. Therefore, it is imperative that the technology be suppressed. If it is, mysteriously, impossible to get a "smart gun" in, say, New Jersey, you can't say they're available, and therefore you cannot immediately confiscate all the old guns! Besides the confiscation part this is the actual law in New Jersey.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Nessus posted:This came up in the gun thread du jour. Essentially, they are concerned that if smart guns become available, all other non-smart guns will be banned, and confiscated. Therefore, it is imperative that the technology be suppressed. If it is, mysteriously, impossible to get a "smart gun" in, say, New Jersey, you can't say they're available, and therefore you cannot immediately confiscate all the old guns! I read something that said New Jersey has a law that triggers (haha) whenever there is a smart gun available for reasonable sale anywhere in the US that from then on only smart guns will be legal to sell in NJ I make no claims to the legitimacy of this statement
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:I read something that said New Jersey has a law that triggers (haha) whenever there is a smart gun available for reasonable sale anywhere in the US that from then on only smart guns will be legal to sell in NJ You're just asking questions.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:For decades of listening to gun debates I have operated under the assumption that the government confiscating guns was 100% fantasy and out of the question no matter what, that the worst that could happen to gun fans is that they could no longer buy new guns anymore. Is that accurate?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I believe the New Jersey law, based on that article, requires that all handguns (not long guns) be "personalized" within three years after such technology becomes available at a semi-reasonable price. I am unsure of the details. It is very difficult to know anything about this matter for sure, as every concrete object is surrounded by a thousand signs and significations.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Or what? Surely government stormtroopers don't come into your house, as the fantasy goes. Well, being in possession of an illegal firearm generally isn't a good long-term move, and there probably will be "stormtroopers" (police) involved at some point. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:35 on May 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Or what? Surely government stormtroopers don't come into your house, as the fantasy goes. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/nyregion/smart-guns-a-clever-bit-of-legislating.html The law would ban the retail sale and importation into New Jersey of non-smart guns. Non-smart guns already owned by NJ residents would not be affected, private sales of them would still be permitted.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Well, being in possession of an illegal firearm generally isn't a good long-term move, and there probably will be "stormtroopers" (police) involved at some point.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
haveblue posted:http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/nyregion/smart-guns-a-clever-bit-of-legislating.html As soon as someone has standing to being a case this law is going down so fast...
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:What I mean is, why would they know that you have an illegal gun in your house, other than by way of investigating a sale? It's not like they're consumables like drugs where you'll have to buy more someday. New Jersey requires registering sales of handguns, which covers the large majority of handguns entering the state (the rest being people moving and bringing guns, etc). Doesn't matter though given that it wouldn't affect existing firearms in the state.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:New Jersey requires registering sales of handguns, which covers the large majority of handguns entering the state (the rest being people moving and bringing guns, etc).
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Right, so you have a gun that was legal when it was registered, are they going to be watching those registrations, waiting for three years to pass, and then knocking on people's doors and asking "Do you have this gun in your house? Mind if we come in and look?" haveblue posted:The law would ban the retail sale and importation into New Jersey of non-smart guns. Non-smart guns already owned by NJ residents would not be affected, private sales of them would still be permitted. Non-smart guns would be grandfathered.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Right, so you have a gun that was legal when it was registered, are they going to be watching those registrations, waiting for three years to pass, and then knocking on people's doors and asking "Do you have this gun in your house? Mind if we come in and look?" You could certainly legislate such a situation, given the existence of registration data. A requirement to modify/"personalize" existing guns plus an oversight regime of some kind to make sure it happens, and then you start matching people who you have cause to believe have guns versus people who didn't register doing the modifications. At that point you'd be dealing with people in possession of illegal firearms (same as a sawed-off shotgun or something like that) and those tend not to be visits from Officer McFriendly. There's tons of people who have Grandpa's totally illegal WWII SMG bringback sitting in their attics unknowingly and they tend not to get hosed too hard but if you're doing it knowingly (like ignoring a high-profile change like this) you're cruising for a bruising. But it's pretty unlikely that would be legislated and even more unlikely to come into force. The link haveblue posted says that the law doesn't require modifying existing firearms, it only requires that any firearms sold through FFLs at future dates be smart guns. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:54 on May 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
SodomyGoat101 posted:Non-smart guns would be grandfathered. edit: well, I was asking more in general, not just this specific situation. edit: Paul MaudDib posted:You could certainly legislate such a situation, given the existence of registration data.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:As soon as someone has standing to being a case this law is going down so fast... How do you figure? There are existing state laws about safety mechanisms, storage requirements, etc that have been held up as constitutional. Assuming that New Jersey doesn't enforce anything until the feature is legitimately widely available on the market, why should this be treated any differently?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
^^ - Probably the old "in a 5-4 decision" thinking again Samurai Sanders posted:Yeah, that was exactly what I was asking six posts ago. Was I unclear?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:How do you figure? There are existing state laws about safety mechanisms, storage requirements, etc that have been held up as constitutional. Assuming that New Jersey doesn't enforce anything until the feature is legitimately widely available on the market, why should this be treated any differently? This Supreme Court has struck down complete bans on handguns and this might effectively be one. Or whatever knots Scalia is willing to tie himself in.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:How do you figure? There are existing state laws about safety mechanisms, storage requirements, etc that have been held up as constitutional. Assuming that New Jersey doesn't enforce anything until the feature is legitimately widely available on the market, why should this be treated any differently? The "in a 5-4 decision..." thing for sure, especially on the basis that this is a core change to the firearm that could result in the firearm failing to function at a critical moment. I doubt the Supreme Court is going to allow a requirement that guns sold be of a type that is less likely to function reliably. What happens if the watch battery gets low at an inopportune moment, or the wireless chip craps out and the rest keeps working fine and you don't notice because you aren't a prepper who shoots his gun every day? This is a much more invasive requirement than a drop test or something like that. If your cell phone loses signal you swear at it, if a smart gun loses the signal you will probably be hurt/killed since you are (supposed to be) in danger of imminent bodily harm. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:09 on May 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The "in a 5-4 decision..." thing for sure, especially on the basis that this is a core change to the firearm that could result in the firearm failing to function at a critical moment. I doubt the Supreme Court is going to allow a requirement that guns sold be of a type that is less likely to function reliably.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The "in a 5-4 decision..." thing for sure, especially on the basis that this is a core change to the firearm that could result in the firearm failing to function at a critical moment. I doubt the Supreme Court is going to allow a requirement that guns sold be of a type that is less likely to function reliably.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
I'm assuming that the battery requirements on this 'watch' are tiny, and the chances of it failing at a critical moment are infinitesimal.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Unrelated to gunchat, I figure this is as good a place to drop this as any other thread, and better than most. Yesterday, the Vermont state legislature passed a joint resolution calling for a constitutional convention to overturn Citizens United.quote:Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives: As much as I'd like otherwise, I don't see this actually accomplishing all that much since either Congress or 33 other state legislatures would have to act on its/their own. Nice to have something non-terrible to talk about for a change, though plus it gives me a reason to brag up my home state a bit.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
SubponticatePoster posted:Isn't the onus on the owner to make sure his equipment is in working order? Take a trigger lock. In places where they are required it's the job of the gun owner to make sure that they know where the key to the lock is, that the lock is functioning, etc, is it not? Trigger locks are different from this though. You take the gun out of the case and you take the trigger lock off, at which point the firearm is highly reliable. In comparison you don't ever take the electronic interlock out of a smart gun, you wear around a watch which interfaces with it, and the average person has no way to verify the reliability of an electronic system like that short of regular test-firing. Pong Daddy posted:I'm assuming that the battery requirements on this 'watch' are tiny, and the chances of it failing at a critical moment are infinitesimal. Radio transmitters actually do consume quite a lot of battery power, significantly more than just a watch, and it will have to be transmitting 24/7, which implies a need for regular maintenance. And how often have you had a lovely piece of electronic crap fail? It's a nice assumption that it's no-muss-no-fuss but even in the best case the chances of failure are undeniably higher than trigger locks. And in the worst case, lower-priced (pejoratively, "saturday night special") smart guns will probably be quite a lot more unreliable. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:59 on May 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Oh. Has it ever happened? "Has it ever happened," the world's most mega-useful inquiry when it comes to laws affecting the exercise of political rights.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
SubponticatePoster posted:Isn't the onus on the owner to make sure his equipment is in working order? Take a trigger lock. In places where they are required it's the job of the gun owner to make sure that they know where the key to the lock is, that the lock is functioning, etc, is it not? Heller struck down trigger lock requirements.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:"Has it ever happened," the world's most mega-useful inquiry when it comes to laws affecting the exercise of political rights. Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 20:39 on May 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Why would they even have the watch transmitter need a battery in the first place? A passive RFID tag is cheap, doesn't need its own power source, and would have more than enough of a read range given the close proximity to the actual gun. Not that this solves any problems with the interlock in and of itself, but the watch is not the likely point of failure in this.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Unrelated to gunchat, I figure this is as good a place to drop this as any other thread, and better than most. Yesterday, the Vermont state legislature passed a joint resolution calling for a constitutional convention to overturn Citizens United. I've been trying to find just how campaign finance affected the 2012 election. The largest outside group that spent money for the 2012 cycle was "Restore Our Future", a group that put $142 million into electing Romney (money well spent). They appear to gave gotten money mostly from individuals and their private companies. After that was American Crossroads with $91 million in spending, followed by "Priorities USA Action", a group that spent $65 million on supporting Obama. I can't find much about their contributors. The information I've found is interesting because it suggests that large public companies like Wal-Mart aren't spending much outside of their regular PACs. It makes sense, since burning lots of money of campaigns is the sort of thing that could lead to a shareholder lawsuit. Instead, the piles of money is coming from wealthy individuals and private corporations they own, which are essentially the same since an owner could always take a distribution from their corporation and spend it on campaigns. So Citizens United didn't do much unless you wanted to structure your Super PAC as a corporation for some reason. Instead what caused it is the later decision that allowed Super PACs in the first place, SpeechNOW.org v. FEC, and overturning that is going down a serious rabbit hole.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Technogeek posted:Why would they even have the watch transmitter need a battery in the first place? A passive RFID tag is cheap, doesn't need its own power source, and would have more than enough of a read range given the close proximity to the actual gun. The magna-trigger solved this problem years ago, nobody wanted them or cared. This is purely an attempt to make the technology available as a stalking horse for requiring it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
If you don't want to use it just buy a shitload more normal guns now. 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 21:04
|
|