|
Xombie posted:Your argument is that there will be no gun control because the GOP will win senate seats in four of: Vermont, New York, Illinois, Maryland, California, Washington, and Hawaii? My mistake, corrected my post to say majority.
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 04:43 |
|
|
It feels like people are trapped into thinking that only the electoral system can achieve change. What about ways to enact gun control that don't rely purely on electoralism? What about parallel sources of power like unions and direct action? Can those be used to pressure politicians or install their own?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2022 16:27
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Super majority was likely a bad word choice but Republicans will get rid of the filibuster (or have some other loophole) to where it is effectively the same result. I would not say this is the same thing. A supermajority is also actually traditionally a 2/3 majority, not simply the ability to overcome a filibuster. They don't even have the ability to get a filibuster "supermajority", let alone a true supermajority. They can get rid of the filibuster but they're still facing own a veto. Xombie fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Jun 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2022 16:40
|
|
|
Either way they don't really have to pass anything, just prevent the Dems from doing so, which is easily done by them. And they will have no qualms about nuking the filibuster with their secure control of various state houses and SCOTUS
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2022 16:42
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Either way they don't really have to pass anything, just prevent the Dems from doing so, which is easily done by them. And they will have no qualms about nuking the filibuster with their secure control of various state houses and SCOTUS It doesn't seem like they've ever had any trouble doing this without a majority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2022 16:46
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Tell me how what you want improves my life. Because the pro gun people are doing that all the time. That's their only argument. "Guns are fun, freedom is fun, laws are stupid." They're not quoting a bunch of dead euros. I think it's less a matter of "fun" and more a matter of "fear," and many hopes lie that people will become more afraid of gunmen than lacking the capacity to defend themselves equivalently, but that hasn't happened yet. People keep pointing to the NRA, but the desire for armament doesn't reside fully because of them. That's hypodermic needle theory to the max, and ignores this is an unstable country that had a riot on election day and throughout the summer just two years ago. People felt afraid over Covid restrictions (dumb, but there it is), people feel afraid on both sides of the trans debate (one legitimately, one dumb but there it is), etc. Thinking meaningful gun reform can happen without an effort to stabilize the country is folly. If that's construed as a futility argument, then they're not reading well, so let me be clear: Gun reform is possible, but it has to be under the umbrella of a more ambitious program.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
Xombie posted:It doesn't seem like they've ever had any trouble doing this without a majority. All the more reason not to expect gun control legislation to pass. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2022 16:51
|
|
|
It's worth noting that gun control laws do pass. Not necessarily at the national level, but states have been more active on gun laws. Even red states! https://twitter.com/OsitaNwanevu/status/1532775413084303360 There's been ballot propositions and such too. The lack of action at the national level is regrettable, but Congress sandbags on pretty much everything. State and local governments, at the very least, are taking things more seriously and finding fewer obstacles to action.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2022 19:18
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's worth noting that gun control laws do pass. Not necessarily at the national level, but states have been more active on gun laws. Even red states! On a national scale gun control proponents are worse at gun control than Ron loving DeSantis. Which should make anyone question either their competence or their sincerity if not both. Probably Magic posted:I think it's less a matter of "fun" and more a matter of "fear," and many hopes lie that people will become more afraid of gunmen than lacking the capacity to defend themselves equivalently, but that hasn't happened yet. People keep pointing to the NRA, but the desire for armament doesn't reside fully because of them. That's hypodermic needle theory to the max, and ignores this is an unstable country that had a riot on election day and throughout the summer just two years ago. People felt afraid over Covid restrictions (dumb, but there it is), people feel afraid on both sides of the trans debate (one legitimately, one dumb but there it is), etc. Thinking meaningful gun reform can happen without an effort to stabilize the country is folly. If that's construed as a futility argument, then they're not reading well, so let me be clear: Gun reform is possible, but it has to be under the umbrella of a more ambitious program. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Jun 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2022 23:21
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Worth noting that Florida, a state run by a guy trying to out-Trump Donald Trump, and a legislature full of insane gun-loving bible freaks, passed more gun control than a Democrat majority Congress. Or it would suggest that National and State level politics, while analogous in various ways, also have some fundamental differences? There has to be some impetus for what's occurring, some reason for the disparity, and "national politicians are just randomly dumber and more dishonest than state politicians" doesn't actually explain it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2022 01:53
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Or it would suggest that National and State level politics, while analogous in various ways, also have some fundamental differences? There has to be some impetus for what's occurring, some reason for the disparity, and "national politicians are just randomly dumber and more dishonest than state politicians" doesn't actually explain it. Edit: And why does this issue of national government seem so much less of a hurdle to Republican lawmakers who have generally been very effective at advancing their policy? Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Jun 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Edit: And why does this issue of national government seem so much less of a hurdle to Republican lawmakers who have generally been very effective at advancing their policy? They haven't though. Unless you count obstruction as their policy, in which yes that's been pretty effective. Most they did policy wise under Trump when they had control of all 3 branches was pass a tax law their base hated. Republicans do nothing and fan culture war flames. Democrats would have to actually do something, which is much harder at the national level. They don't want to, but if they did it would be harder than what the republicans do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2022 19:13
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Publicly arm a bunch of Black people. Yep. It is easier to understand the landscape of gun control in the US when you realize that almost all gun control in the US historically has been about keeping minorities from being armed. Same reason the NFA of 1934 had a carve out to let the wealthy keep their toys by paying for a tax stamp, and same reason Cali's gun control laws intensified when Reagan realized the Black Panthers were arming themselves. The 'may-issue' laws endemic in the South and Midwest are directly out of Jim Crow laws, to let the usually white elected or appointed sheriffs exercise discretion on who was allowed to carry or own a weapon. Cpt_Obvious posted:It feels like people are trapped into thinking that only the electoral system can achieve change. What about ways to enact gun control that don't rely purely on electoralism? What about parallel sources of power like unions and direct action? Can those be used to pressure politicians or install their own? Advocating for civil violence, which is exactly what you're talking about here as direct action, is just going to harden the opposition even further. And the hardcore part of the anti-gun control crowd are the same sort who made a little field trip to DC last January and have received no real consequences. Do not even put starting a gunfight with the people who've been spoiling for a racial holy war on the table, they'll jump on the opportunity and it will end in a lot of blood. Especially given the cops are their buddies. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Jun 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2022 19:32
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:On a national scale gun control proponents are worse at gun control than Ron loving DeSantis. Which should make anyone question either their competence or their sincerity if not both. DeSantis meanwhile was championing a month ago removing the need for licensing for conceal carries and after two mass shootings is penalizing one of his state’s professional sports teams for speaking about gun safety.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2022 20:18
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Yep. It is easier to understand the landscape of gun control in the US when you realize that almost all gun control in the US historically has been about keeping minorities from being armed. Is it, though? I hear this all the time, but I feel like the only example people bring up is the Mulford Act. A while back I actually went through federal gun legislation passed throughout the years to see if it was nearly all. I wish I could remember exact numbers, but I felt like it definitely wasn't nearly all due to a minority with a gun. And if it's true, is that still the case today? The largest gun control legislation passed in much more recent history that I can think of was the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. And that was due to white people with guns. Kalit fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Jun 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2022 21:33
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Advocating for civil violence, which is exactly what you're talking about here as direct action, is just going to harden the opposition even further. And the hardcore part of the anti-gun control crowd are the same sort who made a little field trip to DC last January and have received no real consequences. I dunno how you got "start a race war" from my post, but I guess I should clarify that starting a race war is probably a bad idea and I am not advocating for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2022 21:48
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Is it, though? I hear this all the time, but I feel like the only example people bring up is the Mulford Act. A while back I actually went through federal gun legislation passed throughout the years to see if it was nearly all. I wish I could remember exact numbers, but I felt like it definitely wasn't nearly all due to a minority with a gun. Anecdote isn't data, but it's exactly why my state went to shall-issue for carry permits. Had a huge problem with elected sheriffs using paper bag tests and/or only issuing permits to people who donated to their reelection campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2022 01:43
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Anecdote isn't data, but it's exactly why my state went to shall-issue for carry permits. Had a huge problem with elected sheriffs using paper bag tests and/or only issuing permits to people who donated to their reelection campaigns. Yes. Anecdote isn’t data. Which is why I get annoyed when people who insinuate that gun control legislation passing [nearly] only because of racist reasons because of the Mulford act annoy me. And I noticed you hadn’t refuted/stated any specific legislation beyond the Mulford Act. If you want to state what legislation your talking about, please tell me the state/county/city statute number. But as a warning, if you want to continue down the anecdotal non federal level legislation, I can easily provide a counter example to every example you bring up Kalit fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Jun 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2022 02:08
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Yes. Anecdote isn’t data. Which is why I get annoyed when people who insinuate that gun control legislation passing [nearly] only because of racist reasons because of the Mulford act annoy me. And I noticed you hadn’t refuted/stated any specific legislation beyond the Mulford Act. You don't need to look hard to find the extremely racist history of gun control. The 1968 gun control act, the one that bars all felons from owning firearms, was specifically created to target black people. Avowed anti-gun journalist Robert Sherrill had this to say: "The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks, and inasmuch as a majority of Congress did not want to do the former but were ashamed to show that their goal was the latter, the result was they did neither." https://www.sedgwickcounty.org/media/29093/the-racist-origins-of-us-gun-control.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2022 12:36
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:You don't need to look hard to find the extremely racist history of gun control. The 1968 gun control act, the one that bars all felons from owning firearms, was specifically created to target black people. Avowed anti-gun journalist Robert Sherrill had this to say: "The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks, and inasmuch as a majority of Congress did not want to do the former but were ashamed to show that their goal was the latter, the result was they did neither." Once again, anecdote isn’t data. Of course gun control laws have implemented with racist intent. But that’s not the same as “nearly all” gun control laws passing to keep guns out of minorities hands, which is what the original claim. I get annoyed when people seem to spew this “fact” for a couple reasons. One, for why gun control laws are actually bad. All while ignoring the fact that the 2nd amendment/gun ownership was put in place because of racism. Or two, as in this case and often in this thread already, that minorities arming up is the only way gun control gets passed. Which is absolutely not true. Kalit fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Jun 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2022 12:51
|
|
|
So here you make an argument that Democrats didn't pass gun control in 2008 because Democrats don't care about stopping gun deaths.Mulva posted:I do love how you have to go to 2013. No, the point is 2008, when the Democrats had a super-majority and couldn't be stopped from doing anything they wanted for a few months. That was prime time to pass their most important, most pressing issues. Nobody could stop them, they were at the height of all possible power in this government. When it's pointed out that this isn't really why gun reform didn't pass in 2008, suddenly things like reasons and the truth no longer matter. Mulva posted:That's all very interesting, but I've found over the decades I don't loving care about the excuses people trot out for why they failed. I don't even care if they are true. You have a conclusion that you are wedded to, and will simply ignore or dismiss things that run counter to that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2022 21:21
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Once again, anecdote isn’t data. Of course gun control laws have implemented with racist intent. But that’s not the same as “nearly all” gun control laws passing to keep guns out of minorities hands, which is what the original claim. Yea, this claim is just completely incorrect too. The extreme interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was a result of the Civil Rights Movement. In the U.S., Backlash to Civil Rights Era Made Guns a Political Third Rail quote:“The modern quest for gun control and the gun rights movement it triggered were born in the shadow of Brown,” Reva Siegel, a constitutional scholar at Yale Law School, wrote in a 2008 article in the Harvard Law Review. She was referring to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the landmark Supreme Court ruling in 1954. “Directly and indirectly, conflicts over civil rights have shaped modern understandings of the Second Amendment.” Basically, they're straight up rebelling. https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1532827061890457600?s=20&t=4IF5bcXwcU-_qIfB_rJv5Q https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1532828865432805376?s=20&t=4IF5bcXwcU-_qIfB_rJv5Q
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
"Shall not be infringed" is a pretty clear statement. Historically whenever the populace gets disarmed oppression pretty much immediately follows. Even Marx was like "yeah the people get to have guns and never trust somebody who says otherwise."
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Historically whenever the populace gets disarmed oppression pretty much immediately follows. It would be educational for you to provide historical examples. The more the better of course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2022 21:59
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:"Shall not be infringed" is a pretty clear statement. Historically whenever the populace gets disarmed oppression pretty much immediately follows. Even Marx was like "yeah the people get to have guns and never trust somebody who says otherwise." We've had the minorities argument here, and now there was a proposal to tax on rifles and the gun nuts are of course saying how it's bad for the low-income people, check this out: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/v5difq/a_house_democrat_plans_to_introduce_a_bill_that/ Apparently the AR-15 is the perfect home defense weapon and we'd be taking that away from the most vulnerable! Think of the single mothers defending their babies by shooting hoards of home invaders with her trusty AR-15. And now she won't be able to afford it  To be honest I'm not buying any of this at all, all this seems like pure concern trolling. Wide availability of firearms isn't making anyone safer. It's not stopping the government from oppressing people (because the people with the guns are all for oppression). The proletariat isn't rising up in an armed revolution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2022 22:14
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:It would be educational for you to provide historical examples. The more the better of course. When the Nazis took power Hitler disarmed sectors of the population especially the Jews. They also disarmed the countries they conquered. Himmler specifically said "Ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as having guns doesn’t serve the State." Before that the Weimar Republic began gun registry which was then used by those in power against political opponents pretty specifically. We know what happened after that. Before the Armenian genocide around WW1 the Turks disarmed the Armenians and immediately started taking everything they had and exterminating them. In the late 19th century the American government confiscated the Lakota's guns "for their own safety." Once they were handed over the cavalry immediately attacked and slaughtered them. Mao implemented strict gun control in the 60's and the Chinese government has been oppressive ever since. Rome also had a history of disarming conquered peoples and then taxing them into the dirt. Before the communist revolution in Russia the people in charge of it loved having an armed population. After the fact they disarmed the common folks and only let party members have a few weapons. We all know what Stalin did after that. Chinese history is actually full of this which is why martial arts and weird weapons like the kama were invented. The common folks got disarmed, the government became oppressive, and they had to improvise to throw the shackles off. The Spanish Empire didn't let common people have weapons and instead forced them to rely on their military. This caused all sorts of problems for the common folks one of which was the difficulty they achieved their independence. One of the first steps was getting the people armed enough to resist Spanish rule in the first place. Overall the Spanish Empire was dreadful to its conquered people. It's pretty simple, really. If one side has weapons and the other one doesn't the side with the weapons can easily oppress the other one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2022 22:29
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:How are the guns stopping the average person from being oppressed, are people in, let's say, the Netherlands or New Zealand more oppressed? Would you say having to do shooter drills in school is oppressive? "It can't happen here" is no longer a persuasive argument after the last 2 years of unprecedented events. The easiest way to tell that someone is arguing in favor of gun control from a position of ignorance is if their entire focus is on the AR-15. There are dozens of different variations of semi-automatic rifles that do the exact same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2022 22:32
|
|
|
Nearly every modern industrialized Country from Australia to Denmark to wherever else has strict gun control yet the highest life expectancy and human development. Look at it another way, you are safer in Los Angeles, California than something like St. Louis, Missouri.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2022 22:33
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:"It can't happen here" is no longer a persuasive argument after the last 2 years of unprecedented events. The easiest way to tell that someone is arguing in favor of gun control from a position of ignorance is if their entire focus is on the AR-15. There are dozens of different variations of semi-automatic rifles that do the exact same thing. I don't think anyone is arguing for a complete gun ban there will always be exceptions. If folks are genuinely afraid of an oppressive or tyrannical government then they can join a well organized militia or better yet the military.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
I'd like to discuss the duality of the "firearms like the AR-15 are needed to resist government tyranny" and also "the right to possess handguns shouldn't be restricted" because it seems relevant. If the goal is to provide the population a means to mount a defense against a tyrannical government, arguably the AR-15 and guns which are a more effective weapon of war, should be allowed. The population, to resist tyranny, must be armed in relatively equal measure to the government itself. Handguns are irrelevant at that point, you may restrict them arbitrarily because they will not aid in the defense against tyranny, and even automatic weapons or grenade launchers could not reasonably be restricted. Even, arguably, the possession of nuclear weapons by a civilian could be justified as proportionate to the theoretical opposing force. Quite on the other hand, if you're going to say "weapons of war aren't needed, the AR-15 is too much, the point of the second amendment is to provide each and every citizen the ability to defend themselves with deadly force if needed" then, yes, the private possession of handguns is allowable, but the possession of semi-automatic rifles is not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2022 22:38
|
|
|
Even so, a group of civilians armed with rifles aren't going to stop any tyrannical government in the 21st Century. Simply put, it's a childhood fantasy with example like Vietnam or Afghanistan given when at a tactical level the United Won however political pressure was what changed things. A better example is something like the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising or the Syrian Civil War. And the civilians with guns lost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2022 22:47
|
|
|
not that this would ever happen in the US (for a variety of reasons), but a widespread, decentralized resistance would be immensely difficult for the US military and local authorities to deal with in the mid and long term. Even if they were going to use bombs an american citizens (and they have before), it would cow many but most people are collaborators anyway. It would create new fighters every day, soldiers seeing their homes under fire, their people being oppressed. I can't say the same for the cops, though many are already members of militias, they tend to stick with their own and their authority. Local authorities have limited resources even if they're militarized. If you had LA riots in multiple cities with people in towns around the US deciding to resist in a multitude of easy ways that don't necessarily involve shooting people, local forces would be hard-pressed to deal and the military can do a swift crack down but eventually their resources, including human resources, will be strained. It's happened in multiple countries and they beat the US whether the US admits or not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2022 22:47
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'd like to discuss the duality of the "firearms like the AR-15 are needed to resist government tyranny" and also "the right to possess handguns shouldn't be restricted" because it seems relevant. The US Army would disagree that handguns are not adequate weapons of war. The Colt 1911 served as the standard-issue sidearm for the United States Armed Forces from 1911 to 1985 and saw widespread use in World War 1 through the Vietnam War. The argument for the 2nd Amendment is one that includes resisting tyranny and personal self-defense, and that latter shouldn't even be in dispute since the police have repeatedly argued (and won) in court that they have no duty to protect people in danger.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2022 22:48
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:When the Nazis took power Hitler disarmed sectors of the population especially the Jews. They also disarmed the countries they conquered. Himmler specifically said "Ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as having guns doesn’t serve the State." Before that the Weimar Republic began gun registry which was then used by those in power against political opponents pretty specifically. We know what happened after that. Ah. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2022 22:48
|
|
|
Right, sure, if Trump gets any worse in his second term, I'm certain the leftists will bust out their rifles and go overthrow the government. And it will be good, unlike Jan 6th. But in the meantime, not theoretically, but in reality, what are the guns doing right now for America? In exchange for Vietnam-war level of dead annually?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2022 22:59
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:The US Army would disagree that handguns are not adequate weapons of war. The Colt 1911 served as the standard-issue sidearm for the United States Armed Forces from 1911 to 1985 and saw widespread use in World War 1 through the Vietnam War. Even if the police did have a legal duty to protect people they aren't everywhere. They can't be everywhere and I don't think anybody would want to live in a society where they are as that's a sure sign of an oppressive government. Chances are if you get attacked the police aren't there. But who is there? You are. This is why the phrase is "better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it." The other thing is that the argument of "how would you beat the U.S. army?" Nothing is certain in war. The point is to make it cost more to conquer or oppress you than the other side wants to spend and increase your odds. The flip side of that is that the American military is also pretty tightly tied to the American people just by virtue of how it works. It's an entirely volunteer force mostly staffed by people who do a stint or two and then go back home. Where do you suppose their loyalties lie?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2022 23:03
|
|
|
Kalit posted:But as a warning, if you want to continue down the anecdotal non federal level legislation, I can easily provide a counter example to every example you bring up But you didn't do this when someone posted an example....
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2022 23:31
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The other thing is that the argument of "how would you beat the U.S. army?" Nothing is certain in war. The point is to make it cost more to conquer or oppress you than the other side wants to spend and increase your odds. The flip side of that is that the American military is also pretty tightly tied to the American people just by virtue of how it works. It's an entirely volunteer force mostly staffed by people who do a stint or two and then go back home. Where do you suppose their loyalties lie? Expect expecting a group of civilians in era of tanks, drones, radios, cruise missiles, airplanes, etc. to defeat an army it is a guarantee the army will win.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2022 23:47
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Expect expecting a group of civilians in era of tanks, drones, radios, cruise missiles, airplanes, etc. to defeat an army it is a guarantee the army will win. A government willing to wage indescriminate conventional warfare against an insurgent population is a government which will prove the insurgents right. Imagine how many people would still support the US Government if they waged drone warfare here in the same manner they do overseas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 04:43 |
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Expect expecting a group of civilians in era of tanks, drones, radios, cruise missiles, airplanes, etc. to defeat an army it is a guarantee the army will win. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SceSkkRtC2s (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2022 00:13
|
|
