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 -
The difficulty with 2A is that a straightforward reading is not really compatible with a stable modern society. A crazy man with a flintlock musket can only do so much damage, despite it having been the state of the art weapon system for the bulk of military forces. A crazy man with a flock of explosive drones or a fission bomb can do much more damage, and no country can survive engaging in mutually assured destruction diplomacy with the craziest 1% of their citizens individually. Different people may draw the line in slightly different places for 2A, but very few believe that no line should be drawn at all.
This is not so much different from limitations on the 1A. Should it be allowed to promise people rewards for committing crimes? Should it be allowed to make fraudulent bomb threats or SWAT people? Should a mob boss go free as long as all he did was talk to his underlings? All of these are restrictions on free speech, but they are obvious restrictions which are required to have a functioning state at all.
I would say that a fission bomb, or any weapon of mass destruction, is not a weapon you can "bear". (But you still have a point about drones.)
Also, people were allowed to own cannons back then and they could probably do more damage with one than with a musket.
Not only cannon, but privately owned warships were an entire thing.
So if we really want to argue that we should return to the founders' intent, no automatic guns, but Amazon can mount weaponry on its delivery vehicles?
...You understand that "automatic guns" are already unregulatable, correct? As in, it is no longer possible in any practical sense to regulate the ownership of automatic weapons in the United States of America. You can purchase a legal, full-auto AR-15 from Palmetto State Armory for a reasonable sum. Several companies are producing belt-fed light machine guns for the unregulated civilian market. Criminals have been mass-importing high quality auto-sears and full-auto lockwork from China by the container-load for years now. The government is incapable of keeping full-auto weaponry out of the hands of anyone who wants it, and is almost entirely incapable of prosecuting even those who gain such weaponry illegally, or even simply those who commit crimes with such weaponry. They are at the point of prosecuting a small fraction of carefully selected cases in a vain attempt to maintain keyfabe that meaningful prohibitions still exist.
Do you mean true select-fire, or some kind of workaround? I certainly missed this happening.
Generally have to deal with the paperwork for an FFL-SOT to (legally) buy the actual automatic component. It's in a kinda messy legal area, but more because of the legal overhead and warrantless searches from the FFL side than anything with the SOT.
You can by forced-reset triggers without any paperwork (other than any other gun purchase), but how close they match 'real' full automatic is in the eye of the beholder, and the feds are kinda schizophrenic about them. Some states also separately prohibit FRTs/
My understanding, perhaps out of date, was that legal manufacture of new select-fire firearms was still banned by the 1986 act.
"Full-Auto" as a legal term means multiple shots fired with a single pull of the trigger. Forced-Reset Triggers force the trigger fully-forward again during the firing cycle, which is then immediately pulled again by the trigger finger in a distinct mechanical action. Legally, they are semi-auto, just semi-auto at 600-800 RPM. Semi-auto's legal viability has never depended on how fast the trigger is being pulled previously, and indeed many shooters have demonstrated the ability to fire semi-auto firearms and even revolvers at speeds equivalent to machine guns with no legal repercussion. Likewise, mechanical aids such as crank-fire have also been legally-permitted methods for generating rapid fire for roughly as long as we've had gun laws. FRTs merely make this easier to do. They are "select fire" in the sense that they have a selector switch with safe/semi/rapid fire settings. They are not "select fire" in the sense that they do not have a legally-recognized "full auto" setting, only a setting that allows the shooter to fire legally-semi-auto at a consistent rate of hundreds of rounds a minute with no significant effort.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link