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 -
There was no deal of the kind I'm describing with the Reagan amnesty. At the time, the Republicans were pro-immigration because they thought it was good for business and the Democrats were anti-immigration because they thought it was bad for US workers.
And to be clear, I'm only talking about illegal immigration. Legal immigration is an entirely separate question.
I think pigeonburger is on the money: if a Constitutional amendment plainly stating "shall not be infringed" and multiple Supreme Court rulings establishing common use and historical precedent over many decades don't stop progressives from trying to ban guns, what makes you think you'll be more successful with your dealings?
Guns haven't been banned yet, unlike in most of Europe. The vast majority of states allow you to carry a gun, either open or concealed. For sure it's not perfect, but it's much better than the rest of the world. 2A isn't useless.
If you were to get immigration restrictions passed in such a way that they would actually be followed 90% of the way 90% of the time, you really would have immigration restrictions worthy of the term.
2A has been entirely useless as a formal legal mechanism to protect ownership of guns in America. Multiple victories in the supreme court have proven entirely incapable to overturn gun control or ban laws in Blue-controlled regions. It is true that many places in America allow gun ownership; they do this because Reds won and maintain political control of those areas. Where Blues control, 2A is a dead letter, much like the rest of the Constitution.
You are appealing to a formalism that does not actually exist, and has not existed in living memory. There is no way to get immigration restrictions 90% followed 90% of the time under a Blue-controlled federal government. It does not matter what laws you pass, or even whether you pass a constitutional amendment, were such a thing possible. Blues are not willing to be constrained by law.
The strictest gun control in the US is similar to the loosest regimes in Europe.
That is because Gun Control is actually fairly unpopular with Americans, and previous attempts to implement it have been punished at the ballot box. It is not because the Second Amendment prevents Gun Control laws that are passed from being enforced, because the Second Amendment has never actually been able to do that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The closer to the [American] Anglosphere you are, the worse the gun laws get.
This is because the illiberal/progressive faction in those countries takes their marching orders wholesale from American media and turn them loose on countries that have far less rule of law (NZ -> AUS -> UK -> CAN from least to most restrictive, if you were curious. For the UK, Northern Ireland is a notable exception; I don't think Oranges would tolerate London demanding them disarm.)
Continental Europe is generally more liberal than Anglo countries are; the most liberal countries in Europe were part of the Soviet Union (and arguably because they were part of the Soviet Union).
In the Netherlands, to get a weapons permit you need a good reason, which will be hunting or sport. For hunting you also need a hunting license, which in turn requires you to own land on which you would be allowed to hunt. For sport, you need to be a member of a gun club for at least one year. These are the prerequisites.
To apply for a permit, you need to arrange for safe storage in your house, which means two separate floor-mounted safes, one for the gun and one for the ammo. The police will come and inspect your set-up. You also need three character witnesses, this on top of your hunting license and/or gun club membership (which are themselves similarly restricted). You also need a psychiatric screening, which is expensive and has a long waiting list. Even if you pass all the tests with flying colours, there is no guarantee you'll get your permit. If you do get a permit, the police will visit your house randomly to inspect your gun, ammo and safes. If you are not at home you lose your permit. The permit has to be renewed each year, going through the same procedure, and again with no guarantee you'll get to keep it even if you pass with flying colours.
As for carrying, absolutely not. If you want to transport your gun you have to pack it up into a container, and the ammo goes in a separate container.
The rest of Western Europe is generally very similar to this, though in the East they're a bit more lax.
(It's really much easier to buy a black-market gun. Nobody gives much of a shit, unless you're an upstanding citizen who has something to lose of course. In the bad neighbourhoods half the yoof are packing...)
Yes, the other countries I mentioned all have similar licensing laws (and provisions to do those things), and yes, I'd expect Western Europe to be far more despotic in this regard since the State capacity is generally higher.
Yet I will also point out that Europe tends to have more mistake theory in its lawmaking than the US does, which means that Anglosphere countries adopt conflict theory gun laws in place of ones that were ostensibly based on mistake theory regional compromises. Some of that is caused by gynosupremacy, but not all of it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Guns haven't been banned due to the concerted efforts of a lot of right-wingers. Enforcing a new deal like that would become a new branch of the conservative movement, best case scenario. Is it possible? Maybe, but they'll make you prove that every step of the way, and you've got a whole load of people who would be legal who weren't before.
You'll notice that no deals are being negotiated with Democrats right now in the gun sphere. There is no "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" arrangement, no suggestion that we repeal the NFA in exchange for universal background checks. Both sides want it all, and why shouldn't they? Neither side trusts the other, and why should they?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link