It's important to understand how many people are motivated by surrealistic levels of panic induced through modern communications channels (particularly Facebook), and I don't believe this article...
It's important to understand how many people are motivated by surrealistic levels of panic induced through modern communications channels (particularly Facebook), and I don't believe this article touches on that.
I was in a work conversation this past week with several people (all educated healthcare and IT professionals) whose chatter included tips about reloading 9 mm ammunition since "Uncle Joe" was coming to lock them down because of exaggerated COVID risks, to take away their guns, and impose Marxism. It boggled my mind that these were perfectly ordinary topics of conversation for them, and they implicitly assumed everyone there took their axioms as given.
I am not joking or exaggerating about how widespread this kind of paranoia is in my small community. Barring other trusted public news sources, Facebook and Nextdoor create perfect Petri dishes for incubating viral disinformation and algorithmically enhancing panic. There's nothing in the story about how terrified these people are of losing their middle-class gains, further than has already happened with deindustrialization and outsourcing.
Most of the people in this group weren't what you'd think of as day-to-day racists. Then they were told over and over again whom to blame for their unfocused economic anxieties and fears of criminal victimization. Not the über-rich and the political grifters doing their bidding, of course.
I'm not a fan of Biden's gun policy, but ultimately I voted for him because we need to restore good governance. However, I have friends who would have to pay thousands to keep their semi-auto...
I'm not a fan of Biden's gun policy, but ultimately I voted for him because we need to restore good governance. However, I have friends who would have to pay thousands to keep their semi-auto rifles and handguns. Even someone who owns a standard Glock pistol with two fifteen round magazines may have to pay upwards of $600 (more than the price of the gun), depending on the definitions of "assault weapon." Additionally, it would be an enforcement nightmare. Estimates regarding New York's SAFE Act show a compliance rate of 4%.
Same and covered a lot of his policies in a previous thread here. Doing just quick head math of what's in my range bag for magazines alone I'd be in the thousands of dollars. Compliance, myself...
I'm not a fan of Biden's gun policy, but ultimately I voted for him because we need to restore good governance.
Same and covered a lot of his policies in a previous thread here. Doing just quick head math of what's in my range bag for magazines alone I'd be in the thousands of dollars. Compliance, myself included, will be nill.
Anything at the state level is going to have piss poor compliance because nobody can enforce controls across state lines. A Federal law, obviously, gets around this assuming you have universal...
Estimates regarding New York's SAFE Act show a compliance rate of 4%.
Anything at the state level is going to have piss poor compliance because nobody can enforce controls across state lines. A Federal law, obviously, gets around this assuming you have universal background checks and a nationwide registry.
This also includes those who owned "assault weapons" at the time of the enactment of the law, not just people moving into the state. My dad, who lives on a farm outside Albany, knows someone...
This also includes those who owned "assault weapons" at the time of the enactment of the law, not just people moving into the state. My dad, who lives on a farm outside Albany, knows someone (lived there decades) who didn't register his guns. 52 counties (with a population of about 7.1 million) passed resolutions against it, and numerous sheriffs stated they would refuse to enforce it. It's very difficult to enforce the law upon someone who does not want to comply because they believe it infringes upon their rights. For the record, I've come around on gun control, but I believe the current attempts at implementation are poor, and I favor a federalized licensing approach (think conceptually similar to NZ pre-2019) versus a confusing patchwork of federal, state, and local legislation.
My friends generally have military-style or military surplus rifles, and do not use them for hunting. That said, AR-style rifles are increasingly common for hunting, due to their reliability and...
My friends generally have military-style or military surplus rifles, and do not use them for hunting. That said, AR-style rifles are increasingly common for hunting, due to their reliability and modular design. In any case, it comes down to how legislation is worded. If a future ban or restriction defines an "assault weapon" as being capable of accepting a detachable magazine greater than ten rounds, or as being any semi-auto centerfire rifle, that will include numerous traditional hunting rifles, such as the Browning BAR.
Ah, here most stick to older Husqvarna styled rifles. AR-style rifles are kind of frowned upon and seen as hobbyist toys. That said I have lost most of my insight in to the hunter scene tbh...
Ah, here most stick to older Husqvarna styled rifles. AR-style rifles are kind of frowned upon and seen as hobbyist toys. That said I have lost most of my insight in to the hunter scene tbh...
Yeah and yes it is but not AS difficult as many assume. It depends on where you live very much. EDIT: one thing that is VERY different and that I think play in to this in an odd way is the way...
Yeah and yes it is but not AS difficult as many assume. It depends on where you live very much.
EDIT: one thing that is VERY different and that I think play in to this in an odd way is the way hunting is done.
Interestingly, the percentage of households that own guns seems to have stayed about the same since the 1970s (though i can't check the source for that site). One thing that makes it hard to...
Interestingly, the percentage of households that own guns seems to have stayed about the same since the 1970s (though i can't check the source for that site).
One thing that makes it hard to answer questions about guns is because of this organization you've probably heard of: the NRA. They are commonly known as very strong guns-rights advocates, and attract many single-issue voters centered around this topic. Interestingly if you read the linked wikipedia article, up until the 1970s the NRA was viewed as nonpartisan and actually helped craft gun control legislation. In 1977 a pair of men gained control of the NRA and immediately established a very hard line no-compromise stance on gun control.
Because of legislation that the NRA lobbied for, we have restrictions like US Code 926 which forbids the us government for creating a central database of firearm sales or owners. This has a lot of practical repercussions, among them making it very difficult to trace where an unknown firearm came from if it was used in a crime, especially if it's crossed state lines.
The NRA is also how we end up today with things like the Dickey amendment which effectively forbids the CDC from studying gun violence and making recommendations about courses of action. Which is one way we could probably get a more solid answer to your question.
The data on gun ownership is tricky. Some sources show a marked drop in the mid-1990s (right around the time of the Assault Weapons Ban), and it seems unusual that there would be a sudden...
The data on gun ownership is tricky. Some sources show a marked drop in the mid-1990s (right around the time of the Assault Weapons Ban), and it seems unusual that there would be a sudden sell-off. It's also understandable that gun owners may be reluctant to divulge information in light of things like this.
As for the Dickey Amendment, I'm fine with repealing it, and the broader public health approach, but statements like “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly and banned.” and "guns are a virus that must be eradicated...." aren't exactly comforting to gun owners.
A significant bit of it is cultural, keep in mind the United States became independent through shooting the British. Australia and Canada did not. Additionally, many Americans consider guns to be...
A significant bit of it is cultural, keep in mind the United States became independent through shooting the British. Australia and Canada did not. Additionally, many Americans consider guns to be just another hobby, or a family activity. Right now all of my guns were inherited from my grandparents and great-grandparents, although I plan on purchasing a rifle soon. Each pistol has unique features, design, and history. From a collector's standpoint, firearms are ideal, as even weapons of the same manufacturer and model have variations, and different manufacturers take different approaches to weapons of the same class.
No. This is bullshit the gun lobby made up in the 60s. It's nothing but gun manufacturer marketing that became popular when the NRA got taken over by John Birchers in the 1960s. The "tyranny" they...
A significant bit of it is cultural, keep in mind the United States became independent through shooting the British.
No. This is bullshit the gun lobby made up in the 60s. It's nothing but gun manufacturer marketing that became popular when the NRA got taken over by John Birchers in the 1960s. The "tyranny" they want to be armed up against isn't the Tyrant King George, it's the Tyrant Abraham Lincoln. It's not a coincidence attitudes towards gun ownership went from regarding them as utilitarian tools to quasi-religious fetish-objects right around the time of the Civil Rights movement.
I don't really understand your comment. Who is "they"? The NRA? nukeman was speaking about firearm owners. You just dumped blanket, uncited claims* about shifting attitudes towards gun ownership,...
I don't really understand your comment. Who is "they"? The NRA? nukeman was speaking about firearm owners. You just dumped blanket, uncited claims* about shifting attitudes towards gun ownership, and called upon correlation as fact. If you intend to further your arguement on Tildes, you might be better served by doing some legwork. Just remember that if you look hard enough for something, you will find it, but that doesn't guarentee it is trustworthy. This is a very politically charged topic so please be careful when researching.
I have never personally met a licensed firearm owner who does not want firearm legislation. They know how dangerous and poorly understood firearms are. What we want, however, are reasonable and well-implemented regulations that will be effective, without unnecessarily infringing on our rights.
Suppose a major shift in attitudes towards firearms did occur, and it was artificial. At most, I fetishize the ideal that if the United States government ceased to serve its contitutional duty, Americans would actually be capable of enacting a revolution. Literally, a stipulation that should it be necessary, the government must be overthrown. If you think about it, this is pretty crazy... Also pretty unrealistic. It seems to me that a realistic distopian future is one where the principles of freedom and democracy in the US are subverted quietly, implemented by such legislation as the Patriot Act, gradually converting the US into a police/surveilance state where dissenting opinions never reach the light of day, or simply never enact meaningful change.
I don't agree with the United State's foreign policies and wars fueled by overseas interests. I have a short list of companies who I have taken the time to be reasonably confident do not violate my personal ethics and philosophies. Presently, only cottage industry pre charged pneumatic airgun manufacturers are on my list. Yes, I do not presently own a firearm. I don't particularly like the government. I hate the two party system. I love worker-owner co-ops. I despise both unions and the companies that supress them. I don't like venture capitalism but I like plenty of angel investors. I don't like government subsidies and most taxes but I do want taxes on companies that degrade or exploit the public commons such that they can foster the development of more sustaintable, superior alternatives. I am a very big fan of the constitution, its ammendments, and of being able to posses a firearm. Am I racist for buying into this manufactured marketing? My view of firearms is shaped by the enviroment and culture that produced me, but I have very real political and ethical ideologies, and I wouldn't hold this view if it contradicted me.
Edit: you do have a source, but it discusses the NRA and not sweeping statements of how gun owners are racist. Also it is an article.
I think others have addressed the rest of your post, but I want to focus on this point in particular. The key thing that makes a functional and just revolution against tyranny possible is durable...
At most, I fetishize the ideal that if the United States government ceased to serve its contitutional duty, Americans would actually be capable of enacting a revolution.
I think others have addressed the rest of your post, but I want to focus on this point in particular.
The key thing that makes a functional and just revolution against tyranny possible is durable linkages and associational bonds between communities. In colonial America it was the existing governmental systems maintained by the 13 colonies. In Czarist Russia it was the works councils (Soviets). In Iran it was the religious authorities. These sorts of associational groups not only create the broader logistical capacity to follow through on a revolution, but also the consensus building frameworks needed to engage in whatever collective action it takes to step into the power vacuum and represent some sense of "the will of the people."
Random citizens being armed to the teeth isn't the actual functional element of revolutionary potential. That's a recipe for collapsing into a failed state and warlordism, akin to post-Soviet Afghanistan or ISIL. This gives up on consensus forming and relies solely on violence and appeals to force. The Framers understood this, which is why "Well regulated" is there in front of "militia" in the second amendment. It was never intended as a statement that anyone is entitled to own any kind of weaponry they want without restriction.
If the conditions that necessitate revolution are actually present, the infrastructure to get the necessary weaponry will be in place regardless of whatever the formal legal status around gun control is. Legal statutes are going to break down all on their own because state capacity will have already become brittle.
In contemporary American society, the armed citizenry does not constitute any meaningful threat against a tyrannical government. Quite the contrary, in fact, they end up acting as extra-judicial enforcers of tyrannical societal norms. Heavily armed protestors didn't turn out to stop the Patriot Act or in response to the Snowden leak. They turned out to get mad about mask mandates and the Affordable Care Act. It's functionally trying to bully and intimidate the political process rather than respecting democratic institutions and it's basically always being done with either tacit approval or salutary neglect by law enforcement. It's rarely being done in opposition to the organs of state power outside of random Bundy militia types out West.
I most certainly acknowledge it as an unrealistic ideal in an unrealistic scenario. Ironically, your own source concluded that "today’s NRA could be summed up with words uttered by the Black...
I most certainly acknowledge it as an unrealistic ideal in an unrealistic scenario.
Edit: I should mention that it is susupected? that the FBI were responsible for arming the Black Panther Party, which could be argued as tacit approval by government but only in a really underhanded manner.
And how long did that last? The Black Panthers have basically been neutralized and continue to exercise little to no political influence these days. So clearly the weaponry did nothing for their...
But here is a perfectly valid example of heavily armed protestors, clearly not with tacit approval or salutary neglect by law enforcement.
And how long did that last? The Black Panthers have basically been neutralized and continue to exercise little to no political influence these days. So clearly the weaponry did nothing for their movement long term.
It seems to me that determining the lasting impact of the Black Panther Party is not so cut and dry. It can and probably should be argued that the weaponry was responsible for the destruction of...
It seems to me that determining the lasting impact of the Black Panther Party is not so cut and dry. It can and probably should be argued that the weaponry was responsible for the destruction of the party, but they were also instrumental in creating such an awareness, even if the attention did not reflect the initial goals of the party. So "clearly the weaponry did nothing for their movement long term" seems silly, because things are often complicated. Am I sounding condescending? I just don't know why you would want to boil down such an interesting period of social protesting to nothing of great significance.
I don't think they've created much awareness through it aside from being the one convenient exception people keep bringing up to dispute the general rule. Simply walking around with rifles didn't...
I don't think they've created much awareness through it aside from being the one convenient exception people keep bringing up to dispute the general rule. Simply walking around with rifles didn't have much of an impact on their political project, which undermines the argument that these are useful totems for protecting anyone's rights.
We just sort of see this differently, there isn't much else I have to say. I guess, I don't want it to be "the one convenient exception" but maybe it is. As a rule of thumb though, I see lots of...
We just sort of see this differently, there isn't much else I have to say. I guess, I don't want it to be "the one convenient exception" but maybe it is. As a rule of thumb though, I see lots of areas for improvement in reducing gun violence which don't require additional legislation, and some where even minor adjustments could have positive impacts. I also remain generally skeptical that drastic new legislation would prove particularly effective for no real reason beyond my strong skepticism towards any new legislation, and the competency of the government in general. We seem to differ in these areas and we haven't converged on a solution so this seems like a good place to wrap up? Thanks for engaging with me.
It's also mostly centered around the NRA, but this is a much longer, better article on the topic: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment There are quite a few more sources cited in the article,...
There are quite a few more sources cited in the article, and the article itself is adapted from the book "The Second Amendment: A Biography", which is supposed to be quite good.
Seeing as how I've taken the trouble to write such an unecessarily long comment, I'd better do my own due diligence and read up on the subject. This looks like a great starting point. Thanks!
Seeing as how I've taken the trouble to write such an unecessarily long comment, I'd better do my own due diligence and read up on the subject. This looks like a great starting point. Thanks!
Because it creates conflict where there could have been efficiency. When a company is not meeting the needs of its employees, they must unionize. When they unionize, they gain the tools to fight...
Because it creates conflict where there could have been efficiency. When a company is not meeting the needs of its employees, they must unionize. When they unionize, they gain the tools to fight back. Now the company and the employees are fighting, each working to further their own ends rather than just working. A teachers union might be about working conditions. It might be about quality of learning. It might be about making more money or working less hours or getting a big fat pension. But in all cases, students are not learning during strikes. I hate strikes, I hate that strikes might be neccessary.
Hence, why I strongly advocate for co-ops. When you own your business, you are pretty damn well motivated to work for it. If things are broken, they can be fixed without splitting off resources to fight yourself. Of course this is can vary by implementation, or personalities and such, but I really believe there is so much more potential.
I am uncertain what "coerced into working for non-coop businesses by the state" is implying, so I'll ignore it but clarification would be appreciated. Yes, you might note that my wording specifies...
I am uncertain what "coerced into working for non-coop businesses by the state" is implying, so I'll ignore it but clarification would be appreciated.
Yes, you might note that my wording specifies "[workers] must unionize". Also, that "I despise... the companies that supress [the workers]", such as Amazon, where unions cannot form, and also companies that supress established unions. Because I value human beings, I believe unions are required. I simply hate that they might be required. Also I still hate them in and of themselves though, and see no contradiction here. "The lesser of two evils" is still evil, if you will.
Not to sell co-ops as a flawless panacea, though I wish they were.
I was going to write a well thought out response, but I'm not going to have enough time until this weekend. I'll type this one out as an intermediary. I hope to add more at a later date. I'm not...
I was going to write a well thought out response, but I'm not going to have enough time until this weekend. I'll type this one out as an intermediary. I hope to add more at a later date.
I'm not arguing the specific "fight against gubment tyranny." I'm discussing the subconscious of the American psyche. While I won't deny a possible, even likely, racial connection between guns and racism in American society, the fact that America is the only one of the majority white Anglo settler societies which won its independence through force likely has an impact on society as a whole. I would argue similar effects are present in France (the French revolution), post-war Germany (German militarism leading up to the Nazis) and China (the century of humiliation), among others.
While I understand all of that, none of what you say really addresses the question of “need”. I am of the philosophy that anything sufficiently dangerous or harmful (especially but not exclusively...
While I understand all of that, none of what you say really addresses the question of “need”.
I am of the philosophy that anything sufficiently dangerous or harmful (especially but not exclusively harmful to others) should only be allowed when it is a requirement for a goal that outweighs its negative effects.
For example, chemotherapy is probably a terrible idea unless employed by medical professionals to treat sufficiently advanced cancer (and other similar situations). On the same note, a firearm is probably a terrible idea unless it’s in the hand of properly trained law enforcement during the exercise of their lawful duties (and other similar situations).
I tend to think that “guns are a fun hobby” is not enough of a positive to outweigh the potential negative of easily accessible gun ownership.
Here's a 538 breakdown of the ~33,000 gun deaths annually. About 0% - Terrorism, mass shootings, and death of police (despite extensive media coverage). 4% - Shootings by the police. Estimated...
On the same note, a firearm is probably a terrible idea unless it’s in the hand of properly trained law enforcement during the exercise of their lawful duties.
About 0% - Terrorism, mass shootings, and death of police (despite extensive media coverage).
4% - Shootings by the police. Estimated because stats don't get accurately collected.
64% suicides. Most of which are white men.
35% homicides. (The first two categories get lumped in this one).
The remaining <1% is accidents.
So, yes, guns are dangerous. But they are mostly a function of making intentional deaths more successful. The USA has a huge problem with anger and violence, and that isn't going to be solved by removing guns.
The USA is very low on the world happiness index, especially once factoring our GDP/capita. We have incredibly high rates of domestic abuse. We don't have access to good mental health. We have high rates of poverty, especially f you use what the desired minimum wage ($15) instead of the current ($7.50): 42%.
Mitigate those problems and gun deaths go way down. And those are likely easier to do than making legitimate inroads to gun ownership/culture in the USA.
Edit: Also, sure, make inroads to removing gun culture in the USA. Take the guns from the cops first.
The evidence suggests otherwise. Suicide, in particular, is very often an impulsive decision and the more steps put between ideation and action the more likely someone is to come to their senses...
The USA has a huge problem with anger and violence, and that isn't going to be solved by removing guns.
The evidence suggests otherwise. Suicide, in particular, is very often an impulsive decision and the more steps put between ideation and action the more likely someone is to come to their senses and get help.
There is also evidence that strict permitting requirements and "may issue" laws have appreciable effects on reducing homicide rates. And among minority communities trafficking controls also have significant effects.
The United States is not unique in having a toxic culture of anger and violence. But our libertinism around firearms exacerbates all the underlying problems. It's like smoking a cigarette in an oil refinery.
What always irritates me about those statistics is that they completely ignore context. That "0%" number includes events that are shaping American culture significantly. Schools have "killer on...
What always irritates me about those statistics is that they completely ignore context. That "0%" number includes events that are shaping American culture significantly. Schools have "killer on the move" drills. Schools shouldn't have "killer on the move" drills. Not to mention, that percentage is so low because the number of other cases is so high.
Sandy Hook came up recently, after Barack Obama mentioned in an interview. Shit like that... it only has to happen once. Even if it's just 20 kids dead, that's just not acceptable. If you take this as the price for not having stricter control, you really have to justify it. Like, I need lists, numbers and concrete scenarios in which a bunch of assault rifle wielding farmers take over the united states army. To me, that seems like a romanticized fairy tale. That's not enough to accept a couple of school shootings for.
Yes, it's a travesty, and you're right it shouldn't happen. But virtually all media focus is on those, and rather than being used as opportunities to question the why, they're used as...
Yes, it's a travesty, and you're right it shouldn't happen. But virtually all media focus is on those, and rather than being used as opportunities to question the why, they're used as justification for enhancing an already-too-invasive police state.
Mass shootings aren't happening because there are guns. Mass shootings are happening because people are unhappy. Take away the guns and they'll just be using explosives instead.
Because assault guns are mostly an arbitrary cosmetic distinction that has virtually no impact on functionality. If you're referring to automatic weapons: Good thing they've been banned since...
From a consequentialist standpoint, it doesn't matter too much if the cause of the increase in deaths is something inherent to firearms (and largely the same in any context), or if they increase...
So, yes, guns are dangerous. But they are mostly a function of making intentional deaths more successful.
From a consequentialist standpoint, it doesn't matter too much if the cause of the increase in deaths is something inherent to firearms (and largely the same in any context), or if they increase the number of deaths due to the correlation of gun ownership and other factors. What matters most is that their presence increases the number of deaths.
Of course, it is a good idea to improve other factors that collude with gun ownership to increase violent deaths. But it is entirely feasible for a country to address these issues while enforcing gun control at the same time.
You should do whatever the law determines. Hunting is not a necessity unless it’s a requirement for your subsistence or for the regulation of certain species instead of a merely a hobby or sport....
then what do you think I should do?
You should do whatever the law determines.
Hunting is not a necessity unless it’s a requirement for your subsistence or for the regulation of certain species instead of a merely a hobby or sport. Do you need hunting to eat or to help regulate an ecosystem?
As I said, if the law allows you, just keep your guns if you want. That’s a private mater, why do you expect me to have an answer for that? It would be the task of legislators to determine what...
As I said, if the law allows you, just keep your guns if you want. That’s a private mater, why do you expect me to have an answer for that?
It would be the task of legislators to determine what constitutes legitimate necessity under the law. This is not a simple calculation, but I think it’s a necessary one.
Sounds like quite the project!! I am wondering what your thoughts are on self regulating systems. I've been working with large farms and ranches recently on changing their management practices to...
Sounds like quite the project!! I am wondering what your thoughts are on self regulating systems. I've been working with large farms and ranches recently on changing their management practices to "agro-ecology" with the idea of fostering a healthy environment to regulate itself. Effectively it's the idea that if you can revert some of the land back for native populations, like native scrub instead of crops on like 1/9th of the property, then you'll have to spend less time on active management (in my work it's been as a pesticide offset).
I'm not sure what your uncle is using the property for, and I'm sure if it is for ranching/livestock it's probably not a great idea, but if you let some of the larger predators live they might in turn regulate down the food chain. So if there are coyote/wolves then they would keep deer/wild pig populations in check. To be honest I have no idea what you would do about the raccoons. Do you think this could be a viable option?
I’m certain you’re entirely reasonable, but public policy is not meant for a single individual. You are not stupid, but what about everyone else? Besides, even the most calm individual can...
To me, it's just a tool but a dangerous one, so keep it in a safe and don't be stupid.
I’m certain you’re entirely reasonable, but public policy is not meant for a single individual. You are not stupid, but what about everyone else? Besides, even the most calm individual can eventually lose their cool. Nothing prevents them from opening the safe in order to hurt others or themselves. You can, of course, do the same without firearms. But guns shorten the distance between intention and action, and that’s extremely dangerous.
So, if I'm reading correctly, rational Trump voters are: Very rich people (pointlessly segmented first 3 categories) Business owners (mostly also rich, except the ones who are just getting the...
So, if I'm reading correctly, rational Trump voters are:
Very rich people (pointlessly segmented first 3 categories)
Business owners (mostly also rich, except the ones who are just getting the leftover scraps from those who are)
Poor people who have been neglected by Democrats
People who are ignorant or racist
This last two categories make up 90%+ of his base. 3 of those 4 categories can be summed up in the immortal words of my father: "I don't like Trump, but I can't vote for a Democrat"
For the poor people the Democrats left behind, maybe listen to the progressives to implement changes that stop leaving people behind.
Also note that unemployment numbers are basically worthless these days (let me know when that equation is unemployed=full time employment/able workers). And that much of the expanded employment is at the expense of worsening global warming and not trying to mitigate it.
Edit: Another acceptable unemployment equation: Number of available full-time positions/people seeking full time employment.
Just because you're getting a paycheck doesn't mean you're employed.
It seems your argument is for the 'lesser of two evils'. I'm not an American, but if this is the mentality then do you think the electoral system is failing you? How entrenched is partisanship?...
It seems your argument is for the 'lesser of two evils'. I'm not an American, but if this is the mentality then do you think the electoral system is failing you? How entrenched is partisanship? Would a disenfranchised voter consider taking part in the selection process for each party to find a candidate they might want to vote for, or do they consider the only two choices being Red team or Blue team (or Red president vs Blue president)?
Yes, very much so. I don't think it's ever really been 'functional', but the dysfunction has especially kicked into high gear circa 2000. It is bad, but especially so for the Republicans. We don't...
Then do you think the electoral system is failing you?
Yes, very much so. I don't think it's ever really been 'functional', but the dysfunction has especially kicked into high gear circa 2000.
How entrenched is partisanship?
It is bad, but especially so for the Republicans. We don't really have two parties in the USA...We have the Republicans and everybody else. The Democrats (at least as a voting bloc) are far more diverse a group, and certainly don't fall in lock-step with the same veracity. Paraphrasing:
"It's undemocratic to nominate a Supreme Court Justice in an election year" - Mitch Mcconnell 2016
"That last statement doesn't apply because a Republican is in office" - Mitch Mcconnell 2020
Would a disenfranchised voter consider taking part in the selection process for each party to find a candidate they might want to vote for, or do they consider the only two choices being Red team or Blue team (or Red president vs Blue president)?
Well, most disenfranchised voters just don't vote. In part because prior to COVID, getting to vote was being made harder and harder, especially for the disenfranchised.
Those of us who can, try. It's not an easy process, as primarying an incumbent is frowned upon greatly, especially if you're going against the main party platform. Look at much flak Bernie got for daring to stand in the way of Hillary getting the Dem nomination in 2016.
But essentially yes, it's Red vs Blue. Because if you vote against it, you'll be shouted down about wasting your vote. If half the people who told me "Yea, I like the Green platform but don't want a Republican to win," voted Green, yea Republican would probably win that election. But the Greens would get the required percentage to get national funding. And likely that is true for for the Republican/Libertarian cluster too.
The partisanship so deep the only way out is going to be voting reform. Ranked choice would be a great option.
Wow, that quote from Mitch Mcconnell is terrifying! Do actions like that from Republicans set a precedent that Democrats then follow, degrading the system further? As for voting systems, have you...
Wow, that quote from Mitch Mcconnell is terrifying! Do actions like that from Republicans set a precedent that Democrats then follow, degrading the system further?
As for voting systems, have you considered Instant Runoff Voting? I suggest it because it's a majoritarian system that avoids the accusation of 'wasted votes'. I personally prefer proportionate voting systems, but I'm unsure Americans could handle that level of compromise (especially if smaller parties control the balance of power).
I don’t think that’s meant to be a direct quote of Mitch McConnell? But yes, norms are eroding fast. Ranked choice voting is used in a few places, like Maine and San Francisco. New York City will...
I don’t think that’s meant to be a direct quote of Mitch McConnell? But yes, norms are eroding fast.
Ranked choice voting is used in a few places, like Maine and San Francisco. New York City will have ranked choice voting next year for municipal elections.
I guess the most terrifying thing for me is that our (New Zealand) constitution isn't codified, so is only based on customs and norms: Parliament can modify constitutional law just as any other...
I guess the most terrifying thing for me is that our (New Zealand) constitution isn't codified, so is only based on customs and norms: Parliament can modify constitutional law just as any other law. This means we could theoretically elect an extreme authoritarian who, with only 50% majority, could pass an Enabling Act, overthrowing the government and ruling by decree in perpetuity.
While it is clear that the US constitution is under extreme stress - with partisanship infecting all three branches of government - it has not broken. I recently watched a video of an American General stating: "We Take an Oath to the Constitution, Not an Individual". I would hope that Americans not only take pride in this, but look to improve it and fix what's not working.
I'd argue that that near-deification of the Constitution is part of the problem though. The more it's treated like holy writ, the less likely it is for necessary changes to it to pass. I don't...
I'd argue that that near-deification of the Constitution is part of the problem though. The more it's treated like holy writ, the less likely it is for necessary changes to it to pass. I don't think many other Americans would disagree with me saying that a constitutional amendment is functionally impossible right now. Aside from the weirdness of the 27th that took over 200 years to pass, we haven't had an amendment since the 70s. I don't think there's been another 50 year stretch in the US's history without one. Given the super high bar to passing one, and the fear of what would come out of a constitutional convention in this current political climate, plus the Republican party embracing this "originalist" doctrine for the courts-- the Constitution is put on too high of a pedestal as it is.
I'd say it's a double-edged sword. Having a solid constitution means it's harder to radically alter governance on a whim. I think de-escalating the partisanship will help, and one of the best ways...
I'd say it's a double-edged sword. Having a solid constitution means it's harder to radically alter governance on a whim.
I think de-escalating the partisanship will help, and one of the best ways to do so would be breaking the political duopoly.
It seems like a time when the country is deeply divided isn't a good time to pass new amendments? The system has a lot of flaws, but clear and inflexible rules can sometimes be a virtue. Otherwise...
It seems like a time when the country is deeply divided isn't a good time to pass new amendments?
The system has a lot of flaws, but clear and inflexible rules can sometimes be a virtue. Otherwise Trump might find a way to stay in power.
The results from this latest primary and general election season suggest this may not actually be a pathway to electoral success. The policies are likely to reduce these peoples' engagement in...
For the poor people the Democrats left behind, maybe listen to the progressives to implement changes that stop leaving people behind.
The results from this latest primary and general election season suggest this may not actually be a pathway to electoral success. The policies are likely to reduce these peoples' engagement in politics at all (and suppress Republican support by making White nationalist politics less salient), but they don't seem to actually do much at the ballot box to elevate progressive candidates.
Trump, I would argue probably unintentionally, did have some arguably good economic policy. See, what the Trump administration did was lead unprecedented deficit spending by the federal government...
Trump, I would argue probably unintentionally, did have some arguably good economic policy. See, what the Trump administration did was lead unprecedented deficit spending by the federal government at an unprecedented time; not only was there a large amount of government spending, there was also infamously a large tax cut, and a steady supply of angry tweets bitching at Jerome Powell to lower interest rates. But it wasn't just high spending, it was high spending at time when the economy was already humming!
It was an unprecedented amount of federal demand-side economic pull, and an amount that basically everyone would say was reckless. Traditionally, around 2016 is when the government policy would shift to slowing down the economy, considering how much it had recovered. Generally in economic theory you don't want to overproduce.
But Trump wanted to pump his economic numbers higher. The Republican party, though, is also the party of fiscal conservatism... or at least so they say. But they're also, evidently, the party of being Trump's bitch, so the fact that the party would rather die than allow a Democratic president to do these kind of things suddenly became A-okay with deficit spending meant that it pretty much went unopposed.
And by the numbers... it seemed to work? U6 was down, and studies indicated that finally the long tail of the employment curve was being pulled up. Wages for women and people of color finally started to increase around 2018.
And the 2018-2019 economy is what many people still attributed to Trump. I think that's a major reason for Trump's big gains in votes among hispanic voters and black voters compared to 2016.
I won't enumerate all the ways Trump's policies have done exactly the reverse of what he's claimed, but there are some salient examples. One misunderstanding is that simply opening up a firehose...
I won't enumerate all the ways Trump's policies have done exactly the reverse of what he's claimed, but there are some salient examples.
One misunderstanding is that simply opening up a firehose of Federal money doesn't genuinely benefit the broader economy. All that spending accomplished was inflating an already overheated stock market (and fattening select Trump-friendly industries and grifters). It wasn't earmarked for the necessary public investments (e.g. infrastructure, green energy, primary healthcare, K-12 education, etc.). Even the U.S. military and associated manufacturing industries didn't benefit as much as is usual during Federal spending booms, because there was little or no attempt to direct this money. U.S. FIRE, personal services, delivery, and tech have boomed, but other than transportation, they're
negligible fractions of employment. Basic manufacturing, mining, construction, etc. haven't seen noticeable employment increases. [Another interesting fact for another time - Federal and state government employment growth has been zero since 2009.]
There are now artificial labor shortages at the low end of the wage scale, because even legal temporary immigration has ground to a halt. That's creating spotty inflation which is likely to hit the poorest hardest (daycare, and fresh produce production are examples), regardless of minimum wage increases. The flood of money to the richest investors was also driving rents up, again diluting the benefit of rising wages.
Unavailable and unpredictable health care costs and coverage is another area where Trump/Republican policy has has disastrous impact. Full-time employment without health insurance increased by a full percentage point, about 2.2 million people, from 2016 to 2019, even before COVID struck.
It's not about what Trump says he's trying to do, it's about looking at what Trump did. Because the Trump administration was effectively an interesting experiment for unintended reasons. Trump was...
It's not about what Trump says he's trying to do, it's about looking at what Trump did. Because the Trump administration was effectively an interesting experiment for unintended reasons. Trump was utterly ineffective at enacting actual policy changes; he failed at dismantling the ACA, and after 2018 the Democratic house could tell him to fuck off on every other item on his agenda.
So in many ways, the US economy was the Obama era one, but one where the administration looked at an "overheated" economy and poured more gasoline one it.
Perhaps we were spared the collapse from COVID, but at least for the first few years, nothing particularly cataclysmic occured.
And it's undeniable that wages did rise for PoC and women from late 2017-2019, more than it did in the Obama era. And the question is: why? Obviously the administration did not exactly cater to minorities ideologically. It's unlikely the trade war or tariffs helped the economy. Really there was just one thing they did do: keep the hose open.
It's worth examining what Trump did, and didn't do, not only as a study of the election, but also for the future, although it's pretty likely Republicans in the senate will go back to being the "fiscal conservatives" they were before.
Back to the topic, there has to be some reason that Trump did much better with people of color this election despite being almost openly racist against them.
A question here is what "overheated" means. How do we know that the economy is overheated? Traditionally that meant inflation, and according to the consumer price index, inflation was zero in...
A question here is what "overheated" means. How do we know that the economy is overheated? Traditionally that meant inflation, and according to the consumer price index, inflation was zero in October and 1.2% for the preceding year.
You could instead look at asset prices. Prices for housing have been going up a lot in many cities for years, though in some markets that changed this year. (San Francisco saw a big drop.) The S&P 500's all-time high was a few days ago, which is pretty weird in a pandemic, but the argument is that the market is looking beyond that, not to mention that the Fed is propping it up.
Also, arguably, inflation is a good thing when consumer debt is at record highs. One of the biggest drags on economic growth is the fact that so much of the prime working age population is...
A question here is what "overheated" means. How do we know that the economy is overheated? Traditionally that meant inflation, and according to the consumer price index, inflation was zero in October and 1.2% for the preceding year.
Also, arguably, inflation is a good thing when consumer debt is at record highs. One of the biggest drags on economic growth is the fact that so much of the prime working age population is severely debt and rent burdened. Wear down the nominal value of their debts and you free them up to take more entrepreneurial risks.
Also, there are still lots of arguments that the economy is in a major savings glut, so prioritizing controlling inflation really does seem like a bad move.
Trump's economic policies are simply borrowing against the future for immediate gains now. We'll all pay for it, he just won't be around and the issue is so complex voters won't be able to...
Trump's economic policies are simply borrowing against the future for immediate gains now. We'll all pay for it, he just won't be around and the issue is so complex voters won't be able to collectively understand.
Democrats need to realize that for many people their empathy is outweighed by their survival instincts. So much of the “left” leaning discourse is about doing what’s right for the planet, for...
There is no better metaphor for what constitutes a foundational part of the Trump vote in 2020: if some people must die or suffer so that others can thrive, then so be it.
Democrats need to realize that for many people their empathy is outweighed by their survival instincts. So much of the “left” leaning discourse is about doing what’s right for the planet, for immigrants, and for people of color.
I agree, but I'm gonna be honest, isn't leftism (at least the socially progressive and democratic, which are often rehabilitative and nurture oriented variants of leftism) almost entirely based on...
Democrats need to realize that for many people their empathy is outweighed by their survival instincts. So much of the “left” leaning discourse is about doing what’s right for the planet, for immigrants, and for people of color.
I agree, but I'm gonna be honest, isn't leftism (at least the socially progressive and democratic, which are often rehabilitative and nurture oriented variants of leftism) almost entirely based on helping worse off people and making life easier, fairer and cushier? The most realistic thing I can imagine Democrats doing to emphasize "survival" is embracing class antagonism/division which would/does probably fly with progressives, but probably doesn't go much further.
There are your ideals, and then separately your actions to implement them. We don’t need to tell people they’re helping others when they vote for health care or environmental policy.
There are your ideals, and then separately your actions to implement them. We don’t need to tell people they’re helping others when they vote for health care or environmental policy.
Hilary, and later Biden, consistently gave the message that the status quo is fine, which is why she lost and he came closer to losing than any of us would like. America sucks for a lot of...
Hilary, and later Biden, consistently gave the message that the status quo is fine, which is why she lost and he came closer to losing than any of us would like.
America sucks for a lot of Americans. Trump agreed with them that it sucks and said he was going to make it better. The fact that he was lying doesn't negate this fact. Obama also won with a "change" message. Imagine that.
This is a meme that circulates on Bernie-centric media that had an axe to grind on anyone who wasn't Bernie and nowhere else. It's totally filter bubbled people with extremely online media diets...
later Biden, consistently gave the message that the status quo is fine
This is a meme that circulates on Bernie-centric media that had an axe to grind on anyone who wasn't Bernie and nowhere else. It's totally filter bubbled people with extremely online media diets out of being able to see what the actual messaging is.
Whatever you think of Biden's policy proposals being inadequate, almost nobody actually reads the substantive elements of policy proposals. The actual messaging he's been putting out, such as in his acceptance speech below, does not suggest any implicit message that "status quo is fine."
Make no mistake: Too many dreams have been deferred for too long.
We must make the promise of the country real for everybody — no matter their race, their ethnicity, their faith, their identity, or their disability.
America has always been shaped by inflection points — by moments in time where we’ve made hard decisions about who we are and what we want to be.
Lincoln in 1860 — coming to save the Union.
F.D.R. in 1932 — promising a beleaguered country a New Deal.
J.F.K. in 1960 — pledging a New Frontier.
And 12 years ago — when Barack Obama made history — and told us, “Yes, we can.”
We stand again at an inflection point.
We have the opportunity to defeat despair and to build a nation of prosperity and purpose.
Honestly Biden did fine in the election. It was a solid lead, and the restoration of the blue wall was pretty big. By midday Wednesday, although evidently weeks of sort of uncertainty would...
Honestly Biden did fine in the election. It was a solid lead, and the restoration of the blue wall was pretty big. By midday Wednesday, although evidently weeks of sort of uncertainty would remain, you could be pretty confident Biden had won. The path for Trump was far too winding after Wisconsin and Michigan showed their true colors.
Perhaps the polling had skewed expectations, but take the electoral map we have today, time travel back to the Democratic primary when Biden was nominated, and show it any Democrat and they'd be ecstatic. Beating incumbents is hard, after all.
What was disappointing is downballot, where Democrats did far, far worse than Biden. Biden had incredibly higher vote shares than his downballot D friends, and vice versa for Trump.
And to be honest, I don't think we know exactly why. There's a lot of shitflinging, in particular centrist are very angry at the messaging over guns, socialism, and "defund the police". Which, to be fair, evidently doomed Florida; if Biden had maintained Clinton's margins with the Cuban and Venezuelan vote, Florida would be blue, as he performed very well in the suburbs as compared to Clinton.
But to have any idea exactly why, will first require the race to be over (many house seats are still uncalled, and we need the senate runoffs), and then extensive review of the voting population, extra hard this time since exit polls are borked.
Biden did significantly worse then Obama in both 2008 and 2012 against seemingly stronger challenges. Perhaps this is because Obama was such a strong candidate or perhaps the change campaign was...
Honestly Biden did fine in the election.
Biden did significantly worse then Obama in both 2008 and 2012 against seemingly stronger challenges. Perhaps this is because Obama was such a strong candidate or perhaps the change campaign was really effective.
It's important to understand how many people are motivated by surrealistic levels of panic induced through modern communications channels (particularly Facebook), and I don't believe this article touches on that.
I was in a work conversation this past week with several people (all educated healthcare and IT professionals) whose chatter included tips about reloading 9 mm ammunition since "Uncle Joe" was coming to lock them down because of exaggerated COVID risks, to take away their guns, and impose Marxism. It boggled my mind that these were perfectly ordinary topics of conversation for them, and they implicitly assumed everyone there took their axioms as given.
I am not joking or exaggerating about how widespread this kind of paranoia is in my small community. Barring other trusted public news sources, Facebook and Nextdoor create perfect Petri dishes for incubating viral disinformation and algorithmically enhancing panic. There's nothing in the story about how terrified these people are of losing their middle-class gains, further than has already happened with deindustrialization and outsourcing.
Most of the people in this group weren't what you'd think of as day-to-day racists. Then they were told over and over again whom to blame for their unfocused economic anxieties and fears of criminal victimization. Not the über-rich and the political grifters doing their bidding, of course.
I'm not a fan of Biden's gun policy, but ultimately I voted for him because we need to restore good governance. However, I have friends who would have to pay thousands to keep their semi-auto rifles and handguns. Even someone who owns a standard Glock pistol with two fifteen round magazines may have to pay upwards of $600 (more than the price of the gun), depending on the definitions of "assault weapon." Additionally, it would be an enforcement nightmare. Estimates regarding New York's SAFE Act show a compliance rate of 4%.
Same and covered a lot of his policies in a previous thread here. Doing just quick head math of what's in my range bag for magazines alone I'd be in the thousands of dollars. Compliance, myself included, will be nill.
Anything at the state level is going to have piss poor compliance because nobody can enforce controls across state lines. A Federal law, obviously, gets around this assuming you have universal background checks and a nationwide registry.
This also includes those who owned "assault weapons" at the time of the enactment of the law, not just people moving into the state. My dad, who lives on a farm outside Albany, knows someone (lived there decades) who didn't register his guns. 52 counties (with a population of about 7.1 million) passed resolutions against it, and numerous sheriffs stated they would refuse to enforce it. It's very difficult to enforce the law upon someone who does not want to comply because they believe it infringes upon their rights. For the record, I've come around on gun control, but I believe the current attempts at implementation are poor, and I favor a federalized licensing approach (think conceptually similar to NZ pre-2019) versus a confusing patchwork of federal, state, and local legislation.
Wait they have to pay more for hunting rifles?
My friends generally have military-style or military surplus rifles, and do not use them for hunting. That said, AR-style rifles are increasingly common for hunting, due to their reliability and modular design. In any case, it comes down to how legislation is worded. If a future ban or restriction defines an "assault weapon" as being capable of accepting a detachable magazine greater than ten rounds, or as being any semi-auto centerfire rifle, that will include numerous traditional hunting rifles, such as the Browning BAR.
Ah, here most stick to older Husqvarna styled rifles. AR-style rifles are kind of frowned upon and seen as hobbyist toys. That said I have lost most of my insight in to the hunter scene tbh...
Are you from somewhere in the Nordics? The firearms culture there is very different than the United States.
Yeah and yes it is but not AS difficult as many assume. It depends on where you live very much.
EDIT: one thing that is VERY different and that I think play in to this in an odd way is the way hunting is done.
Why Americans need so many weapons anyway?
Interestingly, the percentage of households that own guns seems to have stayed about the same since the 1970s (though i can't check the source for that site).
One thing that makes it hard to answer questions about guns is because of this organization you've probably heard of: the NRA. They are commonly known as very strong guns-rights advocates, and attract many single-issue voters centered around this topic. Interestingly if you read the linked wikipedia article, up until the 1970s the NRA was viewed as nonpartisan and actually helped craft gun control legislation. In 1977 a pair of men gained control of the NRA and immediately established a very hard line no-compromise stance on gun control.
Because of legislation that the NRA lobbied for, we have restrictions like US Code 926 which forbids the us government for creating a central database of firearm sales or owners. This has a lot of practical repercussions, among them making it very difficult to trace where an unknown firearm came from if it was used in a crime, especially if it's crossed state lines.
The NRA is also how we end up today with things like the Dickey amendment which effectively forbids the CDC from studying gun violence and making recommendations about courses of action. Which is one way we could probably get a more solid answer to your question.
The data on gun ownership is tricky. Some sources show a marked drop in the mid-1990s (right around the time of the Assault Weapons Ban), and it seems unusual that there would be a sudden sell-off. It's also understandable that gun owners may be reluctant to divulge information in light of things like this.
As for the Dickey Amendment, I'm fine with repealing it, and the broader public health approach, but statements like “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly and banned.” and "guns are a virus that must be eradicated...." aren't exactly comforting to gun owners.
A significant bit of it is cultural, keep in mind the United States became independent through shooting the British. Australia and Canada did not. Additionally, many Americans consider guns to be just another hobby, or a family activity. Right now all of my guns were inherited from my grandparents and great-grandparents, although I plan on purchasing a rifle soon. Each pistol has unique features, design, and history. From a collector's standpoint, firearms are ideal, as even weapons of the same manufacturer and model have variations, and different manufacturers take different approaches to weapons of the same class.
No. This is bullshit the gun lobby made up in the 60s. It's nothing but gun manufacturer marketing that became popular when the NRA got taken over by John Birchers in the 1960s. The "tyranny" they want to be armed up against isn't the Tyrant King George, it's the Tyrant Abraham Lincoln. It's not a coincidence attitudes towards gun ownership went from regarding them as utilitarian tools to quasi-religious fetish-objects right around the time of the Civil Rights movement.
I don't really understand your comment. Who is "they"? The NRA? nukeman was speaking about firearm owners. You just dumped blanket, uncited claims* about shifting attitudes towards gun ownership, and called upon correlation as fact. If you intend to further your arguement on Tildes, you might be better served by doing some legwork. Just remember that if you look hard enough for something, you will find it, but that doesn't guarentee it is trustworthy. This is a very politically charged topic so please be careful when researching.
I have never personally met a licensed firearm owner who does not want firearm legislation. They know how dangerous and poorly understood firearms are. What we want, however, are reasonable and well-implemented regulations that will be effective, without unnecessarily infringing on our rights.
Suppose a major shift in attitudes towards firearms did occur, and it was artificial. At most, I fetishize the ideal that if the United States government ceased to serve its contitutional duty, Americans would actually be capable of enacting a revolution. Literally, a stipulation that should it be necessary, the government must be overthrown. If you think about it, this is pretty crazy... Also pretty unrealistic. It seems to me that a realistic distopian future is one where the principles of freedom and democracy in the US are subverted quietly, implemented by such legislation as the Patriot Act, gradually converting the US into a police/surveilance state where dissenting opinions never reach the light of day, or simply never enact meaningful change.
I don't agree with the United State's foreign policies and wars fueled by overseas interests. I have a short list of companies who I have taken the time to be reasonably confident do not violate my personal ethics and philosophies. Presently, only cottage industry pre charged pneumatic airgun manufacturers are on my list. Yes, I do not presently own a firearm. I don't particularly like the government. I hate the two party system. I love worker-owner co-ops. I despise both unions and the companies that supress them. I don't like venture capitalism but I like plenty of angel investors. I don't like government subsidies and most taxes but I do want taxes on companies that degrade or exploit the public commons such that they can foster the development of more sustaintable, superior alternatives. I am a very big fan of the constitution, its ammendments, and of being able to posses a firearm. Am I racist for buying into this manufactured marketing? My view of firearms is shaped by the enviroment and culture that produced me, but I have very real political and ethical ideologies, and I wouldn't hold this view if it contradicted me.
I think others have addressed the rest of your post, but I want to focus on this point in particular.
The key thing that makes a functional and just revolution against tyranny possible is durable linkages and associational bonds between communities. In colonial America it was the existing governmental systems maintained by the 13 colonies. In Czarist Russia it was the works councils (Soviets). In Iran it was the religious authorities. These sorts of associational groups not only create the broader logistical capacity to follow through on a revolution, but also the consensus building frameworks needed to engage in whatever collective action it takes to step into the power vacuum and represent some sense of "the will of the people."
Random citizens being armed to the teeth isn't the actual functional element of revolutionary potential. That's a recipe for collapsing into a failed state and warlordism, akin to post-Soviet Afghanistan or ISIL. This gives up on consensus forming and relies solely on violence and appeals to force. The Framers understood this, which is why "Well regulated" is there in front of "militia" in the second amendment. It was never intended as a statement that anyone is entitled to own any kind of weaponry they want without restriction.
If the conditions that necessitate revolution are actually present, the infrastructure to get the necessary weaponry will be in place regardless of whatever the formal legal status around gun control is. Legal statutes are going to break down all on their own because state capacity will have already become brittle.
In contemporary American society, the armed citizenry does not constitute any meaningful threat against a tyrannical government. Quite the contrary, in fact, they end up acting as extra-judicial enforcers of tyrannical societal norms. Heavily armed protestors didn't turn out to stop the Patriot Act or in response to the Snowden leak. They turned out to get mad about mask mandates and the Affordable Care Act. It's functionally trying to bully and intimidate the political process rather than respecting democratic institutions and it's basically always being done with either tacit approval or salutary neglect by law enforcement. It's rarely being done in opposition to the organs of state power outside of random Bundy militia types out West.
I most certainly acknowledge it as an unrealistic ideal in an unrealistic scenario.
Ironically, your own source concluded that "today’s NRA could be summed up with words uttered by the Black Panther Party 40 years earlier: 'the gun is the only thing that will free us—gain us our liberation.'", to which I give you the Black Panthers. Obviously, the treatment by authorities of these heavily armed protestors differed. And fuck the NRA. But here is a perfectly valid example of heavily armed protestors, clearly not with tacit approval or salutary neglect by law enforcement. Your last paragraph seems particularly short sighted in light of your own source.
And how long did that last? The Black Panthers have basically been neutralized and continue to exercise little to no political influence these days. So clearly the weaponry did nothing for their movement long term.
It seems to me that determining the lasting impact of the Black Panther Party is not so cut and dry. It can and probably should be argued that the weaponry was responsible for the destruction of the party, but they were also instrumental in creating such an awareness, even if the attention did not reflect the initial goals of the party. So "clearly the weaponry did nothing for their movement long term" seems silly, because things are often complicated. Am I sounding condescending? I just don't know why you would want to boil down such an interesting period of social protesting to nothing of great significance.
I don't think they've created much awareness through it aside from being the one convenient exception people keep bringing up to dispute the general rule. Simply walking around with rifles didn't have much of an impact on their political project, which undermines the argument that these are useful totems for protecting anyone's rights.
We just sort of see this differently, there isn't much else I have to say. I guess, I don't want it to be "the one convenient exception" but maybe it is. As a rule of thumb though, I see lots of areas for improvement in reducing gun violence which don't require additional legislation, and some where even minor adjustments could have positive impacts. I also remain generally skeptical that drastic new legislation would prove particularly effective for no real reason beyond my strong skepticism towards any new legislation, and the competency of the government in general. We seem to differ in these areas and we haven't converged on a solution so this seems like a good place to wrap up? Thanks for engaging with me.
It's also mostly centered around the NRA, but this is a much longer, better article on the topic: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
There are quite a few more sources cited in the article, and the article itself is adapted from the book "The Second Amendment: A Biography", which is supposed to be quite good.
Seeing as how I've taken the trouble to write such an unecessarily long comment, I'd better do my own due diligence and read up on the subject. This looks like a great starting point. Thanks!
Because it creates conflict where there could have been efficiency. When a company is not meeting the needs of its employees, they must unionize. When they unionize, they gain the tools to fight back. Now the company and the employees are fighting, each working to further their own ends rather than just working. A teachers union might be about working conditions. It might be about quality of learning. It might be about making more money or working less hours or getting a big fat pension. But in all cases, students are not learning during strikes. I hate strikes, I hate that strikes might be neccessary.
Hence, why I strongly advocate for co-ops. When you own your business, you are pretty damn well motivated to work for it. If things are broken, they can be fixed without splitting off resources to fight yourself. Of course this is can vary by implementation, or personalities and such, but I really believe there is so much more potential.
I am uncertain what "coerced into working for non-coop businesses by the state" is implying, so I'll ignore it but clarification would be appreciated.
Yes, you might note that my wording specifies "[workers] must unionize". Also, that "I despise... the companies that supress [the workers]", such as Amazon, where unions cannot form, and also companies that supress established unions. Because I value human beings, I believe unions are required. I simply hate that they might be required. Also I still hate them in and of themselves though, and see no contradiction here. "The lesser of two evils" is still evil, if you will.
Not to sell co-ops as a flawless panacea, though I wish they were.
I was going to write a well thought out response, but I'm not going to have enough time until this weekend. I'll type this one out as an intermediary. I hope to add more at a later date.
I'm not arguing the specific "fight against gubment tyranny." I'm discussing the subconscious of the American psyche. While I won't deny a possible, even likely, racial connection between guns and racism in American society, the fact that America is the only one of the majority white Anglo settler societies which won its independence through force likely has an impact on society as a whole. I would argue similar effects are present in France (the French revolution), post-war Germany (German militarism leading up to the Nazis) and China (the century of humiliation), among others.
While I understand all of that, none of what you say really addresses the question of “need”.
I am of the philosophy that anything sufficiently dangerous or harmful (especially but not exclusively harmful to others) should only be allowed when it is a requirement for a goal that outweighs its negative effects.
For example, chemotherapy is probably a terrible idea unless employed by medical professionals to treat sufficiently advanced cancer (and other similar situations). On the same note, a firearm is probably a terrible idea unless it’s in the hand of properly trained law enforcement during the exercise of their lawful duties (and other similar situations).
I tend to think that “guns are a fun hobby” is not enough of a positive to outweigh the potential negative of easily accessible gun ownership.
Here's a 538 breakdown of the ~33,000 gun deaths annually.
So, yes, guns are dangerous. But they are mostly a function of making intentional deaths more successful. The USA has a huge problem with anger and violence, and that isn't going to be solved by removing guns.
The USA is very low on the world happiness index, especially once factoring our GDP/capita. We have incredibly high rates of domestic abuse. We don't have access to good mental health. We have high rates of poverty, especially f you use what the desired minimum wage ($15) instead of the current ($7.50): 42%.
Mitigate those problems and gun deaths go way down. And those are likely easier to do than making legitimate inroads to gun ownership/culture in the USA.
Edit: Also, sure, make inroads to removing gun culture in the USA. Take the guns from the cops first.
The evidence suggests otherwise. Suicide, in particular, is very often an impulsive decision and the more steps put between ideation and action the more likely someone is to come to their senses and get help.
There is also evidence that strict permitting requirements and "may issue" laws have appreciable effects on reducing homicide rates. And among minority communities trafficking controls also have significant effects.
The United States is not unique in having a toxic culture of anger and violence. But our libertinism around firearms exacerbates all the underlying problems. It's like smoking a cigarette in an oil refinery.
What always irritates me about those statistics is that they completely ignore context. That "0%" number includes events that are shaping American culture significantly. Schools have "killer on the move" drills. Schools shouldn't have "killer on the move" drills. Not to mention, that percentage is so low because the number of other cases is so high.
Sandy Hook came up recently, after Barack Obama mentioned in an interview. Shit like that... it only has to happen once. Even if it's just 20 kids dead, that's just not acceptable. If you take this as the price for not having stricter control, you really have to justify it. Like, I need lists, numbers and concrete scenarios in which a bunch of assault rifle wielding farmers take over the united states army. To me, that seems like a romanticized fairy tale. That's not enough to accept a couple of school shootings for.
Yes, it's a travesty, and you're right it shouldn't happen. But virtually all media focus is on those, and rather than being used as opportunities to question the why, they're used as justification for enhancing an already-too-invasive police state.
Mass shootings aren't happening because there are guns. Mass shootings are happening because people are unhappy. Take away the guns and they'll just be using explosives instead.
What about letting "unhappy" people have assault rifles? Like, until we can make them "happy" again?
Because assault guns are mostly an arbitrary cosmetic distinction that has virtually no impact on functionality.
If you're referring to automatic weapons: Good thing they've been banned since 1986.
Background checks and permits definitely need to play a role, but chasing down guns already out and about is a waste of time and resources.
From a consequentialist standpoint, it doesn't matter too much if the cause of the increase in deaths is something inherent to firearms (and largely the same in any context), or if they increase the number of deaths due to the correlation of gun ownership and other factors. What matters most is that their presence increases the number of deaths.
Of course, it is a good idea to improve other factors that collude with gun ownership to increase violent deaths. But it is entirely feasible for a country to address these issues while enforcing gun control at the same time.
Well, I’m not against gun ownership in all cases. I’m against gun ownership without necessity. That is clearly not the case of your example.
You should do whatever the law determines.
Hunting is not a necessity unless it’s a requirement for your subsistence or for the regulation of certain species instead of a merely a hobby or sport. Do you need hunting to eat or to help regulate an ecosystem?
As I said, if the law allows you, just keep your guns if you want. That’s a private mater, why do you expect me to have an answer for that?
It would be the task of legislators to determine what constitutes legitimate necessity under the law. This is not a simple calculation, but I think it’s a necessary one.
Sounds like quite the project!! I am wondering what your thoughts are on self regulating systems. I've been working with large farms and ranches recently on changing their management practices to "agro-ecology" with the idea of fostering a healthy environment to regulate itself. Effectively it's the idea that if you can revert some of the land back for native populations, like native scrub instead of crops on like 1/9th of the property, then you'll have to spend less time on active management (in my work it's been as a pesticide offset).
I'm not sure what your uncle is using the property for, and I'm sure if it is for ranching/livestock it's probably not a great idea, but if you let some of the larger predators live they might in turn regulate down the food chain. So if there are coyote/wolves then they would keep deer/wild pig populations in check. To be honest I have no idea what you would do about the raccoons. Do you think this could be a viable option?
I’m certain you’re entirely reasonable, but public policy is not meant for a single individual. You are not stupid, but what about everyone else? Besides, even the most calm individual can eventually lose their cool. Nothing prevents them from opening the safe in order to hurt others or themselves. You can, of course, do the same without firearms. But guns shorten the distance between intention and action, and that’s extremely dangerous.
So, if I'm reading correctly, rational Trump voters are:
This last two categories make up 90%+ of his base. 3 of those 4 categories can be summed up in the immortal words of my father: "I don't like Trump, but I can't vote for a Democrat"
For the poor people the Democrats left behind, maybe listen to the progressives to implement changes that stop leaving people behind.
Also note that unemployment numbers are basically worthless these days (let me know when that equation is unemployed=full time employment/able workers). And that much of the expanded employment is at the expense of worsening global warming and not trying to mitigate it.
Edit: Another acceptable unemployment equation: Number of available full-time positions/people seeking full time employment.
Just because you're getting a paycheck doesn't mean you're employed.
It seems your argument is for the 'lesser of two evils'. I'm not an American, but if this is the mentality then do you think the electoral system is failing you? How entrenched is partisanship? Would a disenfranchised voter consider taking part in the selection process for each party to find a candidate they might want to vote for, or do they consider the only two choices being Red team or Blue team (or Red president vs Blue president)?
Yes, very much so. I don't think it's ever really been 'functional', but the dysfunction has especially kicked into high gear circa 2000.
It is bad, but especially so for the Republicans. We don't really have two parties in the USA...We have the Republicans and everybody else. The Democrats (at least as a voting bloc) are far more diverse a group, and certainly don't fall in lock-step with the same veracity. Paraphrasing:
"It's undemocratic to nominate a Supreme Court Justice in an election year" - Mitch Mcconnell 2016
"That last statement doesn't apply because a Republican is in office" - Mitch Mcconnell 2020
Well, most disenfranchised voters just don't vote. In part because prior to COVID, getting to vote was being made harder and harder, especially for the disenfranchised.
Those of us who can, try. It's not an easy process, as primarying an incumbent is frowned upon greatly, especially if you're going against the main party platform. Look at much flak Bernie got for daring to stand in the way of Hillary getting the Dem nomination in 2016.
But essentially yes, it's Red vs Blue. Because if you vote against it, you'll be shouted down about wasting your vote. If half the people who told me "Yea, I like the Green platform but don't want a Republican to win," voted Green, yea Republican would probably win that election. But the Greens would get the required percentage to get national funding. And likely that is true for for the Republican/Libertarian cluster too.
The partisanship so deep the only way out is going to be voting reform. Ranked choice would be a great option.
Wow, that quote from Mitch Mcconnell is terrifying! Do actions like that from Republicans set a precedent that Democrats then follow, degrading the system further?
As for voting systems, have you considered Instant Runoff Voting? I suggest it because it's a majoritarian system that avoids the accusation of 'wasted votes'. I personally prefer proportionate voting systems, but I'm unsure Americans could handle that level of compromise (especially if smaller parties control the balance of power).
I don’t think that’s meant to be a direct quote of Mitch McConnell? But yes, norms are eroding fast.
Ranked choice voting is used in a few places, like Maine and San Francisco. New York City will have ranked choice voting next year for municipal elections.
I guess the most terrifying thing for me is that our (New Zealand) constitution isn't codified, so is only based on customs and norms: Parliament can modify constitutional law just as any other law. This means we could theoretically elect an extreme authoritarian who, with only 50% majority, could pass an Enabling Act, overthrowing the government and ruling by decree in perpetuity.
While it is clear that the US constitution is under extreme stress - with partisanship infecting all three branches of government - it has not broken. I recently watched a video of an American General stating: "We Take an Oath to the Constitution, Not an Individual". I would hope that Americans not only take pride in this, but look to improve it and fix what's not working.
I'd argue that that near-deification of the Constitution is part of the problem though. The more it's treated like holy writ, the less likely it is for necessary changes to it to pass. I don't think many other Americans would disagree with me saying that a constitutional amendment is functionally impossible right now. Aside from the weirdness of the 27th that took over 200 years to pass, we haven't had an amendment since the 70s. I don't think there's been another 50 year stretch in the US's history without one. Given the super high bar to passing one, and the fear of what would come out of a constitutional convention in this current political climate, plus the Republican party embracing this "originalist" doctrine for the courts-- the Constitution is put on too high of a pedestal as it is.
I'd say it's a double-edged sword. Having a solid constitution means it's harder to radically alter governance on a whim.
I think de-escalating the partisanship will help, and one of the best ways to do so would be breaking the political duopoly.
Radical changes are hard enough in most countries anyway. There’s really no need to regard the constitution as a holy text for that.
It seems like a time when the country is deeply divided isn't a good time to pass new amendments?
The system has a lot of flaws, but clear and inflexible rules can sometimes be a virtue. Otherwise Trump might find a way to stay in power.
The first quote was real (ish), but the second was more a mockery of his actual words.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mitch-mcconnell-on-potential-2020-supreme-court-vacancy-oh-wed-fill-it/ar-BB19bMWM
The results from this latest primary and general election season suggest this may not actually be a pathway to electoral success. The policies are likely to reduce these peoples' engagement in politics at all (and suppress Republican support by making White nationalist politics less salient), but they don't seem to actually do much at the ballot box to elevate progressive candidates.
Trump, I would argue probably unintentionally, did have some arguably good economic policy. See, what the Trump administration did was lead unprecedented deficit spending by the federal government at an unprecedented time; not only was there a large amount of government spending, there was also infamously a large tax cut, and a steady supply of angry tweets bitching at Jerome Powell to lower interest rates. But it wasn't just high spending, it was high spending at time when the economy was already humming!
It was an unprecedented amount of federal demand-side economic pull, and an amount that basically everyone would say was reckless. Traditionally, around 2016 is when the government policy would shift to slowing down the economy, considering how much it had recovered. Generally in economic theory you don't want to overproduce.
But Trump wanted to pump his economic numbers higher. The Republican party, though, is also the party of fiscal conservatism... or at least so they say. But they're also, evidently, the party of being Trump's bitch, so the fact that the party would rather die than allow a Democratic president to do these kind of things suddenly became A-okay with deficit spending meant that it pretty much went unopposed.
And by the numbers... it seemed to work? U6 was down, and studies indicated that finally the long tail of the employment curve was being pulled up. Wages for women and people of color finally started to increase around 2018.
And the 2018-2019 economy is what many people still attributed to Trump. I think that's a major reason for Trump's big gains in votes among hispanic voters and black voters compared to 2016.
I won't enumerate all the ways Trump's policies have done exactly the reverse of what he's claimed, but there are some salient examples.
One misunderstanding is that simply opening up a firehose of Federal money doesn't genuinely benefit the broader economy. All that spending accomplished was inflating an already overheated stock market (and fattening select Trump-friendly industries and grifters). It wasn't earmarked for the necessary public investments (e.g. infrastructure, green energy, primary healthcare, K-12 education, etc.). Even the U.S. military and associated manufacturing industries didn't benefit as much as is usual during Federal spending booms, because there was little or no attempt to direct this money. U.S. FIRE, personal services, delivery, and tech have boomed, but other than transportation, they're
negligible fractions of employment. Basic manufacturing, mining, construction, etc. haven't seen noticeable employment increases. [Another interesting fact for another time - Federal and state government employment growth has been zero since 2009.]
There are now artificial labor shortages at the low end of the wage scale, because even legal temporary immigration has ground to a halt. That's creating spotty inflation which is likely to hit the poorest hardest (daycare, and fresh produce production are examples), regardless of minimum wage increases. The flood of money to the richest investors was also driving rents up, again diluting the benefit of rising wages.
Unavailable and unpredictable health care costs and coverage is another area where Trump/Republican policy has has disastrous impact. Full-time employment without health insurance increased by a full percentage point, about 2.2 million people, from 2016 to 2019, even before COVID struck.
It's not about what Trump says he's trying to do, it's about looking at what Trump did. Because the Trump administration was effectively an interesting experiment for unintended reasons. Trump was utterly ineffective at enacting actual policy changes; he failed at dismantling the ACA, and after 2018 the Democratic house could tell him to fuck off on every other item on his agenda.
So in many ways, the US economy was the Obama era one, but one where the administration looked at an "overheated" economy and poured more gasoline one it.
Perhaps we were spared the collapse from COVID, but at least for the first few years, nothing particularly cataclysmic occured.
And it's undeniable that wages did rise for PoC and women from late 2017-2019, more than it did in the Obama era. And the question is: why? Obviously the administration did not exactly cater to minorities ideologically. It's unlikely the trade war or tariffs helped the economy. Really there was just one thing they did do: keep the hose open.
It's worth examining what Trump did, and didn't do, not only as a study of the election, but also for the future, although it's pretty likely Republicans in the senate will go back to being the "fiscal conservatives" they were before.
Back to the topic, there has to be some reason that Trump did much better with people of color this election despite being almost openly racist against them.
A question here is what "overheated" means. How do we know that the economy is overheated? Traditionally that meant inflation, and according to the consumer price index, inflation was zero in October and 1.2% for the preceding year.
You could instead look at asset prices. Prices for housing have been going up a lot in many cities for years, though in some markets that changed this year. (San Francisco saw a big drop.) The S&P 500's all-time high was a few days ago, which is pretty weird in a pandemic, but the argument is that the market is looking beyond that, not to mention that the Fed is propping it up.
Also, arguably, inflation is a good thing when consumer debt is at record highs. One of the biggest drags on economic growth is the fact that so much of the prime working age population is severely debt and rent burdened. Wear down the nominal value of their debts and you free them up to take more entrepreneurial risks.
Also, there are still lots of arguments that the economy is in a major savings glut, so prioritizing controlling inflation really does seem like a bad move.
It seems like daycare workers are often very underpaid? What's with the anti-worker sentiment? They do an important job.
Trump's economic policies are simply borrowing against the future for immediate gains now. We'll all pay for it, he just won't be around and the issue is so complex voters won't be able to collectively understand.
Democrats need to realize that for many people their empathy is outweighed by their survival instincts. So much of the “left” leaning discourse is about doing what’s right for the planet, for immigrants, and for people of color.
I agree, but I'm gonna be honest, isn't leftism (at least the socially progressive and democratic, which are often rehabilitative and nurture oriented variants of leftism) almost entirely based on helping worse off people and making life easier, fairer and cushier? The most realistic thing I can imagine Democrats doing to emphasize "survival" is embracing class antagonism/division which would/does probably fly with progressives, but probably doesn't go much further.
There are your ideals, and then separately your actions to implement them. We don’t need to tell people they’re helping others when they vote for health care or environmental policy.
Hilary, and later Biden, consistently gave the message that the status quo is fine, which is why she lost and he came closer to losing than any of us would like.
America sucks for a lot of Americans. Trump agreed with them that it sucks and said he was going to make it better. The fact that he was lying doesn't negate this fact. Obama also won with a "change" message. Imagine that.
This is a meme that circulates on Bernie-centric media that had an axe to grind on anyone who wasn't Bernie and nowhere else. It's totally filter bubbled people with extremely online media diets out of being able to see what the actual messaging is.
In the non-extremely online world, this is the sort of messaging the Biden campaign was putting out. The campaigns' entire pitch was "Build Back Better," which is a pretty clear signal that the status quo needed to be improved.
Whatever you think of Biden's policy proposals being inadequate, almost nobody actually reads the substantive elements of policy proposals. The actual messaging he's been putting out, such as in his acceptance speech below, does not suggest any implicit message that "status quo is fine."
Honestly Biden did fine in the election. It was a solid lead, and the restoration of the blue wall was pretty big. By midday Wednesday, although evidently weeks of sort of uncertainty would remain, you could be pretty confident Biden had won. The path for Trump was far too winding after Wisconsin and Michigan showed their true colors.
Perhaps the polling had skewed expectations, but take the electoral map we have today, time travel back to the Democratic primary when Biden was nominated, and show it any Democrat and they'd be ecstatic. Beating incumbents is hard, after all.
What was disappointing is downballot, where Democrats did far, far worse than Biden. Biden had incredibly higher vote shares than his downballot D friends, and vice versa for Trump.
And to be honest, I don't think we know exactly why. There's a lot of shitflinging, in particular centrist are very angry at the messaging over guns, socialism, and "defund the police". Which, to be fair, evidently doomed Florida; if Biden had maintained Clinton's margins with the Cuban and Venezuelan vote, Florida would be blue, as he performed very well in the suburbs as compared to Clinton.
But to have any idea exactly why, will first require the race to be over (many house seats are still uncalled, and we need the senate runoffs), and then extensive review of the voting population, extra hard this time since exit polls are borked.
Biden did significantly worse then Obama in both 2008 and 2012 against seemingly stronger challenges. Perhaps this is because Obama was such a strong candidate or perhaps the change campaign was really effective.
Obama was a once-in-a-lifetime candidate, quite frankly. He broke many records and is an exceptional orator.
Rational in the way that (perceived) narrow self-interest is rational, I suppose.