Gun control 2 : happy 25th anniversary of Columbine

[Kepler]

You are 100% correct. It was an extremely narrow decision. But, and this is the important part, it went in favor of gun control.

I really do believe what I posted a few years ago, that gun control advocates could successfully copy the playbook of abortion opponents. I'll admit, I thought their attempts were futile. But they got the laws passed in favorable jurisdictions, got courts in favorable jurisdictions to rule in their favor, and got those cases heard by the Supreme Court. After time, and most importantly after they got additional sympathetic ears on the Court, the dog caught the car.

There is no reason why gun control advocates can't do the same thing. The makeup of the Court doesn't remain the same, indefinitely. It took the abortion people 50 years.

This post is sensible, nuanced, and well-informed.

Who are you and what have you done with Hovey?

 

[Kepler]

Class has always been the real divider in America, the rich and their media outlets just do a really good job of distracting Joe Six Pack by convincing him that it's race.

The divide is intelligence. We are now fully partisan aligned imbecile vs smart. The brutality of the Right is built on viciousness, fear, and stupidity -- qualities equally likely to be found at every level of class.

Dump 24 was refreshing in that stupid women and stupid POC abandoned us and found their natural home on the Right. Now the battle can be joined. We need to disenfranchise based on intellect to save the world.

 

[psych]

You are 100% correct. It was an extremely narrow decision. But, and this is the important part, it went in favor of gun control.

I really do believe what I posted a few years ago, that gun control advocates could successfully copy the playbook of abortion opponents. I'll admit, I thought their attempts were futile. But they got the laws passed in favorable jurisdictions, got courts in favorable jurisdictions to rule in their favor, and got those cases heard by the Supreme Court. After time, and most importantly after they got additional sympathetic ears on the Court, the dog caught the car.

There is no reason why gun control advocates can't do the same thing. The makeup of the Court doesn't remain the same, indefinitely. It took the abortion people 50 years.

Look, I understand the concept of a plan you speak of here. We had this exact same discussion a couple years ago, so I’ll say what I said then, since it’s still true now.

This current Supreme Court has expanded gun rights far more than it has restricted them. This current case isn’t slowing that down in any regard, as Gorsuch opened up the possibility of expanding gun rights further in his ruling. “THIS particular case is SO obvious I have to rule against the plaintiff (again, NOT a gun control group), but if y’all try THIS next time, I’ll be more receptive.” This was gun rights advocates trying to expand their…”vision” even further, and it was so blatantly shitty, even some of the gun rights justices on the Supreme Court had to rule against it. Bring a stronger case before us, and we’re on board, say the gun rights justices. They’re not telling gun control groups to start bringing cases before them.

So, this isn’t the start of anything. The anti-abortion groups banged their heads against the wall for 50 years before finally getting the receptive Supreme Court you speak of. They could have skipped those 50 years of losing in court and waited until they got the receptive Supreme Court, and they would have accomplished the same result. A “work smarter, not harder” concept.

If (when?) SCOTUS becomes more liberal in the future, your plan makes sense. A more liberal SCOTUS would also mean that gun laws, like the ones struck down in Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago, may actually be upheld, as those two rulings, in front of a Supreme Court less conservative than this, expanded gun rights far beyond 2A.

 

[psych]

This post is sensible, nuanced, and well-informed.

Who are you and what have you done with Hovey?

A better question is who are you and what have you done with Kepler?

 

[SJHovey]

Look, I understand the concept of a plan you speak of here. We had this exact same discussion a couple years ago, so I’ll say what I said then, since it’s still true now.

This current Supreme Court has expanded gun rights far more than it has restricted them. This current case isn’t slowing that down in any regard, as Gorsuch opened up the possibility of expanding gun rights further in his ruling. “THIS particular case is SO obvious I have to rule against the plaintiff (again, NOT a gun control group), but if y’all try THIS next time, I’ll be more receptive.” This was gun rights advocates trying to expand their…”vision” even further, and it was so blatantly shitty, even some of the gun rights justices on the Supreme Court had to rule against it. Bring a stronger case before us, and we’re on board, say the gun rights justices. They’re not telling gun control groups to start bringing cases before them.

So, this isn’t the start of anything. The anti-abortion groups banged their heads against the wall for 50 years before finally getting the receptive Supreme Court you speak of. They could have skipped those 50 years of losing in court and waited until they got the receptive Supreme Court, and they would have accomplished the same result. A “work smarter, not harder” concept.

If (when?) SCOTUS becomes more liberal in the future, your plan makes sense. A more liberal SCOTUS would also mean that gun laws, like the ones struck down in Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago, may actually be upheld, as those two rulings, in front of a Supreme Court less conservative than this, expanded gun rights far beyond 2A.

Here is why I think you're wrong to wait.

With these decisions, it's as much about the concurrences and the dissents as it is the majority opinion.

With this court, with the nine current judges, you aren't going to see wholesale changes. At best you will see very small victories like the one I posted about. But, and this is the important part, as these cases go through the court, you give the dissenters and concurring opinion writers an opportunity (over and over again) to advocate for certain outcomes, to refine their thinking and legal theories, and to even provide a roadmap to people who want to challenge the status quo in future cases.

 

[psych]

Here is why I think you're wrong to wait.

With these decisions, it's as much about the concurrences and the dissents as it is the majority opinion.

With this court, with the nine current judges, you aren't going to see wholesale changes. At best you will see very small victories like the one I posted about. But, and this is the important part, as these cases go through the court, you give the dissenters and concurring opinion writers an opportunity (over and over again) to advocate for certain outcomes, to refine their thinking and legal theories, and to even provide a roadmap to people who want to challenge the status quo in future cases.

So, the majority opinion in these cases are the advancing- the further entrenching- of expanded gun rights. Sounds like digging the hole deeper that’ll need to be climbed out of once SCOTUS becomes liberal again, whenever that may be. Or, one liberal district/appeals court sides with gun control, while another district/appeals court sides with gun rights, and SCOTUS resolves it in favor of gun rights, like they have 99% of the time. Seems pretty clear those minority and concurring opinions don’t mean shit when this SCOTUS continues to strike down decades of precedence. Stare decisis? What’s that?

TL;DR: I think you’re wrong on this, and we’ll just agree to disagree, per usual.

 

[LynahFan]

Psych,

I think part of the issue is that the board here limits our views. Being in Kentucky, you're immersed in "Southern Culture", your view in daily life is significantly different than Kepler's. JJ being in Alaska is another perspective that is going to vary greatly from how we may see things here in the Lower 48. DGF and Slap Shot have lived internationally for extended periods of time. Socially, we're all going to have significantly different perspectives on the "norm" of daily life.

The financial diversity here is also something that shouldn't be overlooked (and very well may become the main "split" in the country in the next 10-20 years instead of Left/Right).

Despite out diversity, the board does lack perspective from several large chunks of society. Any aspect of their life is viewed from our 2nd hand position, not a 1st hand account. That's just the nature of USCHO.

(And I'll fully admit that all of this can be a source of frustration/friction at times here)

I don't agree with this - living in a solid red county in Florida for the last 9 years HAS NOT given me any more sympathy or perspective on what passes for conservative "thought." If anything, it has hardened my resolve to hold and champion liberal views in a visceral, stomach-churning reaction to the revolting views held by 80% of my neighbors.

It's where you stand that is important, not where you sit.

 

[psych]

I don't agree with this - living in a solid red county in Florida for the last 9 years HAS NOT given me any more sympathy or perspective on what passes for conservative "thought." If anything, it has hardened my resolve to hold and champion liberal views in a visceral, stomach-churning reaction to the revolting views held by 80% of my neighbors.

It's where you stand that is important, not where you sit.

I’m with you. We’re the Colonel Jessup’s…you want us on wall, you NEED us on that wall.

(Minus the code red, of course)

 

[RaceBoarder]

I don't agree with this - living in a solid red county in Florida for the last 9 years HAS NOT given me any more sympathy or perspective on what passes for conservative "thought." If anything, it has hardened my resolve to hold and champion liberal views in a visceral, stomach-churning reaction to the revolting views held by 80% of my neighbors.

It's where you stand that is important, not where you sit.

I'm not just talking about political thought/views though.

Living in rural America, there is a significantly different social dynamic as well. I don't think many people here on the board can appreciate the social significance of a County Fair or the annual "big" town festival. Among most it's probably laughed off as "dumb redneck shit". But it's likely THE big social even for the given area that everyone marks on their calendar.

Same thing with "church". Yea, this place has their views on religion. But in these small, Southern towns, Church and it's social scene is a key dynamic in how people build their social networks... In NYC, people go to Hipster Restaurants for dinner and drinks. In Bumble-fuk, GA, people go to the community supper at the church on Sunday afternoons.

That's kind of what I'm talking about.

 

[Slap Shot]

I'm not just talking about political thought/views though.

Living in rural America, there is a significantly different social dynamic as well. I don't think many people here on the board can appreciate the social significance of a County Fair or the annual "big" town festival. Among most it's probably laughed off as "dumb redneck shit". But it's likely THE big social even for the given area that everyone marks on their calendar.

Same thing with "church". Yea, this place has their views on religion. But in these small, Southern towns, Church and it's social scene is a key dynamic in how people build their social networks... In NYC, people go to Hipster Restaurants for dinner and drinks. In Bumble-fuk, GA, people go to the community supper at the church on Sunday afternoons.

That's kind of what I'm talking about.

Talk about stereotyping.

My dad grew up in St. Peter (current population about 12,000) and we visited a handful of times per year from the time I was born until I was 18 or so. I finished college in Mankato (smallish town), and many of the friends I made all throughout my college years were from places like Lindstrom, New Ulm, Rochester, Windom, New Prague, Winona, etc., etc., etc. I've visited more small county fairs than you can shake a stick at.

I grew up in the church.

"In NYC people go to Hipster Restaurants"

First of all I hate the term "hipster" more than just about any other, and NYC has what 10 million people? You think the only places people visit there are hipster? You think the only places people in Nashville visit are podunk?

Good grief.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

I think he's been reading too many posts by myself and Kepler.

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Talk about stereotyping.

My dad grew up in St. Peter (current population about 12,000) and we visited a handful of times per year from the time I was born until I was 18 or so. I finished college in Mankato (smallish town), and many of the friends I made all throughout my college years were from places like Lindstrom, New Ulm, Rochester, Windom, New Prague, Winona, etc., etc., etc. I've visited more small county fairs than you can shake a stick at.

I grew up in the church.

"In NYC people go to Hipster Restaurants"

First of all I hate the term "hipster" more than just about any other, and NYC has what 10 million people? You think the only places people visit there are hipster? You think the only places people in Nashville visit are podunk?

Good grief.

How did I miss all these hipster places when I lived in nyc

 

[unofan]

I'm not just talking about political thought/views though.

Living in rural America, there is a significantly different social dynamic as well. I don't think many people here on the board can appreciate the social significance of a County Fair or the annual "big" town festival. Among most it's probably laughed off as "dumb redneck shit". But it's likely THE big social even for the given area that everyone marks on their calendar.

Same thing with "church". Yea, this place has their views on religion. But in these small, Southern towns, Church and it's social scene is a key dynamic in how people build their social networks... In NYC, people go to Hipster Restaurants for dinner and drinks. In Bumble-fuk, GA, people go to the community supper at the church on Sunday afternoons.

That's kind of what I'm talking about.

I live in a college town of about 75000 people, including the students. I drive through small towns every day on my commute into Des Moines and when I tool around the countryside on the motorcycle when the weather's nice. My wife is the sole public defender covering 3 rural counties in our judicial district (as a state employee; there are some private court-appointed attorneys too). My dad is from small town Iowa, I have extended family in small town Kansas, and my wife's extended family is in rural Minnesota and central California.

I know farmers and plenty of rural folk. They're the kinds of people that would give you their shirt off their backs if they personally know you, and probably give you a jump or a lift if you're stranded on the road as they're driving by. But they absolutely can't imagine spending any time or money helping someone not directly in front of their face. All the farm subsidies, highway subsidies, social security, medicare, etc. that they get is what they deserve and earned. Any money going to someone else, even if it's the same farking programs they use, is fraud and waste.

Look, farm subsidies are essentially a national defense issue. Rule number one of any government is to ensure the food supply. So I don't really begrudge them getting those, other than I wish they'd just say thanks rather than bitch and moan when the single mother gets a fraction of that for food stamps to feed her kid.

But can we stop pretending that rural white people are misunderstood? They're not. As I've stated before, there are thousands upon thousands of articles getting people's opinions at the local gas station/diner in small town America, but never a single one getting the opinions of the black guys at the barbershop in Philly or Harlem. They aren't misunderstood. They're snowflakes that are catered to more than any other demographic, but it's never enough because they don't like the rest of the world advancing. There's a reason the kids who can get out usually do so.

They voted for a known crook, welcher of debts, and permanent airer of grievances because that's what they also are, deep down. They weren't fooled, they didn't make a mistake, they are getting exactly what they want, good and hard.

And just to turn this back to gun control, I don't give a shit about the farmer with the bolt action rifle to protect his homestead from intruders, wildlife, or even aliens, for all I care. But since they feel the need to impose their gun-humping views on everyone else, then fuck them; I'll try to impose mine right back at them.

 

[Handyman]

As per usual uno nails it!