Text 15228, 212 rader
Skriven 2008-05-13 10:49:16 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 15131 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
Ärende: Thought crime...again
=============================
Hello Jeff,

On Saturday May 10 2008 21:40, you wrote to me:

 MV>>>>  You do fire them on occasion.

 JS>>>      Yes I do. There's an indoor firing range less than a mile
 JS>>> away that I visit occasionally.

 JS>       Sorry, but I guess being indoors there isn't a chance of me
 JS> hitting a Dutchman. You might want to change the rules abit to account
 JS> for that.

So you say that whatever intentions you had, you never could have carried them
out. Well, Menno Blom could never have had sex with an American girl from
behind his computer in The Netherlands. The US did not want to take that into
account, so no, I do not want to take change the rules either.

 JS>>>      Here's where your scenario looses all believability and
 JS>>> becomes silly.

 MV>> Exactly my thoughts when I first heard about the Menno Blom case.

 JS>      The differance that you can't avoid Michiel is that in the Blom
 JS> case a US law was broken.

And if we make a law that says coming to The Netherlands while owning and
having fired a gun is against the law, then you will break that law when you
come to The Netherlands. What is the difference other than that the latter has
not happened yet?

 JS>      Your scenario beyond being silly could not be effectively
 JS> enforced

Why could it not be enforced?

 JS>  and would have next to chance of ever being a law anyway.

I thought the same when I first heard about the American law regarding coming
to the USA with intent to have sex with a minor. I was wrong.

 MV>> So your defence is that you could never have actually hurt a
 MV>> Dutch citizen because while you were in the US you were out of
 MV>> range and while you were in The Netherlands you did not bring the
 MV>> gun.

 JS>      That would work also.

It did not work for Menno Blom.

 MV>> Well, Menno Blom never actually had sex with a US girl.

 JS>      We are making the assumption that that was his first attempt.

Presumed innocent until proven guilty....

 JS> By the time that child sex offenders are caught and arrested they
 JS> have usually molested a number of children already.

By the time gun offenders are caught and arrested they have usually molested a
number of people already.

 MV>> So you say the scenario is unrealistic. Exactly my thoughts when
 MV>> I first heard about the Menno Blom case.

 JS>     Hardly Michiel. You choose to draw a simularity because you
 JS> disagree with the tactics of the US LEA's.

And you reject my example because you choose to believe that it would never
happen...

 JS> The fact of the matter is that your scenario is no where near being
 JS> realistic.

Exactly my thoughts when I first heard about the Blom case. I was wrong.

 JS>  Yet you expect people to take you seriously.

Exactly my thoughts when I first heard about the Blom case. I was wrong.

 JS>     Menno Blom broke a US law and was arrested on US soil. Sounds like
 JS> a logical conclusion to an illegal act.

As will happen to you when we adopt the UAGL (Universal Anti Gun Law) and you
come to the Netherlands.

 MV>> I think that the US girls were safe from Menno Blom.

 JS>      Doubtfull Michiel. Reports from several US universities suggest
 JS> that child molesters in general assault many victims before they are
 JS> apprehended.

 JS>      Doubtfull Jeff. Reports from several US universities suggest
 JS> that gun addicts in general assault many victims before they are
 JS> apprehended.

 JS>  And if they are allowed to return to commit their crime again, it is
 JS> very likely that they would. Why not? Who will stop them? That is the
 JS> reason for the 'Sting' operations setup by many county, state, and
 JS> federal LEA's.

So you now say that the people caught in sting operations are put in jail not
for what they did, but for what they *could have done* when allowed to remain
free.

Well, what is stopping other countries from doing the same to gun owners for
what they could have done when allowed to remain free?

 MV>>  By the same token *you* may think the Dutch people are safe from
 MV>> your action, but if the Dutch court rules otherwise then you go
 MV>> to jail.

 JS>      That would depend on me breaking a Dutch law on Dutch soil.

As I told you, you would be breakin our UAGL.

 MV>>>> By that you commited sevarel crimes and they were directed
 MV>>>> against Dutch citizens.

 JS>>>      Only in your mind Michiel. Only in your mind.

 MV>> Like Menno Blom's crimes only existed in your mind?

 JS>     Hardly. Once AGAIN. The differance is that Blom broke a REAL US
 JS> law and was REALLY arrested.

The only difference is that you are not arrested yet.

 JS>  Versus your imaginary Dutch law which you change to suit your needs
 JS> to try to prove a point.

As the US law is tuned to fit US needs.

 JS>     Does that mean that the US could have a law that says that if
 JS> someone enters the country and has ever jerked off that they could be
 JS> arrested for sexual conduct?

Sure why not? What is stopping them?

 JS>     We are headed down the road to stupidville Michiel. Might I
 JS> suggest that we turn around and head back?

We were already deep into stupidville when the US made a law against coming to
the US with intent to have sex with a minor and  started enforcing it through
international sting operations.

 JS>>>>>     Although they are related, an arrest is based on action
 JS>>>>> and not intent.

 MV>>>> Right, the action was firing the gun.

 JS>>>      But at who?

 MV>> At who were Menno Blom's actions directed?

 JS>     A 14 year old girl.

That did not exist.

 JS>  Remember, having, trying to have, conspiring to have sex with a minor
 JS> in the US is illegal

Remenber that conspiring to use a gun against a person is illegal in The
Netherlands.

 JS>     Section 2423 of title 18, United States Code, states the
 JS> following:

Yeah, I know all about that silly law by now...

 MV>> If Dutch law says coming to The Netherland while owning a gun and
 MV>> confessing to having fired it, is proof of intent, then it is
 MV>> proof of intent.

 JS>     Intent to do what?

Killing or maiming a Dutch citizen.

 JS>     How many Dutchmen would be immediately arrestable because they had
 JS> owned or ever fired a gun.

Every one having ever done so without having a licence. Licences for guns are
very hard to get and if given, only allow use under strict conditions. Only
police or military are allowed to carry guns in public. And the latter only
under state of emergency.

 JS>>>      If I set foot on Dutch soil with the intent to shoot
 JS>>> someone there and I either bring a gun or aquire a gun there.
 JS>>> If I were arrested while acting out my intention then I should be
 JS>>> arrested. Dutch law is Dutch law and should be applied equally
 JS>>> and fairly to all.

And if the court rule that your intentis proven by your confession of having
owned and fired a gun, then you will be convicted.

 MV>> Of course it should apply to all. *Everyone* owning a gun outside
 MV>> The Netherlands and confessing to having fired it will be
 MV>> arrested when stepping on Dutch soil.

 JS>      Me thinks the Dutch should build some REALLY, REALLY, REALLY big
 JS> prisons over there then.

Like the US has done?

One in 75 American man are in jail. 1.3%. Higher than any other country in the
world.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)