15 years for owning a gun

[David Floyd]

Just call me your conscience, then

[Chemical Ollie]

What's the penalty for owning a gun in the US?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
What's the penalty for owning a gun in the US?

Legal owners face no penalty.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Just call me your conscience, then

Jiminy Cricket on Angel Dust.

[David Floyd]

Not sure I get the reference, but I AM sure I don't come off well in there somehow....

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Berzerker
You're right (sort of anyway), I've read some Iraqis commenting on the US policy and they said even Saddam didn't try to take their guns because of how important - a badge of honor - guns were to Iraqis, i.e., Saddam would have created more trouble for himself by trying to ban guns than the trouble caused by guns. However, this runs counter to the history of dictatorships and gun control and your "daft" claim that gun control is not a common tactic of dictators.

There are many democratic countries with tough gun legislation. Britain, Japan and the Netherlands all have tough gun legislation. Planning to round us up in cattle trucks, are they? No, of course they are not. Gun control is no more the sole preserve of dictators than are trains that run on time.

[David Floyd]

You didn't read his post.

He said:

However, this runs counter to the history of dictatorships and gun control and your "daft" claim that gun control is not a common tactic of dictators.

You said:

Gun control is no more the sole preserve of dictators than are trains that run on time.

You are, intentionally or not, insinuating that Berz claimed that ONLY dictators use gun control, when he actually said that gun control is very common amongst dictators. Subtle difference, eh?

[David Floyd]

And by the way, I would consider any nation that allows the majority to vote away the rights of the minority to be dictatorial in nature.

[Berzerker]

chegitz -

There were over a thousand murders a month in Bagdad during June and July. I suspect that the Iraqis will be very happy to have the guns gone.

Then we'd see them handing over their guns, but we don't. If there were a 1,000 murders in your city in one month, would you really want to turn in your primary means of defense in the hope all the murderers turn in their guns too?

Sure they do. It's just in hiding. If we pulled out today, Saddam would be back in charge in weeks.

You think the Iraqi army qualifies as "modern" now? As for regaining power, perhaps, but not without a fight and the Kurds and Shi'ites would be the main opposition along with Sunnis who are happy Saddam is out of power. So we'll disarm Saddam's opposition?

Dino -

Are we really debating if the occupation should be run according to libertarian principles because that would be too wierd.

I thought conservatives believed in the right to bear arms too. Then there's the practicality of removing guns fom people we need as allies who feel a strong attachment to gun ownership, an attachment so strong even Saddam didn't try to disarm Iraqis. And yes, IF the US is there to "liberate" Iraqis, then it would seem contradictory for the liberators to confiscate guns. Btw, the gun control measure appears to be limited to heavier guns, grenades, machine guns, etc., not small arms.

[Berzerker]

sandman -

There are many democratic countries with tough gun legislation. Britain, Japan and the Netherlands all have tough gun legislation. Planning to round us up in cattle trucks, are they? No, of course they are not. Gun control is no more the sole preserve of dictators than are trains that run on time.

Is this your proof that gun control is not a common tactic used by dictators? Contrary to your claim, Saddam was not an enthusiastic supporter of the right to bear arms (as if he was a supporter of any rights), he just didn't want to risk the backlash of banning guns.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I can't think of a single instance when it is morally valid to confiscate private property.

A homicidal maniac has built his own nuclear device--none of it stolen--and is threatening to blow up Austin, TX. Would it be morally wrong for the government to confiscate the nuclear device?

[Berzerker]

Nope, threats are coercion and freedom requires the absence of coercion. Furthermore, this madman didn't make a nuke appear out of thin air so he had to use other people's property to transport nuke materials. Did he get their permission?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Nope, threats are coercion and freedom requires the absence of coercion.

DF didn't make any caveat for threats justifying confiscation. He said he couldn't think of ANY circumstance.

Furthermore, this madman didn't make a nuke appear out of thin air so he had to use other people's property to transport nuke materials. Did he get their permission?

What's the difference? Perhaps he hauled them by truck across the border himself. Let's say he obtained all parts through purchase of willing suppliers.

[David Floyd]

He said he couldn't think of ANY circumstance.

Actually I made an allowance for rights violations. I made a blanket generalization, and then qualified it with a few minor points.

The spirit of my point was that the government has no moral right to confiscate my property, if I'm not violating anyone else's rights.

[Ben Kenobi]

[Quote]
Morally valid laws don't involve the confiscation of private property.
['/Quote]

Without compensation?