6 ms·

Why? Edit: Another question gets downvoted. Hacker News really hates when people ask questions. You can go through my recent comment history and see where othe

Why? Edit: Another question gets downvoted. Hacker News really hates when people ask questions. You can go through my recent comment history and see where other questions[1] I ask get downvoted too. Whatever you do, don't ask people on Hacker News about whatever comments they make. I think at this point pg would be doing everyone a favor if he just rebooted this site or just closed it down completely given what it the community has turned into. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7342487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7342487

hga 13y ago
Because any normal person would be facing charges, like this guy: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/20/dc-businessman-trial-one-shotgun-shell-wasnt-given/?page=all http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/20/dc-businessm... Don't think those of us in "flyover country" aren't paying attention to this political corruption in the nation's capitol.
- imgabe 13y ago
  If a normal person would face unjust charges and a famous, powerful person doesn't, equality isn't achieved by enforcing unjust charges on everyone, it's achieved by not enforcing them on anyone.
  - hga 13y ago
    "Equality" is more important than the Rule of Law?
    - imgabe 13y ago
      Laws don't just pop up out of the ether. They're created by fallible people. If a law doesn't make sense and isn't making society better, it should be repealed. It shouldn't be kept in place and slavishly enforced out of blind adherence to "Rule of Law". And yes, equality is something that governments attempt to achieve through laws. Equal application of the law is one of the founding tenets of the US government. In my opinion, yes, equality is a more worthy goal to pursue than blanket enforcement of every law that happens to have gotten onto the books.
      - hga 13y ago
        Well, it depends on who thinks it "doesn't make sense". The D.C. city government believes suppressing gun ownership in every way they can get away with "makes society better" (well, it makes their ruling over their subjects easier, it's easy to punish areas that don't vote correctly by removing a lot of their police protection, or so I heard when I lived next door in Arlington for a dozen years; classic Anarcho-Tyranny). They have a lot of company, as I'm sure you've noticed. And the fact is they uniformly enforce these laws, albeit with quite a few jury nullifications, except when people like David Gregory and institutions like NBC commit these crimes. Knowingly in NBC's case. I wish more people would admit we have a severe problem with having effectively having two sets of laws, one for our nomenklatura and another for the rest of us.
        imgabe 13y ago
        The "DC city government" is an abstract notion representing an ever-changing group of people. As such, it is incapable of conscious thought and does not actually believe anything. Certain individuals who are part of the DC government believe those things. Some other individuals don't. We count up the ones on each side and then democracy happens. We have the courts to make sure the majority hasn't gone completely crazy. DC went through a long time where they were leading the US in murders. When people are getting shot around you left and right, it's pretty reasonable to think that maybe you could stop that if you could stop people from having guns. The purpose of the laws was to stop people from getting shot. It's pretty clear that David Gregory was not going to shoot anyone, so putting him in jail was not going to serve the purpose of the law. Are they willing to be as rational if the person isn't famous? I don't know. I'm not aware of any other cases where a non-famous citizen has gotten ahold of an illegal ammo clip to use as a prop in an argument about gun control.
        hga 13y ago
        Minor problem with the post hoc ergo propter hoc example of D.C. becoming the nation's "Murder Capitol": these severe anti-gun laws and administrative refusal to register any more guns happened before that. "We have the courts to make sure the majority hasn't gone completely crazy." Yes, that's what Heller was all about, but that hasn't stopped D.C. from engaging in Massive Resistance. Getting back to the other case, Irvin Nathan had one defective shotgun shell in his home. Is putting him in jail going to serve the purported purpose of the law? There are plenty of analogous examples to David Gregory with "illegal guns" being used a props by politicians and the like. Of course, they too are members of the nomenklatura that people like you are so willing to excuse.
  - anonymoushn 13y ago
    The way to get there is to enforce the law uniformly, so that the famous, powerful people will make noise and get the laws changed.
    - imgabe 13y ago
      That is one way. I don't know that putting people in jail left and right and hoping eventually one of them is famous is the most efficient way to go about getting the law changed.
      - anonymoushn 13y ago
        I'm not sure what alternative you have in mind. The pigs who patrol our streets are very much in favor of having crufty laws on the books for the purpose of abusing their political enemies and the less fortunate, and politicians are generally supportive of pigs.
nateabele 13y ago
Maybe you were downvoted because posting "Why?" with no follow-up is dumb, adds nothing meaningful to the discussion, and wastes peoples' time.
- nsmartt 13y ago
  Adding "He had no malicious intent" would serve to make the asker's intention more clear, but still wouldn't add much to the discussion because it had already been established. I don't think asking why should be discouraged.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

hga 13y ago

Because any normal person would be facing charges, like this guy: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/20/dc-businessman-trial-one-shotgun-shell-wasnt-given/?page=all http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/20/dc-businessm... Don't think those of us in "flyover country" aren't paying attention to this political corruption in the nation's capitol.

imgabe 13y ago
If a normal person would face unjust charges and a famous, powerful person doesn't, equality isn't achieved by enforcing unjust charges on everyone, it's achieved by not enforcing them on anyone.
- hga 13y ago
  "Equality" is more important than the Rule of Law?
  - imgabe 13y ago
    Laws don't just pop up out of the ether. They're created by fallible people. If a law doesn't make sense and isn't making society better, it should be repealed. It shouldn't be kept in place and slavishly enforced out of blind adherence to "Rule of Law". And yes, equality is something that governments attempt to achieve through laws. Equal application of the law is one of the founding tenets of the US government. In my opinion, yes, equality is a more worthy goal to pursue than blanket enforcement of every law that happens to have gotten onto the books.
    - hga 13y ago
      Well, it depends on who thinks it "doesn't make sense". The D.C. city government believes suppressing gun ownership in every way they can get away with "makes society better" (well, it makes their ruling over their subjects easier, it's easy to punish areas that don't vote correctly by removing a lot of their police protection, or so I heard when I lived next door in Arlington for a dozen years; classic Anarcho-Tyranny). They have a lot of company, as I'm sure you've noticed. And the fact is they uniformly enforce these laws, albeit with quite a few jury nullifications, except when people like David Gregory and institutions like NBC commit these crimes. Knowingly in NBC's case. I wish more people would admit we have a severe problem with having effectively having two sets of laws, one for our nomenklatura and another for the rest of us.
      - imgabe 13y ago
        The "DC city government" is an abstract notion representing an ever-changing group of people. As such, it is incapable of conscious thought and does not actually believe anything. Certain individuals who are part of the DC government believe those things. Some other individuals don't. We count up the ones on each side and then democracy happens. We have the courts to make sure the majority hasn't gone completely crazy. DC went through a long time where they were leading the US in murders. When people are getting shot around you left and right, it's pretty reasonable to think that maybe you could stop that if you could stop people from having guns. The purpose of the laws was to stop people from getting shot. It's pretty clear that David Gregory was not going to shoot anyone, so putting him in jail was not going to serve the purpose of the law. Are they willing to be as rational if the person isn't famous? I don't know. I'm not aware of any other cases where a non-famous citizen has gotten ahold of an illegal ammo clip to use as a prop in an argument about gun control.
        hga 13y ago
        Minor problem with the post hoc ergo propter hoc example of D.C. becoming the nation's "Murder Capitol": these severe anti-gun laws and administrative refusal to register any more guns happened before that. "We have the courts to make sure the majority hasn't gone completely crazy." Yes, that's what Heller was all about, but that hasn't stopped D.C. from engaging in Massive Resistance. Getting back to the other case, Irvin Nathan had one defective shotgun shell in his home. Is putting him in jail going to serve the purported purpose of the law? There are plenty of analogous examples to David Gregory with "illegal guns" being used a props by politicians and the like. Of course, they too are members of the nomenklatura that people like you are so willing to excuse.
- anonymoushn 13y ago
  The way to get there is to enforce the law uniformly, so that the famous, powerful people will make noise and get the laws changed.
  - imgabe 13y ago
    That is one way. I don't know that putting people in jail left and right and hoping eventually one of them is famous is the most efficient way to go about getting the law changed.
    - anonymoushn 13y ago
      I'm not sure what alternative you have in mind. The pigs who patrol our streets are very much in favor of having crufty laws on the books for the purpose of abusing their political enemies and the less fortunate, and politicians are generally supportive of pigs.

nateabele 13y ago

Maybe you were downvoted because posting "Why?" with no follow-up is dumb, adds nothing meaningful to the discussion, and wastes peoples' time.

nsmartt 13y ago
Adding "He had no malicious intent" would serve to make the asker's intention more clear, but still wouldn't add much to the discussion because it had already been established. I don't think asking why should be discouraged.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]