The biggest fallout of about over 100 years of drug war (I would peg the start to the Harrison Narcotic Act), dumb immigration policy since the late 40s (when we stopped letting enough workers for agriculture in legally for seasonal work-who then left the country confident they could return to work next season) has been a general reduction in the public respect for laws in general in the U.S.
The only reason that gun laws have not done as much damage in the same vein is that the dumbest examples have been limited to the state and local level, and anti-gunners can claim their ideas would work great if only they were nationwide. A federal semiauto ban would probably make gun laws as ridiculous to much of the general public as our drug laws, as many formerly 100% law abiding types would find themselves in the same sort of extensive black market than has kept cannabis flowing for nearly a century. Utah, in particular, might become a really interesting hotbed of resistance. Most male (and some female) LDS members I have chatted with are pretty fond of their guns, and many are "daily carry" types.
BTW, is anyone under the delusion that the Venn diagram of "pot users" and "working class arch-Republican gun nuts" doesn't have substantial overlap? Keep in mind if you are LE, you may not have many of group one admit they are a member of group two to you. Studies I have seen don't show any relationship between use of illicit substances and party affiliation. And conversely, I know even my True Blue aunt who is one of those rich Cali elites (and I do mean quite well-off) voted against recreational marijuana. San Francisco seems to think they will be the harbinger of banning nicotine vaping. If that goes statewide, I can't wait for illegal nicotine cartridges marked as legal hash oil cartridges being the next big crusade in Cali.
In terms of legislation shaping public behavior, the biggest successes I can think of in the US are in terms of DUIs and public tobacco use. But the negative effects of intoxicated drivers and dealing with tobacco smoke in public places were things many people were actually passonate about.
Last edited by Baldanders; 08-20-2019 at 09:24 PM.
REPETITION CREATES BELIEF
REPETITION BUILDS THE SEPARATE WORLDS WE LIVE AND DIE IN
NO EXCEPTIONS
Exempting cops, retired or active, is a ploy. They dislike law enforcement even more than the rest of us.
We should not argue this point which would soon become divisive. We must stick together.
I wasn't suggesting that we follow anything that Europe is doing in relation to immigration, firearms or drugs. They do have far fewer people in their prisons though. The prison population rate in the US is about 8x higher than in Germany.
Any ideas as to why that might be?
My point was that when the gov't decides a certain class of people like gun owners get cut out of the mainstream and have to deal with more restrictions/jail time it might be time to just start ignoring those restrictions in mass. I don't think Europeans in general would do that except maybe the Basque.
Looks like it may already be happening. I followed the Cliven Bundy dust up closely because it looked to me like the fed was about to fuck up bigly again with another Ruby Ridge/Waco type mistake.
Last edited by Borderland; 08-20-2019 at 10:00 PM.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
I don’t think this is about gun control for Democrats. I think it’s about fracturing the Republican Party and their voter base. The democrats know that they can’t pass major anti gun legislation with out support from a several Republicans and the signature of Trump. The Democrats know if they pull that off the Republican Party is done and so is Trump.
I don’t honestly believe that the left cares about stopping violence or removing guns. It’s all about defeating the right. They don’t care about the cost and they’re not smart enough to imagine the consequences.
“If you know the way broadly you will see it in everything." - Miyamoto Musashi
One truism I learned in social psychology class: folks almost attribute their own morally questionable actions to "the situation," the reason other people do evil is "they're evil!" I think the same is true for political fights. It's easier to see your opponents as evil duplicitous dipshits than well-meaning and of normal intelligence but mistaken.
I am adamantly pro-choice on the subject of abortion. I don't assume everyone who labels themselves "pro-life" is a dumb religious fanatic who doesn't realize they are making our country ripe for theocracy. I think most pro-life folks do believe abortion is murder. Just because politicians move on a subject when it is politically expedient, doesn't mean people on "the left" or "the right" are just hiding their real agenda when they talk about their beliefs. Most anti-gunners really want to see virtually all firearms banned. They really think it's the only sane way.
It is always easier to view our adversaries as somehow less human than us than to assume they feel, think and struggle just like we do.
But the hard path offers a chance, however small, to have long term dialogues that change adversaries to allies.
The debate over firearms has been used to divide this country in much the same way as race. The easy path means more of this.
(Insert Yoda speech about the Dark Side of the Force here)
REPETITION CREATES BELIEF
REPETITION BUILDS THE SEPARATE WORLDS WE LIVE AND DIE IN
NO EXCEPTIONS
There has never been an actual debate over firearms that would settle this issue. The gun-grabbers (no matter Dem or Rep) work the emotional card. They won't have a real debate. If they did, there would be no contest. They can't justify oppressive gun laws with logic, reason or our Constitution. They aren't above twisting facts and outright lying. I have witnessed police officials testifying that "guns are bad" in the face of well presented facts.
With liberty and justice for all...must be 18, void where prohibited, some restrictions may apply, not available in all states.
I would like to follow up on the quoted statement. Is this the extension of the "opiate for the masses" to literal opiates? What advantage does any politician hope to gain by normalizing drug usage when the cost to society is so easily visible (deaths due to intoxicated drivers and operators and overdoses in vehicles with kids present)? Is it a means to get a more compliant population?