4 ms·

The core disagreements seem more moralistic and personal security issues rather than corporate pandering. The gun manufacturing industry is small and weakly co

by sk5t 6y ago

The core disagreements seem more moralistic and personal security issues rather than corporate pandering. The gun manufacturing industry is small and weakly compared to the real players--healthcare, finance, tech, MIC. While the left loves to paint the NRA as evil--and it is a bit, and grossly mismanaged--it is at its core a grassroots organization; rural people and some others will not consent to giving up 2A or being disarmed, full stop. Likewise there are no shadowy "Big Abortion" interests propping up that side of things, nor am I able to think of anyone poised to profit by forbidding it. That said, the no-compromise issues really do have the effect of shoving all the important stuff into the background...

ARandomerDude 6y ago
> Likewise there are no shadowy "Big Abortion" interests propping up that side of things, nor am I able to think of anyone poised to profit by forbidding it. In fact, there are numerous pro-life groups who directly benefit from moving the ball around but never actually winning the game. The same is true of race relations organizations, animal cruelty activists, the NRA, etc. With all of these, the spoken platform may or may not be a good thing, but the largest stakeholders would lose tremendous money and influence if they ever actually won.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sk5t 6y ago
  You're describing pretty standard "mission creep." I.e. "if the problem this organization exists to address is fixed, fundraising efforts stop and staff must be fired. But we don't want to fire people, so we must perpetually move the goalposts to keep the momentum going." MADD is the classic example here.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  > benefit from moving the ball around but never actually winning the game. This is exactly how you win elections. If you gain enough single-issue voters you never need to debate the complex issues that might split your base. It's important to portray the situation as if they are losing. Pro-Choice is a great example. Abortion-right are frequently portrayed as "under attack and imminently about to be destroyed" despite almost every SCOTUS judge publicly saying it's "settled law". It is a political form of George Orwell's endless war, and the ultimate distraction. Corporations don't need to fund them directly as politicians are happy to play this game so that corporations can fund THEM directly since the political attention is placed elsewhere.
SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
> rural people and some others will not consent to giving up 2A or being disarmed, full stop. I read some “gun people” discussing this. An argument was that they were not single issue voters, but rather they were a foundational issue voters. That all rights (to him/them) are supported by the idea the public is a counter force to the government. Fundamental before all other issues because is the prevention of the gov backtracking or infringing on anything “down stream”. So... That if a politician supported the disarming of civilians that was indeed a full stop to other thoughts on abortion or the foreign trade or etc. It was a good read really, because calling them a single issue voter may give the wrong impression, which is good for no one coming to the table on other issues.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  None of them have tanks, it's not a foundational issue, it's identity politics.
  - anonfornoreason 6y ago
    Go tell that to the Afghans and Iraqis that don’t have tanks either.
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      I'm not making an argument about the effectiveness of small arms, I'm saying if you punt on tanks, you aren't actually an absolutist about the right to bear arms.
      - anonfornoreason 6y ago
        Ahh got it sorry, I misread your comment. My apologies!
      - glenra 6y ago
        > I'm saying if you punt on tanks, you aren't actually an absolutist about the right to bear arms. Black's Law Dictionary defines the word arms as "anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon." The word "arms" in the right to keep and bear arms explicitly meant weapons that could be carried by a single infantryman. It was never about (and still isn't about) tanks, or cannon, or warships, or nukes. So no, you don't have to be committed to allowing tanks to be fully keen on the right to keep and bear arms. (if you still doubt this, focus on the word "bear". You can't "bear" a tank, if anything a tank bears you.) ( https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/iii-what-arms-meant-circa-1787 https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/iii-what-arms-meant-circa-17... ) That said, it actually happens to be totally legal for private citizens to own a tank in most countries, including the US. They're expensive, get terrible gas mileage, probably not street-legal to drive on the freeway, unlikely to fit in your garage and the neighbors are bound to complain if you fire the main gun...but you totally could own one (and drive it around your own private property) if so inclined.

by sk5t 6y ago

ARandomerDude 6y ago

> Likewise there are no shadowy "Big Abortion" interests propping up that side of things, nor am I able to think of anyone poised to profit by forbidding it. In fact, there are numerous pro-life groups who directly benefit from moving the ball around but never actually winning the game. The same is true of race relations organizations, animal cruelty activists, the NRA, etc. With all of these, the spoken platform may or may not be a good thing, but the largest stakeholders would lose tremendous money and influence if they ever actually won.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sk5t 6y ago
You're describing pretty standard "mission creep." I.e. "if the problem this organization exists to address is fixed, fundraising efforts stop and staff must be fired. But we don't want to fire people, so we must perpetually move the goalposts to keep the momentum going." MADD is the classic example here.
koheripbal 6y ago
> benefit from moving the ball around but never actually winning the game. This is exactly how you win elections. If you gain enough single-issue voters you never need to debate the complex issues that might split your base. It's important to portray the situation as if they are losing. Pro-Choice is a great example. Abortion-right are frequently portrayed as "under attack and imminently about to be destroyed" despite almost every SCOTUS judge publicly saying it's "settled law". It is a political form of George Orwell's endless war, and the ultimate distraction. Corporations don't need to fund them directly as politicians are happy to play this game so that corporations can fund THEM directly since the political attention is placed elsewhere.

SV_BubbleTime 6y ago

> rural people and some others will not consent to giving up 2A or being disarmed, full stop. I read some “gun people” discussing this. An argument was that they were not single issue voters, but rather they were a foundational issue voters. That all rights (to him/them) are supported by the idea the public is a counter force to the government. Fundamental before all other issues because is the prevention of the gov backtracking or infringing on anything “down stream”. So... That if a politician supported the disarming of civilians that was indeed a full stop to other thoughts on abortion or the foreign trade or etc. It was a good read really, because calling them a single issue voter may give the wrong impression, which is good for no one coming to the table on other issues.

maxerickson 6y ago
None of them have tanks, it's not a foundational issue, it's identity politics.
- anonfornoreason 6y ago
  Go tell that to the Afghans and Iraqis that don’t have tanks either.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    I'm not making an argument about the effectiveness of small arms, I'm saying if you punt on tanks, you aren't actually an absolutist about the right to bear arms.
    - anonfornoreason 6y ago
      Ahh got it sorry, I misread your comment. My apologies!
    - glenra 6y ago
      > I'm saying if you punt on tanks, you aren't actually an absolutist about the right to bear arms. Black's Law Dictionary defines the word arms as "anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon." The word "arms" in the right to keep and bear arms explicitly meant weapons that could be carried by a single infantryman. It was never about (and still isn't about) tanks, or cannon, or warships, or nukes. So no, you don't have to be committed to allowing tanks to be fully keen on the right to keep and bear arms. (if you still doubt this, focus on the word "bear". You can't "bear" a tank, if anything a tank bears you.) ( https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/iii-what-arms-meant-circa-1787 https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/iii-what-arms-meant-circa-17... ) That said, it actually happens to be totally legal for private citizens to own a tank in most countries, including the US. They're expensive, get terrible gas mileage, probably not street-legal to drive on the freeway, unlikely to fit in your garage and the neighbors are bound to complain if you fire the main gun...but you totally could own one (and drive it around your own private property) if so inclined.