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 -
New Jersey's "shall issue" purchase permit requires anyone who wants to buy a gun to submit the names of two adults, who have known the applicant for three years, and will vouch for that person. While the statute itself only requires those adults to be unrelated for carry permits and does not require those adults to be NJ residents, many jurisdictions will reject purchase permit requests not matching these 'rules' (sometimes as explicit policy). This is not a trivial ask for a large portion of people working in New Jersey, given that the state has gone out of its way to smother gun culture and slaughter the hostages; if you don't work in police or military sectors, you may not have any gun-friendly people among your coworkers or neighbors.
If you've ever seen a mental health professional, you're required to provide their contact information. Don't know it, or a shrink you saw twenty years ago happen to be antigun? Gfl. This includes not just involuntary commitment -- the recent A4769 explicitly prohibits purchase permits for anyone who's ever had a "voluntary commitment", and the permit form itself now asks if applicants have ever "attended, treated or observed by any doctor or psychiatrist or at any hospital or mental institution".
In all cases, failure to provide accurate information has been used to reject later applications with correct info, even where a genuine mistake occurred. There's a still-used "To any person where the issuance would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare because the person is found to be lacking the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm" prong that many jurisdictions have been throwing for pretty much whatever reason they want.
All of these things are readily discoverable through a quick google search. And The_Nybbler has mentioned most of them here, in ways that can be discovered by doing an author:the_nybbler "new jersey" search. Instead, you've thrown allegations of a felony or domestic violence condition, and pointed to a survey run by an explicitly antigun policy outfit, which gets numbers that are wildly out of line with every other analysis and the state's own estimates.
Similarly, New Jersey's response to Breun's explicit text that :
hasn't been quite as bad a tantrum as Hawaii declaring multiple islands a sensitive place, but it's pretty close.
There are a few challenges to these laws pending, but they have threefold problems:
And that's ignoring the 'special cases' bullshit, like Koons taking seventeen months (and counting) from oral args before a decision was released, or Bianchi having a judge sit on a dissent long enough to have a separate case she was also sitting on conflict with it to block the majority of judges from publishing an opinion.
No, I asked you why you are unable to access a gun when 20% of households can and a common answer in the population is being a criminal so it's a pretty likely possible reason for it.
Do you not know two adults who will vouch for you? That seems a red flag on its own.
20% of household have guns, I doubt 20% of households have never seen a doctor ever so it seems like there's a misunderstanding on your side. Either that or it is violating rights and there is really just a large portion of people who have never seen a doctor before.
Somehow they've been able to do it and while I don't know the specific of state law if they're specifically violating court rulings there are processes to punish them for it in court. Either they're "skirting' the rulings by doing something not yet ruled against, you misunderstand the rulings in question, SCOTUS is compromised by gun haters (despite as you say ruling in favor of the 2nd amendment multiple times), or you're in the middle of a legal correction and are just frustrated that procedures can take time.
@OliveTapenade, this too. It's a RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Here we have defection; the insistence that the right to keep and bear arms requires two adults (three to bear) to vouch to the state that you are indeed moral enough to own a weapon, before you can own one. That's not a reasonable condition on a right, as we would easily see if we applied it to speech or worship. But the defector will not even acknowledge the defection; no, this is presented as if OF COURSE it is right and just the way thing work.
I'm here to yeschad and say the world would be a marginally better place if speech or worship required two people to vouch for you.
Even parliamentary debate requires only a single person to vouch for you (the "second" to a motion).
Sure but two randos are easier to get than one parliamentarian.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Take it up with the courts, there will be plenty of gun rights organizations who like to fight for gun ownership freedom.
Neither of the cases you cited cover such a restriction, and while I said courts are generally not blind they are also not all encompassing. I never said it was right for such a restriction to exist, I'm just curious as to why it's an obstacle for you in particular given you're saying you can not get a gun.
If you want my personal opinion, it shouldn't be a restriction. But until this is taken up in courts and properly ruled on, the analogy does not work because they are not disobeying court orders. And I can not say whether or not it is, only if I personally think it should or should not be, it is the courts who will rule on the actual constitutionality of it.
As for any particular individual (regardless of whether or not such a restriction is allowed under the constitution), I still do find it a red flag if someone doesn't have two other adult humans willing to say they trust them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link