Get me a gun and a lime, I'll bring the Corona

b1-67er: NRA and state of California aligning for lawsuit. California says gun shops non essential and must close due to Corona virus. NRA says second amendment violation and that they are essential.

I think NRA will win this one.

b1-66er: Pandemics: 

Your real life lesson in Civics

D4rw1n: Remember it is only since 2009 that the USSC has held that the 2nd even articulated a personal right to bear arms. Heller v. DC

So now we can have a jurisprudence on it like we have on the first amendment 

Balancing the state interest vs. the individual liberty interest 

66: So, in that balance, which way does it tip?

D4: The framework under Heller is almost identical to that under first amendment law:

 1. Is the firearm itself protected (cannons no; hunting rifles yes; fights ongoing in between).

 Here yes because presumably the shops are all selling lawful firearms 

2. What level of scrutiny to judge the law by? 

A. Strict scrutiny if it touches a "core" 2Am right, like self defense in the home. 

B. "Rational basis" balancing of interests if not touching a core right. This may be a close call but I think the right to buy a gun in a store right now, in a pandemic, is not as "core" as the right to have one in the home to defend the self. But reasonable minds will differ. But let's say this law gets rational basis scrutiny. 

The state interest here is to have the authority to enforce social distancing by closing nonessential businesses. It's going to be a very strong argument in the courts because it dramatically saves lives 

The liberty interest is to go out in the pandemic and buy a gun. This is personally critical to a portion of the population. A woman who designed our bathroom remodel recently went batshit crazy trying to buy a bunch of guns to protect herself from the mobs or coronazombies she imagines will be roaming the streets soon 

But it's a relatively weak liberty argument in the end, I think. The state will say you can still do the transaction online from a Federal Firearm License holder seller, and have the seller deliver to you. They'll also say the ban is temporary, just until it's safe to allow people to gather in shops 

Could be super interesting

66: +2 for first known use of Coronazombies.*

Thank you. 

* and KTXT establishment don't like the "zombie" concept... it's the filmatic equivalent of sarcasm: easy, dumb and ultimately uninteresting. 

THAT'S how good D4rw!n's use was, still warrants 2*.

An international trade lawyer, a mathematician and a mechanical engineer walk into a bar...

D4rw1n: Question for my tech savvy and scientific friends: what are my personal chances of going to the moon? At age 18 when we were no longer doing it I decided it was zero. Now I think it's slightly greater than zero

b1-67er: Interesting. I would put it at maybe 1 percent if you will have a spare $100,000,000 or so perhaps 20 years from now.

b1-66er: It's like a riff from the line in Mad Max. 

'Speed's is just a question of money. How fast do you want to go?"

Put a few million down, I'm sure the Russians would take you right "now."

As a tourist on Virgin Space or equivalent, 5%.

(Sorry, I sped read that ... the Russians aren't going to put you on the moon. )

67: They will take your money right now. But I think it's the Chinese that might get you to the moon.

66: Actually, I don't think tourists will go to the moon in our lifetime. 

Your kids, maybe. 

There's moon problems they haven't figured out (but don't admit).

Dust. #1 with a bullet. 

They won't figure out the dust problem in our lifetime. 

67: There are inklings of a new space race to build a moon base. The race would be between the Chinese and Americans.

66: Yes. 

67: Going to Mars is much more interesting than a moon base.

66: I think Mars is impossible. 

67: Oh, no way. Just really really expensive.

66: There's also the question no one EVER talks about,  knock on Earth pollution. 

There's indication that the Martian environment is 100% uninhabitable. 

Lack of an atmosphere is a big big deal. 

67: I'm not talking about inhabiting. Just exploring.

66: I don't think we can do it.

Next 50 years? < 1%.

Not in D4rw1n's kids' lifetimes.

67:  I think we could do it right now. We just lack the will

66: No. 

If you wanna play Russian Space Roulette,  I say there's a 30% we could get someone there. 

Chinese style. 

Die on the surface. 

67: Park fuel in mars orbit. Park fuel on mars surface.  Park fuel in earth orbit. 

66: 30%.

Assuming Americans/ earthlings still allow rockets to be shot. 

67: Technically we would have to decide if we are talking about going to and from Mars, or just to Mars.

66: 30% there and surfaced. 

<1% back and alive. 

67: The Russians are the kings of rocket launching. But Americans are the unchallenged champs of parking things in Mars orbit or putting them on the surface in one piece (most of the time).

What do rockets screw with? The ozone layer?

66: Massive polluters.

The size of an office building. 

67: I'd put the US at 80% getting a live man to Mars, 60% there and back.

66: You're very optimistic.

What's your timing?

67: If they worked in ernest starting now? Twelve years. Maybe a bit more.

66: It's 2 orders of magnitude harder than Earth <> Moon in the 60s.

3 extra years isn't enough. 

67: But they have put craft in Mars orbit, and on Mars surface.  Really the new trick is launching off the Mars surface.

So they aren't starting from scratch, like they were on the moon.

66: Yeah. 

That's the right approach, for sure.

Or, if you wanna talk fantastic,  we could just get our pet space dragon to have babies there...

... which, I think, is about as likely. 

67: No, it's technically doable.  It would just take a ton of cash.

66: Yes. 

The stomach for American spending on Apollo started waning toward the end...

It's not in the public Spirit today. 

US$15 kickstarter isn't going to do it. 

67: Yeah I don't think America has the will. 

 Nor the Russians.  

The Chinese might have the appetite and ability to stay focused, but they would probably kill a fistful of astronauts.

66: Yes. And will willingly do so. 

Remember the USA is the country that bitched so bad about Apollo shots toward the end that they had to get approval to not override the NBA championships on TV. 

67: Once you succeed...once it seems easy to the public...But that first landing would be mesmerizing. 

 It would be the new high water mark for mankind.

<ed: I damn near removed the inherent sexism from that comment. >

66: No doubt. 

Won't happen, though. 

67: Will happen someday.

66: Probe time!

Less money. Less risk. 

More data. More places. 

Easier. 

More interesting. 

67: Interesting, but less interesting. 

66: We've already shown we know how to trash a planet.

We don't have to do it AGAIN.

67: If at first you don't succeed.....

66: Try until you hit the number 8...

... then go to another solar system?

Show me there's life on Europa.

That's good enough. 

Cheaper. Easier. More interesting. 

67: Cheaper. Technically harder. You have to get into the ocean.

66: how about a mission to explain why Uranus rotates like a football being thrown and is perpendicular to the orbits of all the other planets?

Makes way more sense to figure out. 

67: Man on Mars inspires.

You'll be driving a Chevy Phobos.

66: Mars. Man. There.

Vs.

GODDAMN THERE ARE WORMS IN ONE OF JUPITER'S MOONS. 

67: Say What?

66: They think there could be life in Europa's oceans. 

They're pretty sure there's a heat source there,  not unlike our volcanic vents...

Those exist without sun or air on Earth, ergo___

67: Yeah, Europa is really interesting. 

They should send a man there.

66: Jesus. 

You have to cut way way back in the Mountain Dew.