Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Joe Walsh]

I'm a licensed gun owner and have enjoyed using firearms at the range since I was a kid. Where and when I grew up, most families had at least one firearm, and many of the people I knew enjoyed sport shooting of one sort or another. I sure do.

 

And still it shocks me to see how for many it's evolved from being a hobby or sport to what appears to be a core identity. One result of which seems to be that many of the folks who understand best what weapons of war do are using every means at their disposal to keep such weapons in the civilian world. I just can't square that in my mind.

 

Is it the industry propaganda? Walther makes great products, but I get emails from them all the time telling me things like "It's your duty to be prepared" (with their latest product being just what I need in order to do my "duty," of course). Is it stuff like that, from gun manufacturers and their mouthpieces at the NRA?

 

How did we end up here?

 

[Lord Liaden]

Toxic masculinity is, I believe, a major part of it. The civilians who post social media photos of themselves posing in full combat gear with their rifle, shotgun, and/or pistol, braying about how the government will take their guns from their cold dead hands, and what they would do to their preferred class of "villain" if they get the chance.

[DShomshak]

I suspect there's a good deal of cultural paranoia and just plain racism, too. IIRC, an episode of "The Daily" (the NYTimes podcast) delved into the weird world of 2A absolutist political activists, and found that many of them are also active in White Nationalist activism. (Though it's been more than a year, so it might have been "On the Media.")

 

"Be prepared" for what? Who is the enemy for which you need an arsenal?

 

Though the connection seems highly plausible to me from a psychological viewpoint, I don't personally know of any rigorous study to establish a statistically valid correlation. I am willing to hear contrary evidence.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Iuz the Evil]

3 hours ago, DShomshak said:

I suspect there's a good deal of cultural paranoia and just plain racism, too. IIRC, an episode of "The Daily" (the NYTimes podcast) delved into the weird world of 2A absolutist political activists, and found that many of them are also active in White Nationalist activism. (Though it's been more than a year, so it might have been "On the Media.")

 

"Be prepared" for what? Who is the enemy for which you need an arsenal?

 

Though the connection seems highly plausible to me from a psychological viewpoint, I don't personally know of any rigorous study to establish a statistically valid correlation. I am willing to hear contrary evidence.

 

Dean Shomshak

Without getting into subjective perspectives on “why” here’s some data from the Pew Research center.

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/

 

There are certainly divides on race. And Urban versus Rural. And gun ownership versus non gun ownership. It’s complicated.

[DShomshak]

I expect it is indeed complicated. But I think it's also necessary to sift out attitudes based on kind of gun and their utility (hunting, target shooting, personal defense, etc) and intensity of attitudes. Most forms of gun ownership, for most purposes, I can understand as rational. I understand hunting, or target shooting, or wanting a weapon if someone breaks into your home. I have greater difficulty understanding the desire to own weapons capable of killing lots of people in very short times, other than... somebody wants to kill lots of people in a very short time. And I can see gun ownership as a right that must be balanced with other rights of other people, just like every other right in society. A demand for an absolute and unlimited right to lethal force makes me think something else is going on, and I want study on who holds such views and why.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Iuz the Evil]

2 hours ago, DShomshak said:

I expect it is indeed complicated. But I think it's also necessary to sift out attitudes based on kind of gun and their utility (hunting, target shooting, personal defense, etc) and intensity of attitudes. Most forms of gun ownership, for most purposes, I can understand as rational. I understand hunting, or target shooting, or wanting a weapon if someone breaks into your home. I have greater difficulty understanding the desire to own weapons capable of killing lots of people in very short times, other than... somebody wants to kill lots of people in a very short time. And I can see gun ownership as a right that must be balanced with other rights of other people, just like every other right in society. A demand for an absolute and unlimited right to lethal force makes me think something else is going on, and I want study on who holds such views and why.

 

Dean Shomshak

There are a number of alternative explanations I’ve heard that various proponents of essentially unlimited 2A rights (of which I am not one, albeit my views also do not align with the “No firearms more advanced than single shot bolt action deer rifles” either). Typically they are fierce individual Liberty folks, who do not want to rely on law enforcement or any aspect of government and oppose many kinds of regulation. Or they are former military who want to be able to defend themselves and their loved ones, and do not want the force of law to place restrictions on how they do so. Or they are constitutional originalists who do not believe an amendment should be modified causally (or at all) without adherence to the process for doing so. There are regional cultural beliefs even here in California that inform this (San Francisco being very difficult than say, Red Bluff). Some are fringe or very odd and certainly some are motivated in the way you describe, I could not say how many. I haven’t personally ran across that group significantly in my dabbling as a hobbyist. They aren’t really a single bloc of political or philosophical beliefs, so it’s hard to put that into a simple category other than they do not like firearms regulations. Certainly you could argue the merits of their beliefs as you can with any position discussed. They often see this as a fundamental individual rights issue, while their opponents see it as a pubic safety imperative. There’s rarely a middle ground for constructive dialogue as a result, so any changes are almost inevitably going to be decided on in court irrespective of legislation or my personal opinions.

 

 As noted in the Pew study, it’s also a consequential number of folks who don’t love the idea of additional regulation in this area. The reasons are varied from what I’ve seen. And not limited to a single party or group, which can be uncomfortable to contemplate. It skews to one political axis, but it’s not limited to that.

 

 Anyway, that’s my observation. I’m not going to get into this topic further as I enjoy the perspectives on this site. It saves a useful role for me to reflect on Progressive perspectives, I’ve got a different one for the other side.

[Pattern Ghost]

Also in the news: Kenya and Uganda passing what's probably the most anti-LGBTQ+ legislation ever:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/24/uganda-lgbtq-bill-united-states-republican-anti-gay-connection/

 

 

[Starlord]

I'm a couple months away from 54 years old.  I am happily heterosexual.  I have never been more well adjusted and wise/knowledgeable about the world, life and people than I am at this moment.

 

Yet, I honestly cannot fathom...I mean I don't have an F-ing clue about why half of humanity has such an obsessive, passionate hatred of homosexuality.

 

No response needed...just felt like sharing.

[unclevlad]

12 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

Also in the news: Kenya and Uganda passing what's probably the most anti-LGBTQ+ legislation ever:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/24/uganda-lgbtq-bill-united-states-republican-anti-gay-connection/

 

 

 

Similar article if you don't have a WaPo log-in:

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/uganda-anti-lgbtq-bill-rcna76630

 

 

[csyphrett]

I remember Trevor Noah saying that he was in that part of the world (I want to say Nigeria) and the guide told him he couldn't be gay. So this law was already a shadow ban in that part of the world before they made it official.

CES

[Lord Liaden]

4 hours ago, Starlord said:

I'm a couple months away from 54 years old.  I am happily heterosexual.  I have never been more well adjusted and wise/knowledgeable about the world, life and people than I am at this moment.

 

Yet, I honestly cannot fathom...I mean I don't have an F-ing clue about why half of humanity has such an obsessive, passionate hatred of homosexuality.

 

No response needed...just felt like sharing.

 

Well, I'm going to give you a response anyway. 

 

I've come to believe that a big part of the phenomenon comes from insecurity over gender identity and sexuality, which plays a very big role in self-identification in cultures around the world, particularly what it means to "be a man." Just the existence of people whose intimate interactions with other people differ from those that group defines as "normal," challenges their own definitions of normalcy, the rightness and fundamental truth of their accepted beliefs. I see clashes over religion as arising from a similar mechanism. But in the case of sexuality, I also sense an underlying, unacknowledged fear from those people that homosexuality will somehow spread to them, "infect" them with similar desires, thereby upending their own concept of who they are and where they fit in society. IME you don't get such an intense, violent reaction without fear.

[Dr. MID-Nite]

6 hours ago, Starlord said:

I'm a couple months away from 54 years old.  I am happily heterosexual.  I have never been more well adjusted and wise/knowledgeable about the world, life and people than I am at this moment.

 

Yet, I honestly cannot fathom...I mean I don't have an F-ing clue about why half of humanity has such an obsessive, passionate hatred of homosexuality.

 

No response needed...just felt like sharing.

 

More to the point that those with the power find it easier to control the masses if they can deflect attention to some "other" group that they can easily demonize. Same old song and dance...only the lyrics are different.

[Lord Liaden]

Preferably a group that's small, with no political power. Case in point...

[unclevlad]

Quote

I've come to believe that a big part of the phenomenon comes from insecurity over gender identity and sexuality, which plays a very big role in self-identification in cultures around the world, particularly what it means to "be a man." 

 

In some cases, that's true.  In others, tho, there are strong fundamentalist connections, principally using the Old Testament to assert an abomination in the eyes of God.  World-wide, Methodists have various policies;  the African Methodist Episcopal Church banned ministers from blessing same-sex unions in 2004.  The Church of Uganda has started the process to separate from the Anglican Church, over a similar policy.  Most countries with Islam as the primary position have seriously repressive laws, again likely with a religious underpinning.    

There are certainly differences of opinion on the subject among religious leaders, but the laws generally take the harshest road.  One argument why:  the critics where the most outspoken, and the more tolerant...didn't want to argue the point openly, thinking it would weaken the illusion of institutional solidarity.  Alternately, remember that specific individuals held outsized power.  If the local bishop was opposed, the entire county he oversaw would likely be intolerant.  And, again, people weren't gonna speak out, so the policies gradually grew and became more entrenched.  Relaxation of these laws only started, IIRC, in 20th century democracies.

[Lord Liaden]

2 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

In some cases, that's true.  In others, tho, there are strong fundamentalist connections, principally using the Old Testament to assert an abomination in the eyes of God.

 

I would suggest that the origins of that Old Testament viewpoint are what I previously outlined. In other words, as has so often been the case, God was attributed to justify what Men already wanted.

[Pattern Ghost]

OK, I'm going to go on another meandering post here with my current thoughts re: gun laws. As before, I'm using a post as a jumping off point, but that isn't meant to single out Old Man. That'd be mean. We need to be nice to our elders.

 

On 3/24/2023 at 12:53 AM, Old Man said:

Just don't use the term and focus on firearm features like detachable magazines, semiautomatic fire, sound suppression, and folding/telescoping parts that enhance concealability.

 

The problem with features lists is human ingenuity. Someone will engineer something just as capable in short order. Here's a more effective features list:

 

1. Is a long gun(rifle or shotgun). That means it can be fired from four points of contact. A handgun, you get two hands, that's it. A long gun, you have a hand on each end, a shoulder and a cheek. That adds massive stability, and increases hit probability exponentially for an average shooter. No brace nonsense here, since they're all designed to allow four points of contact. (They seem to be out for now anyway.)

 

2. Fires calibers commonly used in long guns. So, none of those Shockwave** type non-shotguns, pistol-grip shotguns, or AR/AK pistols, braces or not.

 

That's it. Super easy to enforce feature list. But what to do with it?

 

Here's one way to look at it: I remember my very first introduction to the concept of "rights" in grade school. We were introduced to the concept that rights weren't absolute with the old saying, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." That's a fair standard. How can it be applied to a right to keep and bear arms?

 

Well, inside your house, and on your private property, you're a lot less likely to do collateral damage. So, have your long guns at home. They're actually great at repelling mutant zombie hordes. As a bone to the pro-gun crowd, get rid of the short barreled rifle and short barreled shotgun restrictions in the NFA. It won't matter in step 2.

 

When you step out into public, you are now at much higher risk of shooting someone who isn't you, or stuck living with you. You're now in the public space, and everyone around you has a right not to have your bullets lodged in their tender parts. But we have that pesky Second Amendment, with that pesky "bear" word. Still: No long guns outside. If you're going hunting or to train, fine. Transport them locked up and unloaded. (Most states have laws about transporting firearms in your vehicle along those lines already.) Do your activity. Pack up. Go home. Don't bring them to Starbucks or just haul them everywhere you go, "just in case." Walter Mitty is not invited into the public sphere, sorry. So, that leaves handguns.

 

Now, we aren't limiting handguns so much. For one, they were specifically called out in the Heller decision as the example of a weapon commonly in use, and thus held to a higher standard as far as restrictions go. And, frankly, they do a lot less collateral damage (though may be slightly more likely to cause it due to being more difficult to aim) than long guns. Around 80% of handgun shooting victims survive if given immediate aid and taken to a trauma center, due to the their wounding characteristics (poking holes rather than liquidating interior body parts with hydrostatic shock). Does that mean we allow just anyone to carry a handgun in public, any which way? Nah. Nobody likes having holes poked in them, or being in that other 20%.

 

Now, if you've got your firearm to protect your home and keep it at home, fine. No requirements aside from the normal background check. There are ample firearms safety resources available. My state (WA) incentivizes safe storage for firearms by removing the sales tax from safes. Something similar could be done for safety training, perhaps. But training requirements for exercising a fundamental right at the most basic level is probably a bit much. (Though there are lots of things to do to encourage both safe storage and general safety.)

 

But you want to take your weapon outside? You'd better be a) a damned good shot, b) inoculated to stress by fire/no fire training and testing, c) very thoroughly vetted by a background check, and d) very well-versed in self defense laws. School shootings aside, I'm also getting annoyed by just plain idiot shootings where people imagine themselves to have all kinds of non-extant rights, like the right to start an altercation then shoot the person when you get your ass kicked by said person, or the right to stand on your lawn and point your weapons at people who aren't on your curtilage. This carry permit should also be national, same as a driver's license. (It'd be a heck of a lot harder to get than a DL, too.)

 

So, now you have probable cause to stop folks with rifles or shotguns who are running amok. You allow anyone who wants to and who can qualify, to carry outside the home. Is it idiot proof? No. Does the simple definition necessarily prevent anyone from engineering around it? Eh. I came up with that on the fly, so maybe not, but the general idea of long guns stay at home, handguns can come out if they're in responsible and skilled hands should be easy enough to grasp.

 

None of this solves any root problems, because the tools used to commit the crimes do not cause the crimes. But it's more sensible than other toothless bans, while still allowing the exercise of the right mostly unimpeded.

 

Frankly, your brain is a better self-defense tool than a firearm. Not associating with idiots and following some basic situational awareness and crime prevention practices will do more to keep you safe than a gun. I still believe it should be an option on the table, but as the years pass, I see more and more that we just don't live in a society that's really mature enough for all of the responsibilities that come with our rights.

 

So, now I'm sitting at:

 

• Raise gun ownership age to 25
• Keep long guns at home, no additional restrictions to purchase or possess than normal background checks (but fix that system)
• Take the SBR and SBS off the NFA (because it won't matter so much at home)
• Carry outside the home only if highly qualified, but it's a national carry
• Red flag laws are problematic from a 4th amendment perspective, but appear to be needed (haven't gone into this lately)
• Red flag laws should have serious consequences for abusers whether it's false reporting or losing or damaging property (guns)
• Background checks for all transfers of firearms ownership
• National reporting requirements for law enforcement that are consistent for all crime reporting
• Provide enough funding for the ATF for it to enforce current laws*

 

 

*I haven't gone into this, but this is to address the straw purchaser concerns. I keep seeing these numbers of suspected straw purchases being traced back to certain states or even certain dealers, and a lot of whining about what a big problem this is. Why? If you know the origin point of the weapons points to particular dealers, why haven't those dealers been shut down by ATF stings  yet??? Either someone is lying about these numbers or the ATF isn't being funded enough to do their jobs. I suspect the latter, though I've seen enough of the former to not take it off the table.

 

 

** Picture of a Shockwave under spoiler tag, for the curious. It's another of those engineering around a definition things:

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

[unclevlad]

12 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

I would suggest that the origins of that Old Testament viewpoint are what I previously outlined. In other words, as has so often been the case, God was attributed to justify what Men already wanted.

 

Sometimes, perhaps, if one follows a few links to get to your position, or take that in the broader contexts of the relationship between religious *institutions* and society for the last 2000 years.  But it's not recognizing the special nature and power of core religious texts, in other cases.  

 

The argument can basically be compared to constitutional literalists.  Is it pursuing an agenda...or is it their true, honest belief, that just happens to support an agenda?  

[csyphrett]

@Pattern Ghost

The picture of the shockwave looks like a sawed off. Is it supposed to be like that? Now I am wondering if the sawed off and the mare's leg were/are really common. I do know Clyde Barrow was supposed to have a cut down BAR and shot his way through a roadblock with it.

CES  

[Lord Liaden]

10 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

Sometimes, perhaps, if one follows a few links to get to your position, or take that in the broader contexts of the relationship between religious *institutions* and society for the last 2000 years.  But it's not recognizing the special nature and power of core religious texts, in other cases.  

 

The argument can basically be compared to constitutional literalists.  Is it pursuing an agenda...or is it their true, honest belief, that just happens to support an agenda?  

 

Some believe that those texts were written solely by men, others that they're genuinely divinely inspired. I admit I generally align with the former, and arguing from that premise, the cultural weight that's built up around them is irrelevant to their origin. But I also have to point out that a great many today who point to their holy texts to justify a crusade against alternative genders/sexualities, especially those who bray the loudest over it, have at best a very superficial knowledge and understanding of them, and cherry-pick whatever parts of them appear to support their existing biases. Those biases have been weaponized by elites who want to distract the populace from their own abuses of power and status, by creating scapegoats and targets of hatred.

 

I'm reminded of what Lyndon Johnson once said: "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

[Old Man]

8 hours ago, csyphrett said:

@Pattern Ghost

The picture of the shockwave looks like a sawed off. Is it supposed to be like that? Now I am wondering if the sawed off and the mare's leg were/are really common. I do know Clyde Barrow was supposed to have a cut down BAR and shot his way through a roadblock with it.

CES  

 

I'm not PG, but the Shockwave (and the TAC-14) exploit a loophole in legal/regulatory gun definitions where they are not shotguns because they do not have buttstocks. 

[Iuz the Evil]

I found this and it seems to summarize the Shockwave legality, from a California perspective. It’s not a firearm you can just roll into your local FFL and buy here, or even bring into the State.

 

Spoiler

Under Federal laws...

It is classified as a Title 1 Other (no shoulder stock + less than 16" barrel length + greater than 26" overall length).

Under CA laws...

It is classified as a SBS (firearm that shoots shotgun shells and has a less than 18" barrel length).

In order to legally acquire/possess a SBS in CA, you need a valid CA DOJ Dangerous Weapons Permit for a SBS.

CA DOJ Dangerous Weapons Permits (DWP) require a good cause for issuance.
Per CA laws, there are only two valid good causes for issuance for a DWP for SBR/SBS: [PC 33300(a)]
1. To import/make/transfer to Gov/Mil/LE agencies. [PC 33300(b)(2)]
2. For use as a prop in the entertainment industry (movie/tv). [PC 33300(b)(1)]

In addition to paying an annual fee to maintain the DWP, the DWP holder is subject to annual compliance inspection audits.

All dangerous weapons in the DWP holder's inventory needs to be registered with CA DOJ.
All locations where the dangerous weapons will be stored needs to be registered with CA DOJ.
All vehicles that will be used to transport the dangerous weapons needs to be registered with CA DOJ.

Storing in a non-registered location and/or transporting in a non-registered vehicle is grounds for permit revocation and having the entire inventory confiscated.

Using the dangerous weapon beyond the scope of the good cause for issuance of the permit is grounds for permit revocation and having the entire inventory confiscated.

 

[Old Man]

3 minutes ago, Iuz the Evil said:

I found this and it seems to summarize the Shockwave legality, from a California perspective. It’s not a firearm you can just roll into your local FFL and buy here, or even bring into the State.

 

  Hide contents

Under Federal laws...

It is classified as a Title 1 Other (no shoulder stock + less than 16" barrel length + greater than 26" overall length).

Under CA laws...

It is classified as a SBS (firearm that shoots shotgun shells and has a less than 18" barrel length).

In order to legally acquire/possess a SBS in CA, you need a valid CA DOJ Dangerous Weapons Permit for a SBS.

CA DOJ Dangerous Weapons Permits (DWP) require a good cause for issuance.
Per CA laws, there are only two valid good causes for issuance for a DWP for SBR/SBS: [PC 33300(a)]
1. To import/make/transfer to Gov/Mil/LE agencies. [PC 33300(b)(2)]
2. For use as a prop in the entertainment industry (movie/tv). [PC 33300(b)(1)]

In addition to paying an annual fee to maintain the DWP, the DWP holder is subject to annual compliance inspection audits.

All dangerous weapons in the DWP holder's inventory needs to be registered with CA DOJ.
All locations where the dangerous weapons will be stored needs to be registered with CA DOJ.
All vehicles that will be used to transport the dangerous weapons needs to be registered with CA DOJ.

Storing in a non-registered location and/or transporting in a non-registered vehicle is grounds for permit revocation and having the entire inventory confiscated.

Using the dangerous weapon beyond the scope of the good cause for issuance of the permit is grounds for permit revocation and having the entire inventory confiscated.

 

 

Yes, California firearms regs are much more sanely written than federal ones.

[Iuz the Evil]

3 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

Yes, California firearms regs are much more sanely written than federal ones.

They are certainly more restrictive. Their sanity is subject to debate, such as with micro stamping and the fact the roster has not added a new firearm since 2014, but we have very strong regulation.

 

Edit: it’s far more complex than what I said regarding adding new firearms to the roster. But it is factually correct that commonly used firearms in most States, are not presently added. And additionally there is a caveat that for every model added, three must be removed. There are significant questions about the legality of that latter regulation, which is currently being challenged and pending ruling, but is the law until overturned.

[csyphrett]

Thanks, guys. I am not really up on gun culture as such. I write a little bit and look up stuff as I go. I do know that some states have made sawed offs illegal and define that by stock and barrel length. Essentially if you can conceal it, it's too short. I think the mare's leg falls into a different category because of it's a cut down rifle

CES 

[Pattern Ghost]

10 hours ago, csyphrett said:

The picture of the shockwave looks like a sawed off. Is it supposed to be like that?

 

Yeah, it is. The explanation of why it's legal is pretty convoluted though. Good example of engineering around legal lingo. It's technically not a shotgun, just a "firearm" due to overall length, barrel length and being initially manufactured as a non-shoulder fired weapon. (That's a rough explanation, and you'd probably want to do a search for a better one.)

 

Edit: Oops, I guess that was pointless, as others have covered it. Thanks guys.