6 ms·

Turns out liberal states, not conservatives ones, are the ones in favor of personal freedoms and less intrusive government.

xfitm3 6y ago
Except when it comes to speech
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  And firearms.
  - whoknew1122 6y ago
    Unless it's Black people carrying firearms. Then conservatives love gun control: https://theweek.com/articles/582926/how-ronald-reagan-learned-love-gun-control https://theweek.com/articles/582926/how-ronald-reagan-learne... Reagan started modern gun control legislation, because Black Panthers were exercising their rights to open carry.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      This is a mischaracterization of an entire group of people based on the actions of a few. Even the NRA has pushed for protections that would benefit groups who may be discriminated against, such as promoting shall-issue or constitutional carry.
      - icandoit 6y ago
        I didn't see anything like that on their Wikipedia page. Perhaps you could share it here. I remember several years ago there were self-defense classes hosted by gay men, for other gay people in my city. Pre gay-marriage and post Matthew Shepard, obviously. My recollection was that it was entirely the gay community and no NRA outreach. It would dramatically improve my opinion of the NRA to learn that they sponsored or materially supported such an effort.
        giantg2 6y ago
        The push to make carry permits shall-issue should be pretty evident. The point with that is so you don't have an issuing authority (like a sherriff) denying people a permit on a discriminatory basis when they otherwise met the requirements (commonly a racial issue in the past, such as when MLK was denied a permit). May-issue states like NJ, NY, MD, etc can deny a permit for people who meet the legal requirements on some other reason. Generally the wealthy and well connected are more likely to get a permit. I don't know if there are any specific outreach programs. I know they have youth programs and recently started some geared towards women. Generally these distinctions in training are made if there's enough demand to form a new training program and also if the topics would be sufficiently different. For example, the youth training would be about basic safety and marksman ship. Women can join the same classes as men, but the women's course covers different defensive tactics based on general size and strength differences as well as topics like carrying in a purse. The NRA sets the curriculum, but the actual training is provided by a certified instructor. These instructors and the businesses they are affiliated perform their own outreach. Here's an example of outreach after the Pulse attack - https://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/os-group-offering-free-classes-to-train-gays-on-guns-20161019-story.html https://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/os-group-offering-f.... My experience at events has generally been that everyone is welcome. There can be an odd person or two who have personal beliefs which are biased, but the groups as a whole are welcoming. I don't like to make assumptions about people, and I also don't go around asking everyone their business - so I have no way of knowing if the people I've met are hetero, LGBTQ, or any other personal traits. What I can say, is that I've met people whom others might have stereotyped as being LGBTQ (whether they were or not) and were not treated any differently. This has been my observation when it comes to other personal traits as well. The only trait that I know of that will land some incendiary comments might be political opinions supporting candidates which are gun control supporters. Edit: The negative side of the NRA from an LGBTQ perspective would be their support of pro-gun candidates may incidentally be supporting a candidate who's other policies may negatively impact the LGBTQ community.
      - stonogo 6y ago
        The NRA supported the Mulford Act.
        giantg2 6y ago
        Yes, and they also set up chartered gun clubs in African American communities in the 60s. The one founded by Robert Williams is probably the most well known.
        SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
        And the Democrats were the party of slavery. The similarly is just as that isn’t the same Democrat party as today, neither is the NRA. The NRA supporting some specific gun control schemes is what caused their coup.
        giantg2 6y ago
        They still support some gun control today when it's politically advantageous, such as the bump stock ban. Seems there's another coup based on the recent financial issues...
        SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
        Your perspective is entirely wrong from the ground level view of what happened. The NRA never supported or advocated bump stock bans. End of story really. They realized like everyone else this wasn’t a hill to die on and didn’t fight too hard, but did fight a little. Bump stocks were “legal” not by a law or any official regulation, only by the ATF’s previous judgment. The ATF, NFA Tech branch specifically was able at any time to change their mind on this, and that was the reality everyone knew. This is how the ATF operates, “judgments” they often contradict themselves on, not law. Bump stocks were a hot topic for a month and the only supporters that were worth listening to were arguing on grounds of the ATF ability to “determine”, not that they were fans of the product. In the gun world, no one liked bump stocks. So no one was really going to fight for them.
  - jliptzin 6y ago
    The obvious difference is that Democrats don't advertise themselves as the party of small government and personal freedoms the way Republicans do.
- honkycat 6y ago
  Can you point to a specific instance of a liberal state suppressing free speech?
  - nullifidian 6y ago
    https://observer.com/2019/05/kamala-harris-wants-to-ban-social-media-hate-speech-if-shes-elected-president/ https://observer.com/2019/05/kamala-harris-wants-to-ban-soci...
    - theplague42 6y ago
      Last time I checked, Kamala Harris is neither a state nor President right now.
      - flyingfences 6y ago
        Right, she was just in charge of bringing a state's cases against people and is likely about to become second in line for the Presidency.
      - nullifidian 6y ago
        Both states and Kamala can't limit speech due to the current SCOTUS absolutist consensus on the first amendment, but that doesn't mean they don't want to. If we are to judge from colleges' foray into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_code in the 90s, the entirety of FIRE jurisprudence in the last 2 decades, and FAANG workforces demanding more censorship, colleges being a pretty close approximation of liberal views on the freedom of speech, especially future views, the moment SCOTUS lifts its absolutism, there will be numerous regulations of speech in liberal jurisdictions, and then federally.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    I believe several liberal states have passed laws restricting the distribution of information related to firearms, specifically 3D printing designs. Less state related, but still state tolerated... there have been schools that fire professors for minor speech related issue (the nega nega nega incident for example). Or restrict some political movements/organizations in schools while allowing others to be promoted (look at differences in (in)tolerance of NRA and BLM).
- tenpies 6y ago
  And increasingly religion, especially all but one religion.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  The Oregon state constitution guarantees freedom of expression, and the state supreme court's interpretation of that is even stronger than the national 1st amendment protection. For instance public nudity is considered free expression, and exotic dancers typically dance completely nude, and there is an annual naked bike ride through Portland.
sneak 6y ago
Sadly I don’t think that’s true across the board; it seems to me that each team in the American culture war has its own pet issues, and nobody is consistently applying “personal freedoms and less intrusive government” widely. The left/right culture war appears to be more important to devotees of these parties than consistency on this matter. This is a nice step in the right direction, though. Shame about the DEA.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  It's also difficult to even define consistency, as there are value judgements involved. We don't agonize about my freedom to have a flaming pool of gasoline in my front yard, because no one really thinks that is a worthwhile thing. But we argue a great deal about the balance between things like gun ownership and gun violence, because people value both lives and that freedom quite highly.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
So when can I expect them to legalize "personal use" amounts of machine guns and explosive devices? The point I'm trying to make is that people tend to have "personal freedom" blind spots that encompass everything they don't personally care about.
- flowerlad 6y ago
  Not a fair comparison. One item cannot be used to harm others. The other item can be. Personal freedom does not include freedom to harm others.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    >not a fair comparison. One item cannot be used to harm others Going looking for expensive power tools in unattended work vehicles to pawn because you're desperate for your next fix or driving drunk sure sounds like "harming others" to me. I am well aware that that is the exception and not the rule. The same is true for guns and explosives. Most guns will never be fired at anyone, they will go home, trunk, range, trunk, home, repeat or they will sit in a closet collecting dust. Pretty much all non-commercial explosive use in non-warring nations is for entertainment (anvil tossing and the like).
    - clavalle 6y ago
      Theft and intoxicated driving are still illegal. You can get explosives and machine guns, you just have to jump through a few hoops with the ATF.
      - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
        >Theft and intoxicated driving are still illegal. Shooting people is still illegal >You can get explosives and machine guns, you just have to jump through a few hoops with the ATF. You can get opioids and cocaine but not without jumping through a few hoops with doctors.

xfitm3 6y ago

Except when it comes to speech

SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
And firearms.
- whoknew1122 6y ago
  Unless it's Black people carrying firearms. Then conservatives love gun control: https://theweek.com/articles/582926/how-ronald-reagan-learned-love-gun-control https://theweek.com/articles/582926/how-ronald-reagan-learne... Reagan started modern gun control legislation, because Black Panthers were exercising their rights to open carry.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    This is a mischaracterization of an entire group of people based on the actions of a few. Even the NRA has pushed for protections that would benefit groups who may be discriminated against, such as promoting shall-issue or constitutional carry.
    - icandoit 6y ago
      I didn't see anything like that on their Wikipedia page. Perhaps you could share it here. I remember several years ago there were self-defense classes hosted by gay men, for other gay people in my city. Pre gay-marriage and post Matthew Shepard, obviously. My recollection was that it was entirely the gay community and no NRA outreach. It would dramatically improve my opinion of the NRA to learn that they sponsored or materially supported such an effort.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        The push to make carry permits shall-issue should be pretty evident. The point with that is so you don't have an issuing authority (like a sherriff) denying people a permit on a discriminatory basis when they otherwise met the requirements (commonly a racial issue in the past, such as when MLK was denied a permit). May-issue states like NJ, NY, MD, etc can deny a permit for people who meet the legal requirements on some other reason. Generally the wealthy and well connected are more likely to get a permit. I don't know if there are any specific outreach programs. I know they have youth programs and recently started some geared towards women. Generally these distinctions in training are made if there's enough demand to form a new training program and also if the topics would be sufficiently different. For example, the youth training would be about basic safety and marksman ship. Women can join the same classes as men, but the women's course covers different defensive tactics based on general size and strength differences as well as topics like carrying in a purse. The NRA sets the curriculum, but the actual training is provided by a certified instructor. These instructors and the businesses they are affiliated perform their own outreach. Here's an example of outreach after the Pulse attack - https://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/os-group-offering-free-classes-to-train-gays-on-guns-20161019-story.html https://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/os-group-offering-f.... My experience at events has generally been that everyone is welcome. There can be an odd person or two who have personal beliefs which are biased, but the groups as a whole are welcoming. I don't like to make assumptions about people, and I also don't go around asking everyone their business - so I have no way of knowing if the people I've met are hetero, LGBTQ, or any other personal traits. What I can say, is that I've met people whom others might have stereotyped as being LGBTQ (whether they were or not) and were not treated any differently. This has been my observation when it comes to other personal traits as well. The only trait that I know of that will land some incendiary comments might be political opinions supporting candidates which are gun control supporters. Edit: The negative side of the NRA from an LGBTQ perspective would be their support of pro-gun candidates may incidentally be supporting a candidate who's other policies may negatively impact the LGBTQ community.
    - stonogo 6y ago
      The NRA supported the Mulford Act.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        Yes, and they also set up chartered gun clubs in African American communities in the 60s. The one founded by Robert Williams is probably the most well known.
      - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
        And the Democrats were the party of slavery. The similarly is just as that isn’t the same Democrat party as today, neither is the NRA. The NRA supporting some specific gun control schemes is what caused their coup.
        giantg2 6y ago
        They still support some gun control today when it's politically advantageous, such as the bump stock ban. Seems there's another coup based on the recent financial issues...
        SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
        Your perspective is entirely wrong from the ground level view of what happened. The NRA never supported or advocated bump stock bans. End of story really. They realized like everyone else this wasn’t a hill to die on and didn’t fight too hard, but did fight a little. Bump stocks were “legal” not by a law or any official regulation, only by the ATF’s previous judgment. The ATF, NFA Tech branch specifically was able at any time to change their mind on this, and that was the reality everyone knew. This is how the ATF operates, “judgments” they often contradict themselves on, not law. Bump stocks were a hot topic for a month and the only supporters that were worth listening to were arguing on grounds of the ATF ability to “determine”, not that they were fans of the product. In the gun world, no one liked bump stocks. So no one was really going to fight for them.
- jliptzin 6y ago
  The obvious difference is that Democrats don't advertise themselves as the party of small government and personal freedoms the way Republicans do.
honkycat 6y ago
Can you point to a specific instance of a liberal state suppressing free speech?
- nullifidian 6y ago
  https://observer.com/2019/05/kamala-harris-wants-to-ban-social-media-hate-speech-if-shes-elected-president/ https://observer.com/2019/05/kamala-harris-wants-to-ban-soci...
  - theplague42 6y ago
    Last time I checked, Kamala Harris is neither a state nor President right now.
    - flyingfences 6y ago
      Right, she was just in charge of bringing a state's cases against people and is likely about to become second in line for the Presidency.
    - nullifidian 6y ago
      Both states and Kamala can't limit speech due to the current SCOTUS absolutist consensus on the first amendment, but that doesn't mean they don't want to. If we are to judge from colleges' foray into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_code in the 90s, the entirety of FIRE jurisprudence in the last 2 decades, and FAANG workforces demanding more censorship, colleges being a pretty close approximation of liberal views on the freedom of speech, especially future views, the moment SCOTUS lifts its absolutism, there will be numerous regulations of speech in liberal jurisdictions, and then federally.
- giantg2 6y ago
  I believe several liberal states have passed laws restricting the distribution of information related to firearms, specifically 3D printing designs. Less state related, but still state tolerated... there have been schools that fire professors for minor speech related issue (the nega nega nega incident for example). Or restrict some political movements/organizations in schools while allowing others to be promoted (look at differences in (in)tolerance of NRA and BLM).
tenpies 6y ago
And increasingly religion, especially all but one religion.
amanaplanacanal 6y ago
The Oregon state constitution guarantees freedom of expression, and the state supreme court's interpretation of that is even stronger than the national 1st amendment protection. For instance public nudity is considered free expression, and exotic dancers typically dance completely nude, and there is an annual naked bike ride through Portland.

sneak 6y ago

Sadly I don’t think that’s true across the board; it seems to me that each team in the American culture war has its own pet issues, and nobody is consistently applying “personal freedoms and less intrusive government” widely. The left/right culture war appears to be more important to devotees of these parties than consistency on this matter. This is a nice step in the right direction, though. Shame about the DEA.

maxerickson 6y ago
It's also difficult to even define consistency, as there are value judgements involved. We don't agonize about my freedom to have a flaming pool of gasoline in my front yard, because no one really thinks that is a worthwhile thing. But we argue a great deal about the balance between things like gun ownership and gun violence, because people value both lives and that freedom quite highly.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

So when can I expect them to legalize "personal use" amounts of machine guns and explosive devices? The point I'm trying to make is that people tend to have "personal freedom" blind spots that encompass everything they don't personally care about.

flowerlad 6y ago
Not a fair comparison. One item cannot be used to harm others. The other item can be. Personal freedom does not include freedom to harm others.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >not a fair comparison. One item cannot be used to harm others Going looking for expensive power tools in unattended work vehicles to pawn because you're desperate for your next fix or driving drunk sure sounds like "harming others" to me. I am well aware that that is the exception and not the rule. The same is true for guns and explosives. Most guns will never be fired at anyone, they will go home, trunk, range, trunk, home, repeat or they will sit in a closet collecting dust. Pretty much all non-commercial explosive use in non-warring nations is for entertainment (anvil tossing and the like).
  - clavalle 6y ago
    Theft and intoxicated driving are still illegal. You can get explosives and machine guns, you just have to jump through a few hoops with the ATF.
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      >Theft and intoxicated driving are still illegal. Shooting people is still illegal >You can get explosives and machine guns, you just have to jump through a few hoops with the ATF. You can get opioids and cocaine but not without jumping through a few hoops with doctors.