This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Not to mention abortion wins.
That's the thing, from where I'm sitting the the right is winning on economics, winning on, gun rights, winning on abortion. The trans/groomer stuff has proven hilariously unpopular and has rendered a bunch of formerly "safe" progressive seats competitive for conservative candidates for the first time in decades, ditto the "defund the police" nonsense. While I would advise against getting cocky I think it's indicative of the current state of the Democratic party that Biden is already a lame-duck less than half way through his first term.
The right is winning on economics only in as much as we're not headed towards actual Communism. The right is winning on gun rights and abortion only in red states. And for gun rights, not at the Federal level in particular -- NFA1934 and GCA1968 stand unencumbered, as does ATF and its burdensome variety of regulations. The "defund the police" nonsense is unpopular but happening (just not as much as the left would like), as are DAs who don't want to charge crimes.
You're kidding me right? Gun Rights advocates have not just been winning but winning decisively for the last 15+ years. 94 AWB repealed, 2nd Amendment incorporated against the states, magazine bans struck down, may-issue permitting struck down, transport bans struck down. "Constitutional carry" has gone from being legal in 3 states to 24 states, and gun-control is viewed as electorally toxic in all but the bluest of blue enclaves.
Far from being evidence of impending defeat, the fact that things like national permit reciprocity and the possibility of amending or repealing the NFA are even in the conversation is a mark of just how far we've come.
One could argue that there's a difference between winning de facto and de jure; pistol braces, bump stocks and triggers, 3d printing, general fabrication tech proliferation and the cultural effects of these have been quite successful on a de facto basis. It's true that ink on paper can't bind willful humans, and the willful have never been better-armed.
De jure, as you note, significant progress has been made on a number of fronts. Concealed carry is steadily marching its way through the states. There have been court decisions that should, in principle, be decisive.
Only, the court decisions are not, in fact, decisive. Blue states and orgs have proven themselves willing to simply thumb their noses at court decisions they don't like, and the courts have not, to date, been willing to actually call them on it with sufficient penalties to make the gamesmanship cost-prohibitive. Heller still can't have his gun. Changing this would require the SC to actually lay down the law, and lesser courts to fall in line. The former is questionable, the latter seems very unlikely. The SC certainly has come farther than I expected, but whether it can deliver a true social victory on the scale of Roe or Obergefell remains to be seen.
Self-defense took a horrible hit in 2020. Every case of armed self-defense that rose to prominence in the riots saw the defendant scapegoated and pilloried by the entire force of society and government, frequently to disastrous effect. Blues might not be able to stop you from defending yourself, but they are willing and able to fuck your entire life up if you try in a way they disapprove of, and law and norms be damned.
Likewise, I see no evidence that Blues have given up on confiscation, and think it entirely probable that they'll push for it at the federal level the exact moment they think they can. I don't think they care about the logistical problems. My guess is that they'll simply start ruining lives in as messy and public a way as possible, and then just keep doing that at whatever rate the system can generate, indefinitely, until the public either caves or things come unglued. that's been their strategy in other situations, so why expect different here?
One can, again, argue that none of this matters, because our choices remain as open as they ever have. But "you can exercise your rights if you're willing to have your life ruined" is not a central definition of "winning", and that does seem to be what we're moving toward.
You and I see 2020 very differently. If anything i think the 2020 riots helped our case. The blue tribe base was forced to face what many in the opposition have been telling them for years, guns are already pretty well regulated, and when seconds count the cops are only minutes away. Yes the media and the democratic party establishment did their best to pillory who stood up to their shock-troopers, but they are also becoming increasingly irrelevant. Their attempts ultimately failed further damaging their credibility in the process. They might still be stupid enough to attempt to confiscation but my confidence in public willingness to resist and their subsequent failure has never been higher.
I'm likewise pretty confident that will to resist has never been higher. I'm more pessimistic about what the efforts at confiscation look like. One of the more heartening events in recent years was the attempt by the Canadian government to push through a federal gun registry. Canadian gun owners refused to comply, and the government was greatly embarrassed and dropped the whole thing.
The problem is, I don't think that's what it looks like if Blues attempt confiscation here. I don't think they'll try to actually go door-to-door. I think they'll pass a law, and put essentially zero effort into explicit enforcement at the mass citizen level. Why bother? They can use the law to crush companies and organizations that flout the rules: manufacturers, firing ranges, ammo and accessory companies, the wider ecology. They can go after anyone who looks to be serving as a figurehead, who speaks out or attempts to organize. They can use the law as a sentence enhancement and an additional prosecutorial hook for any other interaction a citizen might have with the cops. I don't think you're going to see a re-enactment of the War on Drugs, where they play endless whack-a-mole with individual people. The point won't be to catch all or even most of the people breaking the law. The point will be to make it significantly more expensive to be a Red, at little to no appreciable cost to Blues. And then if Reds manage to organize resistance, like, say, going the sanctuary route... well, cool, that's just more surface area. Does the financial sector want to be involved in rampant violations of federal law? Do major corporations want to do business in these areas? Maybe it's time for another one of those broad-based corporate boycotts of an entire state? And for the individuals, well, the gun isn't worth much if you don't shoot it, and that means a range of some kind. So does it become a pastime to just record who shows up at the ranges, and then send a hot tip to the feds for weapons violations? Sort of a federal endorsement for SWATing of a specific type of person?
One of the mistakes I feel like people on all sides of the culture war make, is failing to ask "what follows?" Blues do not know how to lose. Many of them don't appear aware that losing is even something possible for their side. When they reach a failure condition, they will escalate, and they will use their existing social, economic and political power to do it. The 2020 riots lasted months, and saw no shortage of violence. For the most part, Reds hunkered down and let the Blues own the streets. Those few who did otherwise were made examples of, and it seems pretty clear to me that those examples were taken to heart by the public at large. People stopped going out, stopped attempting defense or intervention, let the rioters have their way. Rooftop Koreans didn't really happen this time, not like in the 90s. Next time, will we see any attempt at all? Or will the advice be "learn from Kyle, learn from Bacca, stay the fuck home"?
All of this is speculative, and quite pessimistic, none of it is the actual end of the line, and it elides a number of other ways things could go. I guess the core of it is that I'm skeptical that Reds can defy formal power structures the way Blues historically have, and expect a good outcome. I think the most likely outcome is yet more escalation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I have the last +10 round magazines that can legally be imported into my state. When I die they must be destroyed. This happened the year after "sensible liberals" in this very community told us "fun control is a dead issue after 2020, don't worry about voting (D) because nobody's trying to take your guns you paranoid hicks".
What's this "winning", and who's it happening to?
More options
Context Copy link
Sunsetted, and effective only in red states because blue states went and outlawed all that stuff anyway.
In theory only.
NJ magazine possession ban upheld at the appeals level. Case vacated and remanded by Bruen but not overturned.
So maybe 10 years after getting "caught" transporting a gun through an anti-gun area you'll clear the felony charges hanging over your head. Unless they decide the gun was too readily available (and thus not subject to the safe transport law) because you could have lowered the rear seat to access the trunk.
If there was a real win here, I could go to a gun store tomorrow -- in my home state of New Jersey or in New York or Pennsylvania or any other -- plunk down some cash, get a gun and ammo and a holster, strap that gun to my hip, and take that gun to my office in New York City without breaking any gun laws. I cannot do most of that. I cannot buy a gun in New Jersey because there is an onerous permitting system to buy a gun; I need to disclose some information I do not know and get two unrelated adults to swear I'm moral enough to buy a gun. I cannot buy a gun in New York or Pennsylvania because interstate sales of guns are forbidden. I can buy the ammo in Pennsylvania, at least, though what good it does without a gun I don't know. If I strap a gun to my hip, that's a felony; there's ANOTHER onerous permit system in New Jersey (THREE unrelated adults now to swear I'm moral enough to carry a gun) and yet another in New York (and one in PA which I believe is less onerous). And even if I had the permit, the various restrictions on carry would make it impossible to get to my office without violating some gun law or another.
Consider what a real win looks like. Obergefell. All the gays could get married, everywhere in the country, almost immediately. Officials who resisted (and I only know of one) were punted aside like nothing.
Sunsetted because every attempt to renew or extend it went down in flames. Likewise when you say "effective only in red states" what you actually mean is "effective in 43 states out of 50", the 7 exceptions being California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. (Fun aside, a lot of cold-war era battle rifles are over 50 years old now and can be exempted as antiques )
California's magazine ban has been struck down so if New Jersey's ban was upheld as you claim we now get to see the supreme court rectify the disagreement between the circuits.
As an aside, we've been going back and forth on this and other topics for 10 years now (since summer 2012), and that whole time your schtick has always been that wokeness is all powerful, wokeness is omnipresent, the right is doomed, resistance is futile, etc... etc... Has it occurred to you that it only seems that way because you keep seeking it out? Like I get that a FAANG job in NYC is a big status boost, but you were ultimately the one who made the choice to step into the lion's den.
Those 7 states are 24% of the population
And?
And describing them as only 7 states makes it sound like fewer than it really is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Duncan v. Bonta only had cert granted this year, the appeals court decision was vacated and the case remanded back down to the appeals court who remanded it back to the district court. The case originated from the 2016 magazine ban ballot initiative with the preliminary injunction issued by the district court back in 2017. Summary judgement issued in 2019 but a week after the law was allowed to stay in effect until after appeals. In 2020 a three judge panel on appeal affirmed the district court. In 2021 the panel decision was reversed by the appeals court en banc. Now it's all the way back down to the district court as Duncan v. Becerra and while the judge seems interested in expediting things (wants defendant briefs 45 days from Sept 25th, plaintiff briefs responding 21 days after) it would not be surprising if it didn't make it back through both hoops of the appeals court and possibly SCOTUS taking another several years. It's not struck. It's still in effect until the case is actually decided and given the history, it will probably stay in effect until final judgement.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know about that. Gun rights advocates often overstate their victory. Some of those 43 states may have obnoxious permitting provisions as well, just ones acceptable to the right. Replace "may-issue" with "shall issue to a person of good moral character" and you've got the same thing in Bruen-friendly language (and compatible with NJ's vouching provisions). And I note you can get gay married in Alabama, Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kansas, as well as any other 7 states you can name. THAT is what victory looks like. Not a Supreme Court case which has little practical effect even in the state it was decided against.
The Third Circuit sent it back down to the District Court as a delaying action, so the whole thing gets to be done all over again, and the law stands while it does. I imagine they're hoping Thomas will die before it makes it back to SCOTUS.
I took the job before the woke takeover, and watched it happen from the inside.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There was a recent district court ruling using the Bruen standard that found 18 U.S.C. § 922(k) unconstitutional and dismissed a federal indictment for violating the statute, wasn't there? Section 922 is from the 1968 GCA.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link