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 -
First, the value of the Second Amendment is not that AR-15s prevent government oppression via Sic Semper Tyrannus. To be clear, it almost certainly can do that if it has to, but it's very expensive and avoiding it is strongly preferable. The value is that the Second Amendment and the AR-15s it protects form a coordination mechanism for resistance to government overreach generally, and that this coordination provides better protection for liberty than many, many actual shootings of tyrants. The existence of the Second Amendment has decisively shaped the form and nature of our society's ongoing collapse, and thus what is likely to emerge from the wreckage. My assessment is that it is strongly preferable to any plausible alternative.
Second, from a Red perspective, there is zero reason to seek any common ground on the subject of criminal violence under present conditions. Nor is there any reason to entertain any argument about whether gun control might or might not improve rates of violent crime. The correct response is to make it clear that there is no grounds for any discussion on this subject at all. Blue Tribe deliberately generated the largest increase in violent crime ever recorded, explicitly in pursuit of partisan political advantage. There is no plausible mechanism by which any practicable amount of gun control could outweigh even a fraction of the harm they caused. They have accepted zero responsibility for the vast and appalling harms generated by their deliberate and protracted campaign of social vandalism caused, and to the extent that they are now attempting to use the crime wave they created as an excuse to strip Red Tribe of its rights, the correct response is, at the most charitable, contemptuous silence.
To the extent that Blue Tribe may be able to unilaterally impose destruction of Red Tribe human rights, the correct response is to destroy the social mechanisms that allow such illegitimate impositions. Either we control federal law, or there is no federal law; this is the evident position of Blue Tribe, and it should be our position as well. Defiance and nullification are the correct stance; either they will be sufficient to solve the dilemma, or we will need to escalate further.
I hear this narrative, and all I see is that you've concentrated everything into a singular highly-visible tripwire, and thereby given the enemy a roadmap for successful oppression. The assumption seems to be that any "slide into tyranny" must include, early in the chain, a mass confiscation of guns, and therefore, the time to engage in armed resistance to agents of the state is when they do that… and only ever when they do that.
But what if they don't?
If you'll only shoot when they violate your 2nd amendment rights, that means you won't when they take away your 1st, or 4th, or 5th, or…
The cops start searching homes and arresting people without warrants? Well, they're not taking away your 2nd amendment rights, so no resisting.
They begin arresting people for "hate speech"? Well, they're not confiscating your guns, so armed resistance is off the table, and you submit.
They shut down your church and forbid your faith? They haven't disarmed you yet, so it's not yet time for violence, and you submit.
They confiscate the contents of your bank accounts? Well, you've still got your guns, so you submit.
They begin sending people to jail without a trial or a lawyer? Well, they haven't taken your guns, so you submit.
They begin sending people to jail without a trial or a lawyer? Well, they haven't taken your guns, so you submit.
You've announced the one and only time they'll meet force, and thus, that they can enact every other bit of tyranny they want without ever having to worry about those guns. And thus, why would they ever need to worry about them?
Sympathetic nutjobs(all of whom are heavily into the 2nd amendment) resisting will trigger more resistance- ruby ridge to okc.
That's not what I see from the right wing red tribe people I know IRL (i.e. my family and most friends), nor from similar people online (see for example commenters at Sarah Hoyt's blog). Instead I see denunciations of anyone who shoots as cops as automatically losing any and all sympathy, because you Just Don't Do That Ever, with the one and only exception of gun confiscation. If they're not taking your guns, you don't resist. Ever. And anyone who does resist our Boys in Blue is automatically thereby a Criminal Scumbag Who Deserves What They Get.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is an extraordinary claim. It's normal to think your political opponents' policies with respect to crime are sub-optimal, but an explicit goal of increasing crime sounds like cartoon villainy.
While I personally believe it is obvious that the blue tribe deliberately generated the crime, I think yours is a reasonable request for evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory the claim is, and am glad you asked. Thanks!
More options
Context Copy link
And yet, the impending increase in violent crime was obvious well in advance, only grew more obvious as we raced our way up the exponential curve, and is now completely undeniable. The chain of causality driving that increase is not obscure, and was likewise pointed out well in advance, tracing back to a specific set of politically-motivated actions that Blue Tribe collectively chose to implement and then maintain for a decade despite strong opposition and numerous warnings.
Their goal was not to increase crime. Their goal was to secure unassailable political power. To advance that goal, they intentionally and dishonestly delegitimized a massive amount of our law enforcement apparatus, destroying our collective ability to enforce peace and order. The massive increase in violent crime was an obvious effect of doing this, but it is evidently a cost they were willing to pay. They are evidently unwilling to take responsibility or show remorse for what they've done, and there is no reason to suppose that they won't do it again the instant it seems expedient to do so. Further cooperation only enables further harm.
All of this happened in public, and there are plenty of receipts available. I stand by my original statement: there is no basis for cooperation with the Democratic party or with Blues generally on law enforcement or the crime rate. They are not willing to follow or enforce the law impartially. There remains neither common values nor common interest.
More options
Context Copy link
Bailing out rioters in 2020 to re-victimize communities was a mainstream leftist position. Our current Dem presidential nominee participated in it, despite previously being a prosecutor happy to nail people for weed.
This was done to weaken the contemporary administration and force them into making difficult decisions about using force against citizens. It excited the leftist voting base by simultaneously casting them as "oppressed" when the riots were met with resistance, while also showing them the power of a near-monopoly on lawfare that enabled outrageous violence against their political enemies with impunity.
Yes, it is cartoonishly evil. Much like the death-cult celebrations with free vasectomies and abortions at the convention. How can you not just shake your head at how insane this all is and was? It all sounds ridiculous because it is.
More options
Context Copy link
I think that the progressive prosecutors who release violent criminals (a constant problem in the deep blue city i live in; its very common to see news stories about a violent attack by a perpetrator with 10+ arrests for other violent crimes in the last couple of years) would not say that the goal of their policies is increasing violent crime, but that increasing violent crime is an unfortunate but acceptable side effect of their pursuit of criminal justice reform. So deliberate not in the sense of being the primary goal, but deliberate in the sense that they know it will happen and forge ahead anyway.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In the last 80 years of federal government overreach, how many federal attempts at imposing more rules were successfully resisted by gun owners? Because it seems to me that the answer is none. American gun owners are too fat and lazy to mount a rebellion. The few victories they’ve had have come through the courts.
In truth, a large enough unarmed mob can easily successfully overwhelm an autocratic state, and a respectably sized group of civilian firearms owners can be easily crushed by a committed and powerful security corps and/or military, both of which the US effectively has.
You're not counting all the rules which might have been imposed, but weren't due to the practical considerations of an armed population. That which is seen, and that which is unseen.
More options
Context Copy link
Don't get me wrong, I agree we're all cowards that will meekly agree to be crushed.
But the past 30 years have seen massive expansions in gun rights, ownership, and (available) competence. More people can and do conceal carry a firearm than ever before. More people own weapons that make them capable of defensive or offensive work against multiple assailants (I.E. Kyle Rittenhouse). Extremely high-quality training that can put you on-par with an army infantryman in close combat is widely available to the middle class, along with the plates and carriers to engage at a similar level.
More options
Context Copy link
The 90s assault weapons ban sunsetting seems like an obvious example. They definitely wanted to keep it, and we definitely killed it. Likewise holding the line on bump stocks and braces. But the framing of your question elides much more significant advances: normalization and proliferation of concealed carry, suppressors, automatic weapons, the standardization of the AR-15, 3d-printing and DIY tech, and general cultural penetration are all monumental achievements that have greatly eroded the control landscape. The general level of defiance is steadily improving, from "comply, guys," to "I lost them in a boating accident" to "I didn't lose shit," and this correlates with general defiance throughout Red Tribe and the steady collapse of capacity in Blue Tribe institutions.
I think this assessment is wrong, but time will tell. The coordination problem is, in my view, largely a red herring, with pernicious effects on both sides of the debate, in extremely unwarranted confidence in the security of their position from blues and equally-unwarranted black-pilling and despair from Reds.
That’s not really an answer to my question. My point wasn’t that gun owners haven’t successfully kept their right to own arms. My point was that none of the other tyrannies of the federal government have been reversed by the threat posed by firearms owners.
Unless you count abuse of cattle rancher’s grazing rights in eastern Oregon.
More options
Context Copy link
Apologies, I thought you were referring to gun-related rules specifically, and in fact, gun-related rules have indeed been rolled back, and others have been prevented.
If the question is about federal tyranny as a whole, it seems pretty clear to me that the last two decades have seen significant erosion of federal capacity, and the gun culture has been a crucial vanguard in that erosion. Social cohesion is decaying at a significant and accelerating rate, and with it the capacity of the federal government and blue tribe generally to impose its edicts on society as a whole. We are now seeing open, organized defiance to federal edicts from state governments, and the federals backed down. We are seeing a complete collapse in trust for the media, for the federal bureaucracy, for the federal courts, a deadlocked congress, collapsing trust in elections. The military is facing a severe recruiting crisis, serious readiness and procurement issues, most notably in the Navy, and a deep-rooted toward any foreign mission among its historical core source demographic.
You claim that gun owners are too fat and lazy to mount a rebellion. I counter that the federal government is so sclerotic, deficient and mismanaged that actual enforcement of actual laws against anything other that the fat, lazy and supremely comfortable is completely beyond them. They can, sometimes, make examples of unfortunate individuals, but even this capacity is increasingly failing, and each "example" they attempt generates significantly more defiance than it does compliance.
It is common for moderate Blues to opine that the tribes need each other, that the Conservative commitments to order and stability are a necessary counterbalance to the Progressive commitments to change and innovation. This makes sense if you believe that the old order was a good thing that should be preserved. But then, that same order is the tyranny that you're asking for examples of Gun Culture resistance from, isn't it? To the extent that Conservatives have done what moderate Blues claim to want them to do, you would be correct in accusing them of failure to impede tyranny. Only, those commitments have largely been eroded, haven't they? Red Tribe has in fact embraced Trumpism, abandoned fiscal conservativism, largely turned against foreign interventionism and the maintenance of the international order, become deeply critical and skeptical of the "free market" and of corporations, and is increasingly hostile to the concept of law and order generally. We are pretty clearly done being a moderating counterbalance, cleaning up your messes and paying the bills in an unreciprocated pursuit of an entirely theoretical "we". It is evident now that there is no "we", and likely will never be a "we" in the foreseeable future.
All this, over a period of relative peace and prosperity. It was often claimed that what we needed was a good external threat to pull people back together; we saw how that went with Covid, and now that claim seems to have been quietly retired. The stability and the unity are gone, and they are not coming back. Likewise the state capacity, and the orderly, instinctual rule-following it was built upon. What follows is an escalating conflict terminating in separation of one kind or another. There is far better hope for meaningful freedom in that breakdown than there ever could be in a federal government cementing unitary power over a population of pacified subjects.
More options
Context Copy link
They've been reversed by using the other three boxes, which is...vastly preferable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Notice, these are all guns rights victories. Which just, again, reinforces my point about how they can take away all your other rights without concern.
Battle of Athens, and to a lesser extent Bundy Standoff.
Several generations ago, and well before the NSA began watching veterans' groups as closely as they do now.
Did anybody on the Bundy side ever actually fire a shot?
No, nobody in the Bundy standoff fired a shot period. The national guard refused to engage to avoid bloodshed.
Something tells me a disarmed population would have just been arrested upfront.
see: the UK
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
Order a 3D printer and the wrong prefab parts, and the Feds and the State will beat a path to your door. They're tracking all of this.
The last time this came up, the proof was a case where a guy in NYC bought a printer and the parts, assembled firearms, took pictures of those firearms, and then posted those pictures on twitter; IIRC he also tagged anti-gun politicians with those photos. There is a big difference between "they can drop the hammer on people who openly advertise defiance of the law in one of the deepest-Blue enclaves in the country" and "they can drop the hammer on this activity in general."
I can entirely believe that the federal government is tracking correlated printer and gun purchases; they should not be doing this, and their power to do this should be destroyed. But they have not, in fact, demonstrated a capacity to substantially impinge on DIY production of effective firearms. Based on my own knowledge, they can't. It's not a matter of political impracticality, but rather physical impossibility. DIY tech isn't a potential-maybe-someday thing that might or might not happen at some point in the future; it's multiple decades of technological overhang that is already in freefall, only the first pebbles of which have hit the ground in a way that most people have noticed, because most people have not spent five minutes with a piece of paper and a pencil thinking about the matter.
DIY firearms weren't practically stoppable once metalworking tools became widespread; what John Browning and Mikhail Kalashnikov could invent, many lesser men could copy. CNC milling machines and 3D printers have made them even more so, though in earlier days when more of the population could work metal, maybe more people could make them. DIY ammunition, on the other hand, remains a problem. Possibly not insurmountable given the success of meth cookery, but both brass and primers are a real problem. But probably not in the quantities necessary, and messing around with it is a good way to get a trip to Club Fed. By tracking the easy ways (like the NYC guy was using -- a 3D printer + uncontrolled parts), they can prevent any significant illegal arming by people who have to care about the law until shit happens.
You don't need metal. You don't even need plastic. You don't need a printer, cnc machine or lathe. You don't need brass or primers. You don't even need powder. Firearms themselves are entirely unnecessary; you certainly don't need "significant illegal arming" in the sense you are using the term. In fact, I'm convinced it is possible to shift the probabilities toward collapse of centralized authority by a two-digit percentage through the exclusively legal, entirely private and secret actions of between two and five individual people committing to a year or two of dedicated effort. This is speculative only in the weakest sense of the word; there are no pieces of the puzzle actually missing, they are all evidently on the table waiting to be assembled. We do not need to rummage around for a ball of sufficient greyness; it has already been drawn from from the urn. Gibson was correct: the future is here, it just isn't evenly distributed yet.
Maybe it won't have to be, but I don't see a plausible ending where Blue Tribe continues to advance without triggering distribution. The hope is that the fever breaks before that distribution is triggered. It is not an entirely unreasonable hope.
More options
Context Copy link
Ammunition reloading is a sufficiently common red tribe hobby, and the supply chain is sufficiently red, that a scenario where the reds hit ‘defect’ en masse is one in which the wildcat production of ammunition is unstoppable.
The propellant and primer supply chain has ATF throughly up their rear end, and ATF is blue as it comes. Reloading preserves brass (and there's a lot of it out there already) but doesn't help with powder or primers.
The government is phenomenally bad at controlling chemicals, and ‘mass defections’ kind of makes it hard for the ATF to do their job.
More options
Context Copy link
Ever since various intermittent supply chain issues (real and anticipated; starting well well before the most recent ones) it's safe to say that this issue has been... noted well in the enthusiast community. Whether for reasons of price inflation or fear of total unavailability, it's safe to say that there are now sufficient primers in hands both private and unsympathetic to the ATF to supply a serious black market or decent sized army.
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
Do successes through the courts not count? I believe that if you look at the last fifty years or so, there's been a steady march of increasing gun rights in the US. My understanding is that prior to the 1960s, it was actually quite unusual to read the Second Amendment as preserving an individual right to own firearms, and state-level laws on it could be quite restrictive. Since then, however, both judicial and legislative pressure, owing partly to advocacy by gun rights organisations like the NRA, have established and expanded individual rights to gun ownership. This is particularly obvious if you look at, for instance, the spread of right-to-carry laws.
Honestly, this surprises me because I would have said that gun rights is pretty much the only social issue on which the right has been consistently winning. They're losing or at best holding steady on everything else, but guns are the one place where they are successfully advancing.
Not when they're totally fake, granting a theoretical right to keep and bear arms but in practice accepting restrictions sufficient to vitiate said right. That's what Heller and Bruen were, and if you think otherwise, try buying a gun out of state, or (lawfully) buying and carrying a gun in New Jersey or Times Square.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A surprising amount. But mostly by lawfare.
Consider the recent pistol brace ban and how it was defeated.
This is a bit like the ongoing argument that conservatives conserve nothing because they always end up brushed away by time eventually. Without the organized 2a people constantly pushing back, things may be a lot worse than they actually are in America.
This is also quickly forgetting the wins they have been getting pushing for constitutional carry over the last decade.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link