Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

[Evan]

From 2 years ago:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...vented-by-gun-laws/?__twitter_impression=true

 

[SilentShadow87]

Thousands chanting "no more guns" at an anti-gun rally in Florida (no policy is worse than one made in knee-jerk response to a tragedy).

But my question is...where are the chants demanding accountability from law enforcement who didn't follow protocol to likely prevent this? If they can't handle what is currently on their plate, what makes us think they can enforce new laws?

My opinion might not matter here, since I'm Canadian, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents anyway.

I'm all for gun ownership. I agree that the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government is important, and I fully support the use of guns for self-defense. That being said, I also can't get behind the Trump Administration loosening restrictions for the mentally ill. I don't think someone who is medically unstable should have easy access to firearms. I think they should be getting treatment, not being effectively encouraged and empowered to do something like this.

 

[Kory]

My opinion might not matter here, since I'm Canadian, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents anyway.

I'm all for gun ownership. I agree that the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government is important, and I fully support the use of guns for self-defense. That being said, I also can't get behind the Trump Administration loosening restrictions for the mentally ill. I don't think someone who is medically unstable should have easy access to firearms. I think they should be getting treatment, not being effectively encouraged and empowered to do something like this.

All opinions are welcome as long as they're factually backed up!

The problem with the regulation Obama put in place is it denied folks their 2nd and 4th amendment rights who used a representative payee to help manage their finances due to disability. Basically, it conflated that anyone who needed help managing their social security payments are violent and are a risk when possessing a firearm. This had no meaningful due process before the social security administration handed over the names to NICS. Those folks, roughly 80,000 people, had no evaluation of mental capacity, it was just determined by the government in a certain way due to how they received their social security benefits.

It was a lot of propaganda pushed by a certain side of the policial aisle when the Senate voted to repeal, because Obama failed to pass any meaningful legislation, he let the social security department do the dirty work through civil rights violations.

 

[KoD]

Just my opinion, but I feel like a lot of firearm violence is committed by those who wouldn't necessarily fail a mental health examination. Most psychotic people who admit to homicidal ideations usually deny owning a gun. Furthermore their plans to harm themselves and others rarely involve a firearm, oddly enough. There would have to be an extremely rigorous and far reaching mental health exam and ample evidence to determine who should or shouldn't have a gun - less we infringe on people's freedoms.
I'm sure there's things we can do, but vague mental health ideas aren't very realistic. I imagine those who admit to homicidal thoughts in the psychiatric/medical environment aren't reported to the authorities that regulate gun sales either. This way patients will trust that what they say is confidential and will continue to seek help in the future when they have these thoughts. Only in extreme cases, usually involving court ordered committals and violent homicidal behavior and psychosis, will information regarding gun ownership be reported to the police. Only seen it happen once.

 

[Mike S]

My opinion might not matter here, since I'm Canadian, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents anyway.

I'm all for gun ownership. I agree that the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government is important, and I fully support the use of guns for self-defense. That being said, I also can't get behind the Trump Administration loosening restrictions for the mentally ill. I don't think someone who is medically unstable should have easy access to firearms. I think they should be getting treatment, not being effectively encouraged and empowered to do something like this.

There was a time when a tyrannical government didn't have tanks and bombs, but they do now. No amount of AR15's can combat that.

Change is coming whether we like it or not. I feel it would be wise for 2nd amendment advocates to get out in front of that change for once or they may not be happy with the results.

 

[Kory]

There was a time when a tyrannical government didn't have tanks and bombs, but they do now. No amount of AR15's can combat that.

Change is coming whether we like it or not. I feel it would be wise for 2nd amendment advocates to get out in front of that change for once or they may not be happy with the results.

You do realize some anti-tank/anti-aircraft guns are legal to own. See, Barrett M82. Perfectly legal in all states but MAYBE California.

Any sort of infringements on current gun owners will probably not end very well.

 

[Mike S]

You do realize some anti-tank/anti-aircraft guns are legal to own. See, Barrett M82. Perfectly legal in all states but MAYBE California.

Any sort of infringements on current gun owners will probably not end very well.

What are they going to do? Rise up and start a revolution? I doubt it very seriously.

If anyone has the guts to initiate serious change it is Trump, if for no other reason than he really doesn't stand for anything and doesn't care what anyone thinks. It would not shock me to see him at least try something that will anger a large portion of his base.

 

[Kory]

Another thing that baffles me is the select group in the political spectrum who refer to Trump as authoritarian, with even some Hitler references, want him to take action on stripping personal freedoms.

 

[ghost]

You do realize some anti-tank/anti-aircraft guns are legal to own. See, Barrett M82. Perfectly legal in all states but MAYBE California.
.

My question is why would anyone want or need to own one?

 

[Kory]

My question is why would anyone want or need to own one?

I don't want one. But I don't think the government/myself deserve to decide what law-abiding people need/want so long there is no infringement on anyone else's rights.

 

[ghost]

I don't want one. But I don't think the government/myself deserve to decide what law-abiding people need/want so long there is no infringement on anyone else's rights.

If only good law abiding citizens owned them there would be no problem, but we know through recent history high capacity rapid firing guns fall into the hands of evil or mentally sick people and use them to slaughter children and innocent citizens. Unfortunately, this will happen again sometime down the road. Hopefully there will be tips or intelligence to law enforcement that can head more of these off, but it won't stop them all.

 

[Kory]

I've found the educational pamphlet used by the media, members of Congress, and uninformed folks in society.

 

[Evan]

I thought it was a good article that brought up some valid points for consideration. I know it's probably 20 years too late, but one solution for reducing casualties in those situations where the intent is mass killings is to not let the average citizen have access to magazine clips that hold 30/60/100 rounds before the perpetrator has to reload. And eliminating guns that can shoot 4-6 rounds per second. If all guns had only a 6 shot capacity where each round was individually hand loaded, many (not all) lives could be saved. All the guns I own are that way. You don't see killers who want to inflict as much havoc as they can in mass shootings ever choose that kind of weapon... because it would take too long to rip off 100 rounds and multiple round clips in rapid firing arms are much more efficient for their evil purposes. But I don't know what can be done about that now since relaxed laws and unregulated "gun shows" have so many in circulation.

Couple of things:

1. AR15 style weapons in the hands of a trained expert might average 1-1.5 rounds per second. Misinformation is frequently spread that confuses an AR15's maximum cyclic rate (and without reloading). A casual shooter like those that engage in mass shootings would be lucky to average 1 round per second. The Las Vegas shooter, who was using extremely large magazines and bump stocks, only averaged around 2 rounds per second even if being liberal with the number of rounds expended. Finally, you manually hand load rounds into a magazine for an AR15 just like any other rifle with a magazine. Confused by what you meant here. Are you referring to detachable vs fixed magazines?

https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime...than-1100-rounds-fired-in-las-vegas-shooting/

2. If you read the 538 research piece and the WaPo opinion piece, you'll see that they believe magazine restrictions would have little to no impact on mass shooting deaths. They are not pro-gun people. They conclude that mass shooters will just carry more guns and magazines and practice reloading/changing mags or guns more efficiently. They see most mass shooters as being on a "mission" and don't think not we should base any new policies or legal strategies on mass shootings as they are a bad way to understand the 10k illegal gun deaths we have per year.

3. Most mass shootings and firearm homicides are committed by people using handguns. I'll link some research done by various parties that I believe no one would see as pro-gun in any any way. Mother Jones' research showed that 20/143 weapons used by mass shooters would've fit the criteria of an "assault" weapon while 42/143 weapons used the high capacity magazines you refer to in your post. Obviously, there is some overlap being that some shooters with "assault" weapons had their gun outfitted with a high capacity magazine. 21/143 weapons were shotguns. 71/143 were handguns. In most mass shootings, particularly those with a greater number of deaths, the shooter had multiple firearms.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map/

WaPo had a visualization of weapons used by mass shooters since 1966. I think you'll be shocked by the number of bolt action rifles and shotguns visualized. And, although it looks like AR15s or a similar variant make up a decent chunk as well, keep in mind that they are actually listing all 21 of the Vegas shooters AR15 style rifles which other DBs like Mother Jones don't use.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...-shootings-in-america/?utm_term=.133586027637

I raised this point before, but it merits repeating. AR15 style weapons or even their AK47 counterparts were not a very common choice before the Aurora, CO shooting and the subsequent Newtown Elementary school shooting (remember, Lanza was very inspired by the Aurora shooting). The constant media attention given to AR15 rifles and their labeling of AR15s as the most efficient killing machine possible should not be ignored. Many mass shooters have left evidence of having meticulously researched previous mass shootings, and quite a few were given to obsessive research and compilation of what weapons were used and how shooters maximized death totals.

Here is some research done by Connecticut about weapons used in mass shootings:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm

Finally, I want to mention what the Washington Post research found. There have been 1077 deaths in mass shootings since 1966. That's a sum total. While one death is one too many, the debate frequently ignores that we went from over 18,000 gun homicides in 1993 (with only 260 million people) to 9600 gun homicide deaths in 2015 (with 321 million people as the US population grew by nearly one quarter since '93). At the same time, since 2007, the US has been adding 6 million or more guns each year to the total number of guns circulating, with an astounding 16 million guns added during 2016.

Do I think that is a good thing? I don't. I agree with many people that our current system allows too many people to fall through the cracks. There is also no denying that US guns are frequently purchased domestically and then smuggled to Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala and other countries helping to circumvent their gun laws and lead to sharply increased homicide rates due to the ongoing drug wars.

But, here's the rub. Easily 80% of our gun violence occurs in people aged 34 or younger. Most of the initial decrease in gun homicides from 1993 through today was among black males 34 and younger and it quickly plateaued around 1998. In fact, around 2005-2006 you had an increase in that community, and you are seeing it again today since about 2014/2015.

Whites, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans have all continued to see their homicide rates drop since 1993 and haven't yet fully plateaued. Why is this important? Because very few of the homicides we see on a yearly basis are committed by people using anything other than a handgun with a standard capacity magazine. It fluctuates from year to year, but 70-80% of gun homicides are with handguns. We have around 1500-1600 gun homicides of school age children a year (2600 was the peak in 1993). Remarkably, the homicide rate IN SCHOOL has consistently remained around 1-1.2% a year, and that INCLUDES mass shootings. We average about 20 in-school homocide deaths a year, and over 80% are via firearm. All data directly from the FBI:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?iid=4616&ty=pbdetail&ved=2ahUKEwiBrPex5rHZAhWJvVMKHY9NDmsQFjACegQIERAB&usg=AOvVaw2RE6aKo02x6otVzV2gZvAF

So, I want to reiterate. Magazine capacity restrictions and AR15 bans are the media de jour solution to gun violence. And we are told we have a moral imperative to support these solutions that would have a very negligible impact on gun homicides each year. Meanwhile, we ignore the impact of handguns on the young in Black and Hispanic communities. We ignore the usage of shotguns and hunting rifles to commit suicide by young people in rural areas. We certainly ignore that 63% of gun deaths are suicides and most by using a handgun.

If there is a moral imperative to DO SOMETHING about gun violence then why are people cherry picking the ideas that would primarily have an impact on white communities in wealthier areas? Why are we not looking at a total gun ban and a confiscation program? If we have a moral imperative to DO SOMETHING about gun deaths that are less than 1% of the yearly total at worst, then how the hell do we ignore the moral imperative of doing something about the other 99%? We could have a much larger impact on gun suicides in general, and gun homicides in poor minority communities by passing new gun legislation that targets handguns, but no one is asking for that. It's about AR15s, magazine capacity, bump stocks, and the quantity of firearms one owns.

Why is that? If this is a moral imperative? If it is about common sense? Why are we focusing on 1% and ignoring the other 99%? And why stop at AR15s or even handguns? Wouldn't the safest and most moral thing be to ban all guns and confiscate them? Why are we not having that conversation if this is really a moral issue and really about protecting children?

 

[Evan]

I recognize emotional hysteria when I see it. Just about every single article about Parkland is about AR15s and the NRA. Very little about gun suicides. Very little about handgun violence. Very little about how most inner-city violence is driven by gangs, hardcore criminals that commit multiple shootings/gun homicides, and retaliation against another recent shooting, fight or dispute. Very little about how common it is for an illegal gun to be used in 20+ firearm related crimes. Very little about straw purchases. Very little about mental illness and suicide prevention.

As was pointed out in the WaPo piece by the 538 researchers. Choosing gun legislation or prevention methods based off of what most pisses off gun owners or the NRA is not a sensible way to actually combat these deaths. It's a catharsis to punish gun owners for the violence committed by others. That's why so much hate is directed at the NRA (which is a horrible organization for a number of valid reasons), it's a way to attack all those faceless American gun owners as it is their fault another gun crime happened.

This type of polarization is no different than the current toxic partisan climate in which people HATE and attack the out-group based on political ID (whether party or issue based), and excuse the behavior of anyone in their in-group. It's us against them, dammit.

The NRA has already been Atmospheric Anti-Climax repeatedly for pushing misleading talking points. Everytown USA got Atmospheric Anti-Climax by WaPo, USAToday and Politifact for the similar behavior.

No surprise that social media monitoring groups have found Russian bots pushing a lot of recent pro-gun propaganda and anti-gun memes. Both laden with inaccurate information and emotionally charged. They don't care one way or the other, it is just a way to stoke more dissent and unrest in our country.

We can all just press pause and come back once their is another mass shooting. The media moved on after Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, and Sutherland Springs. They're about to so again. Time for another Trump/Russia story and some random Trump admin fiasco.

If you are really interested in solving gun violence then join me in thinking about it after the headlines fade. What about the gun suicides? What about the 10k gun homicides a year that aren't part of a mass shooting?

I wonder if one of the reasons that white gun homicides among those under 34 keep falling is because they are too busy ODing on opiates instead? This year looks to be another record year for opiate overdoses and it is still almost all white people. It's almost as if there is a societal and cultural reason for things like gun violence and opiate overdoses. Maybe we can learn how to fix both instead of just moral panic.

 

[Kory]

Demonizing me as a law-abiding gun owner and NRA member will never sit well. Those folks who do will never have me on their side when it comes to discourse. This is mainly in reference to the inaudible screeching that is "NRA, it's members, and Congress have blood all on their hands." It's almost as if everyone BUT the perpetrator is guilty....but that is a running mantra in our society today. We do have a responsibility to be our "brother's keeper" by holding those truly responsible accountable, but when folks can't recognize who it actually is, it is futile. And to be fair, it seems like some DID, in fact, perform their due diligence, but the authorities dropped the ball.

But man, I've never seen an organization who has literally done NOTHING but protect a Constitutionally given right be absolutely slandered. You listen to the hysteria by uneducated and irrational folks, you'd think the CEO of the NRA actually planned all of these mass shooting himself.

 

[Evan]

Demonizing me as a law-abiding gun owner and NRA member will never sit well. Those folks who do will never have me on their side when it comes to discourse. This is mainly in reference to the inaudible screeching that is "NRA, it's members, and Congress have blood all on their hands." It's almost as if everyone BUT the perpetrator is guilty....but that is a running mantra in our society today. We do have a responsibility to be our "brother's keeper" by holding those truly responsible accountable, but when folks can't recognize who it actually is, it is futile. And to be fair, it seems like some DID, in fact, perform their due diligence, but the authorities dropped the ball.

But man, I've never seen an organization who has literally done NOTHING but protect a Constitutionally given right be absolutely slandered. You listen to the hysteria by uneducated and irrational folks, you'd think the CEO of the NRA actually planned all of these mass shooting himself.

Look, the NRA is trash for a multitude of reasons (not defending Philando Castile for instance as well as their political hackery), but I agree that the current debate is really not a debate. It's a "you do what we say or you are complicit/evil."

I'm not evil and I'm not complicit in the deaths of mass shooting victims. The fact that some of the Parkland students are saying "you are either with us or against us" should give rational people a pause as to whether or not this is the way we want to go about responding to tragedies. Surely we haven't forgotten the debacle of using this type of logic to justify the Iraq War or the erosion of civil liberties in response to 9/11. The repercussions of this being the new form of political discourse in our country is dangerous. When the next terror attack occurs by someone claiming to represent Islam, let's see how people respond to actions by the Trump admin if they decide to erode the rights of Muslims or implement further immigration restrictions.

It also bothers me that a group of 16 & 17 year old teenagers are using emotion and their victim status to shout down anyone that disagrees with them. It's no different than the Trump admin parading around Kate Steinle's parents or other family members of violent crimes by illegal aliens. This is not the way to solve a problem.

Here is their latest statement: They won't attend school again until Congress passes legislation on gun control that is acceptable to them. Direct quote: "My message for people in office is you're either with us or against us. We are losing our lives while the adults are playing around"

http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-...ountable-on-gun?amp&__twitter_impression=true

This is emotional blackmail and hysteria, and shame on the media and adults that are airing this type of rhetoric without any balance or nuance. Per the FBI statistical report I posted this morning, the number of school homicides per year have stayed in a band of 14-35 a year (averaging around 20) since the early 1990s. The idea that school shootings and gun deaths in schools are rising year after year is a dangerous falsehood. This isn't about pro-gun vs anti-gun. This is about using emotionally charged rhetoric and false claims to justify political positions. As I pointed out earlier in my post, this is quite dangerous and is not the way we want to go about responding to questions of public safety. I said the same thing about 9/11 and terrorism as well as other similar events.

I know what it is like to lose a family member as the result of the actions of someone else. I lost my father when I was young because two pilots made unacceptable safety compromises after being pressured by a few of their passengers to take off in inclement weather. As a teenager, and even as a young adult, I had a lot of anger and strong emotions about the people responsible for my father's death. But, I am glad I wasn't given an unchecked platform to rewrite our aviation laws. About 35 feet in a rapidly climbing jet separated my father's plane from being a close call at the top of a mountain versus an accident that killed 9 people. We are talking about a few seconds at most between an incident that no one ever would've thought of again and something that changed the lives of dozens of people forever.

It's an incident that would've never occurred had the company's CEO not previously ignored complaints about one pilot's reckless behavior and refusal to follow FAA safety regulations. An incident that would've never occurred had the FAA not blown off a whistleblower that called to report previous safety violations (the FAA told the co-pilot -- the whistleblower -- he'd probably lose his license for not having immediately reported previous violations of the captain). An incident that would've never occurred had top executives not pressured the pilots to take off lest they become late to their next store visit.

I understand the emotion and horror when the system fails and the consequences directly impacts your life. It is brutal. I have the utmost sympathy for the victims, their families, friends, and classmates. I also EMPATHIZE as I can relate in many ways -- not just my father's death, but also my friend who purchased a deer rifle not long after leaving our house and then killed himself in his church. He was mentally unwell. Why didn't we see it? Why didn't anyone do something?

But, still, we can't make decisions and legislative changes based off of raw emotion. For every example of that emotion leading to real change there are also examples of it leading to mistakes and unintended consequences.

We DO need to do something about the 33.6k gun deaths each year in our country and the 66k drug overdose deaths. But it needs to be done clear-eyed with deliberation, in conjunction with experts, and with mechanisms to enhance and review the actions that are taken to make sure they work as intended, and to combat unintended consequences.

I've said my piece now more than is fair for this thread. I'm not going to change anyone's mind, and I don't even know if anyone is listening. Unfortunately, politics and issues these days are almost set in stone. "You're either with us or against us" is a mentality that both sides of almost every issue have adopted. I don't think it's a good thing or the correct way to solve serious problems and issues.

 

[Kory]

As always, great discussion Evan. It comes down to one fundamental principle for me...the government has no right delegating what I can and can't have. Where does it stop after guns? Is fast food next? I mean, after all, cardiovascular disease kills over a half million people a year. We don't really NEED that and look at how many lives it would save. I could come up with endless examples.

The government isn't in the business of telling its citizens what it can and can't have. I think that is what it boils down to...personal freedoms.

 

[Evan]

I think this approach is a good start. Along with a comprehensive review of our current policies and laws to determine which ones are not functioning as intended -- especially lapses in the processes like we saw in Sutherland Springs and Parkland, but also frequently seen in cases of domestic violence homicides and suicide by firearm as well as how easily gang members and street criminals obtain guns via straw purchases or via other illegal means.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republicans-consider-grvo/

I also think an expanded discussion about age requirements for the ownership of various firearms is necessary. We know that brains don't fully develop until around 25 -- particularly the part dealing with rational thinking. We also know that 50% of mental illness cases begin by age 14 and 75% of cases develop by age 24.

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/warning-signs-of-mental-illness

We can appropriately balance 2nd amendment rights and the right to protect one's self against the level of maturity and brain development needed to responsibly and safely own firearms. This also includes incentives for firearm owners to properly store their weapons and ammunition -- an important factor when you consider most adolescent gun suicides are the result of an adolescent improperly obtaining a firearm from a parent/relative as well as how frequently stolen or misplaced firearms are used in firearm homicides.

And, although firearm accidents are less common than they were 3-4 decades ago, there is still an opportunity to reduxdw accidental deaths. Even states like Texas with a strong gun culture mandate comprehensive training for someone to be licensed to carry a concealed weapon. I'm all for testing and classes being offered and/or required for a variety of gun purchases or to obtain licensing. This is an area in which the NRA and firearm manufacturers have not done enough no matter their claims to the contrary.

There are a lot of areas in which gun owners and those that advocate for stricter gun laws can agree. But, as I've pointed out, legislation just to do something, or designed almost punitively to piss off responsible law-abiding gun owners, is almost certainly doomed to fail. It is going to require some give and take from both sides. Unfortunately, since the current debate is "you're either with us or against us" on BOTH sides, we can look forward to continued paralysis or the passing of legislation that purports to do much, but truly accomplishes little other than justifying the beliefs of some that any gun legislation is one step closer to repealing the 2nd amendment.

 

[Evan]

As always, great discussion Evan. It comes down to one fundamental principle for me...the government has no right delegating what I can and can't have. Where does it stop after guns? Is fast food next? I mean, after all, cardiovascular disease kills over a half million people a year. We don't really NEED that and look at how many lives it would save. I could come up with endless examples.

The government isn't in the business of telling its citizens what it can and can't have. I think that is what it boils down to...personal freedoms.

I agree, but I think you would also agree that personal freedom is limited by someone's actions infringing upon your own freedom to life, liberty, and happiness. And, even the Founding Fathers clearly believed the government has a role to regulate and limit activities in certain areas and pertaining to certain matters.

I'm sure we've all seen the cliche that one's freedom ends when it infringes on the freedom of another. I believe there are things that we can do that would reduce gun deaths due to suicides and homicides while properly balancing the concerns of 2nd amendment rights, the right to privacy, etc and affording due process. See my recent post with a link to David French's column about one potential option.

I also think that Mike S. posted a very brilliant comment. Like it or not, but eventually the dam is going to break, and new laws and regulations are going to happen. Demographically, one only has to look at the political attitude of millenials and the increasing death rates of Baby Boomers. I think Mike and others are right when they point out that the GOP and pro-gun folks can sit down and come up with some REAL solutions that properly respect constitutional rights while truly working to reduce gun deaths, or 4-8 years from now the laws and regulations are going to be written without much consideration of their input.

My issue when these mass shootings happen is that I wait for concrete facts and then go back and look at previous legislation as well as current laws on the books. And I've rarely seen proposals that are actually aimed at truly reducing gun deaths. I always see a lot of token gestures or things like banning AR15s or reducing magazine size, yet I know both ideas would have negligible impacts at best. When a lot of recent shootings wouldn't have been prevented by any of the proposed legislation, and when current laws on the books weren't followed or were undermined by human error, it concerns me that we might choose to multiply those mistakes or errors instead of comprehensively and accurately reviewing what failed and the steps necessary to correct.

I know this makes me weird, but I always go and read the text of proposed legislation on things like gun restrictions and immigration restrictions because I've found that you can't trust the talking points of detractors or supporters of these bills.

I'm not against legislation to reform or enhance our gun laws to reduce gun violence, nor am I against immigration reform that actually fixes the broken processes we already have while fairly adjusting for what's best for our economy and country. It's just that so much of what is proposed is usually proposed by people that lack expertise and knowledge of the very issues they are purporting to fix!

Part of the problem is the American people have a very difficult time understanding what they actually want because of the complexity of modern issues, and it is often divorced from what actually gets written into bills because legislation these days is frequently a knee-jerk reaction to a recent event or current political mood. The financial crisis in 2008, 9/11, guns, immigration, etc are all real examples of this. Half the time the legislation is ghostwritten by lobbyists of the industry/thing that is being regulated and the other half of the time it seems to be written by advocacy groups that are the diametric opposite of the lobbying groups. It's an insane process that ignores the input of real experts and commonly occurs on an accelerated timeline that doesn't allow for real debate and review. The media and ideologues issue their skin deep talking points, and that's all that suffices for debate these days.

If anyone wants to know what happens when advocacy groups take sole control of an issue, I'd urge them to read the following. And I don't know anyone that is pro-DUI, yet if this doesn't give you pause about allowing emotionally driven people to take control of legislation and issues then nothing will.

https://www.duicentral.com/dui/the-dui-exception/

On the gun issue, it seems the GOP wants the NRA to lead point on any proposed legislative changes while the Democrats let Everytown and other advocacy groups handle their side. The NRA are hardly experts on gun violence, and Everytown and anti-gun groups rarely know a damn thing about the very firearms they are trying to regulate. Researchers frequently have no field experience or hands on experience with firearms, and a lot of NRA or pro-gun groups rarely if ever have serious scientists that study gun violence outside of trying to find misleading stats to block anything that might get their members riled up.

It became crystal clear for me when there was a push to regulate bump stocks after Las Vegas. Even the NRA tried to push solutions there because they were scared the largest gun massacre in history was going to lead to a lot of anti-gun legislation and a major push to pass it. Both sides squabbled and expended political capital over an absolutely fringe issue that would've literally had zero impacts on gun deaths and gun violence. It's just insane. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I've sometimes wondered if the anti-gun groups propose such useless legislation that they know the NRA and gun owners will oppose just to heat up the debate and make sure nothing passes. And, I've wondered if the NRA and other pro-gun groups oppose even STUDYING real and effective solutions that respect 2nd amendment rights and due process for similar reasons.

I consider myself to be pragmatic, and I try to be a pragmatic realist whenever possible even though I surely have my own personal biases. And, I think in the case of guns, the overall debate is about to shift more into line with the beliefs of younger Americans. They are absolutely willing to give up certain freedoms in exchange for protection from what they see as potential harm and/or danger. We've seen it very clearly in the area of free speech, and we are seeing it now in relation to guns. I don't think they see things in terms of balancing freedom/rights against potential harm. It's more of an illiberal philosophy that believes the state exists to protect us from ourselves. So, I think we can only hope to mitigate that by demonstrating right now how to properly balance liberty/freedom against public safety concerns. I have no issue arguing against gun laws or regulations that accomplish nothing, or undermine concrete 2nd amendment protections. I've done so in this thread. Not saying it will be easy, but we're going to have to inject nuance and facts into an emotionally driven debate while being open to fair compromise. Unfortunately, that's going to require leadership, and neither Congress nor the President have shown that they have it.

As always, just my opinion...

 

[Kory]

In other news, on this day in 1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the executive order imprisoning Japanese Americans in what would turn out to be one of the lowest points in American history. Lest we forget that our own government upheld this forced removal and internment of U.S. citizens for nothing other than their race.

In 1944, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision, upheld the constitutionality of the removals. Justice Frank Murphy, one of the dissenters, wrote that the exclusion of Japanese-Americans “falls into the ugly abyss of racism,” and resembles “the abhorrent and despicable treatment of minority groups by the dictatorial tyrannies which this nation is now pledged to destroy.” Murphy also compared the treatment of Japanese-Americans with the treatment of Americans of German and Italian ancestry, who were largely unaffected by wartime controls, as evidence that race, and not the wartime emergency alone, led to the exclusion order.

For its part, the court limited its decision to the validity of the exclusion order, avoiding the sensitive issue of the incarceration of U.S. citizens without legal due process. The court’s 1944 decision has never been reversed.