5 ms·

I can see this is quickly going to become a "hate on Texas" thread, rather than considering why Texas is doing this, which I think has some very legitimate grou

by brink 5y ago

I can see this is quickly going to become a "hate on Texas" thread, rather than considering why Texas is doing this, which I think has some very legitimate ground. Texas seems to generally recognize that when power is concentrated into a point, that power is almost certainly abused, and is incredibly dangerous. It harks back to the old phrase "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". It really is simple; Texas generally fears a tyrannical government more than they fear a random shooting. So they give freedom to guns to spread out power. While certainly not risk-free, I think it's a legitimate stance.

jacob2484 5y ago
Well put
nickthemagicman 5y ago
Most people prefer safety over freedom because they take freedom for granted.
igetspam 5y ago
Hi. Texan here. You are wrong. The state gov markets that because they use FUD to keep special interests happy. This is a marketing move. There's no data that shows having more drunk drivers (we have the most, last I checked) carrying guns is going to make anything safer. In fact, the rate in gun violence in this state is on the rise. Abbott and Patrick don't give two shits sbout Texans. They like cash.
- seriousquestion 5y ago
  Both can be true. Texas fears too much centralized power and Abbott likes cash. Texans put up with the latter because of the former.
burkaman 5y ago
It's a legitimate stance, but Texas exists in a union with total freedom of movement, so other states with the equally legitimate stance of "gun violence is worse than a licensing authority" have a right to be concerned. It's like one table in a restaurant voting to give themselves the right to smoke and play loud music, or something. I'm not saying Texas is definitively wrong, we have a federal constitution and in some sense we have already decided on this as a nation, I just want to point out that it's more complicated than "Texas can do what it wants".
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hindsightbias 5y ago
Freedom from gov’t very relative in Texas “Texas Governor Abbott says he will sign a bill that prevents cities from defunding police” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-defund-police-bill-abbott/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-defund-police-bill-abbott... “Gov. Greg Abbott signs 'fetal heartbeat' bill banning most abortions in Texas” https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/state/2021/05/19/abbott-heartbeat-ban-abortion-law-signed/5128325001/ https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/state/2021/05/... Freedom lists like this could go on for pages.
- panarky 5y ago
  > Texas generally fears a tyrannical government more than they fear a random shooting. So they give freedom to guns to spread out power. When Texas Governor Abbott prohibited local counties, cities, towns, districts and public health agencies from making their own decisions about face masks, how is that "spreading out power" to avoid the dangers of centralized "tyrannical government"? https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-issues-executive-order-prohibiting-government-entities-from-mandating-masks https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-issues-execu... When the centralized state government forces cities and counties to remove voting locations, that's not "spreading out power". https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-houston-greg-abbott-voting-austin-11ff8a7a5a581940cb5c37b4e167270e https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-houston-greg-abbott...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - true_religion 5y ago
    The federalist system in the US states power originates in the people as represented by the State governments. The Federal government has its powers delegated to it by the States. Local government similarly have their power delegated to them by the state. Thus there is no hypocrisy in a state governor wanting less local power and more state power. In this framework, The State is after all the atomic point where no further decentralization is possible.
pie420 5y ago
But Texas does have a tyrannical government and gun ownership does nothing to prevent tyrannical governments. If anything, gun owners have historical been those swayed by fake news and populists, so they will probably be the instrument a tyrannical government uses to establish power and crush democratic opportunity. Unless you allow citizens to own ICBMs and AC-130s, a civilian insurrection will never "defeat" a tyrannical government. Especially in the modern age.
cosmotic 5y ago
"Texas seems to generally recognize that when power is concentrated into a point, that power is almost certainly abused" In this situation, the gun is power, and thus the gun is abused.
lamontcg 5y ago
Ironically, the biggest risk of a tyrannical government I can see is coming from the people passing these laws and the people likely to buy the guns.
prions 5y ago
> Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely You could definitely say this about their self contained power grid. If Texas was so interested in spreading out power, then surely they would be more willing to trust their elected, representational Federal government instead of having a Texas specific version of everything? > Texas generally fears a tyrannical government more than they fear a random shooting Why do you think this is the case?

by brink 5y ago

jacob2484 5y ago

Well put

nickthemagicman 5y ago

Most people prefer safety over freedom because they take freedom for granted.

igetspam 5y ago

Hi. Texan here. You are wrong. The state gov markets that because they use FUD to keep special interests happy. This is a marketing move. There's no data that shows having more drunk drivers (we have the most, last I checked) carrying guns is going to make anything safer. In fact, the rate in gun violence in this state is on the rise. Abbott and Patrick don't give two shits sbout Texans. They like cash.

seriousquestion 5y ago
Both can be true. Texas fears too much centralized power and Abbott likes cash. Texans put up with the latter because of the former.

burkaman 5y ago

It's a legitimate stance, but Texas exists in a union with total freedom of movement, so other states with the equally legitimate stance of "gun violence is worse than a licensing authority" have a right to be concerned. It's like one table in a restaurant voting to give themselves the right to smoke and play loud music, or something. I'm not saying Texas is definitively wrong, we have a federal constitution and in some sense we have already decided on this as a nation, I just want to point out that it's more complicated than "Texas can do what it wants".

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

hindsightbias 5y ago

Freedom from gov’t very relative in Texas “Texas Governor Abbott says he will sign a bill that prevents cities from defunding police” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-defund-police-bill-abbott/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-defund-police-bill-abbott... “Gov. Greg Abbott signs 'fetal heartbeat' bill banning most abortions in Texas” https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/state/2021/05/19/abbott-heartbeat-ban-abortion-law-signed/5128325001/ https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/state/2021/05/... Freedom lists like this could go on for pages.

panarky 5y ago
> Texas generally fears a tyrannical government more than they fear a random shooting. So they give freedom to guns to spread out power. When Texas Governor Abbott prohibited local counties, cities, towns, districts and public health agencies from making their own decisions about face masks, how is that "spreading out power" to avoid the dangers of centralized "tyrannical government"? https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-issues-executive-order-prohibiting-government-entities-from-mandating-masks https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-issues-execu... When the centralized state government forces cities and counties to remove voting locations, that's not "spreading out power". https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-houston-greg-abbott-voting-austin-11ff8a7a5a581940cb5c37b4e167270e https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-houston-greg-abbott...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- true_religion 5y ago
  The federalist system in the US states power originates in the people as represented by the State governments. The Federal government has its powers delegated to it by the States. Local government similarly have their power delegated to them by the state. Thus there is no hypocrisy in a state governor wanting less local power and more state power. In this framework, The State is after all the atomic point where no further decentralization is possible.

pie420 5y ago

But Texas does have a tyrannical government and gun ownership does nothing to prevent tyrannical governments. If anything, gun owners have historical been those swayed by fake news and populists, so they will probably be the instrument a tyrannical government uses to establish power and crush democratic opportunity. Unless you allow citizens to own ICBMs and AC-130s, a civilian insurrection will never "defeat" a tyrannical government. Especially in the modern age.

cosmotic 5y ago

"Texas seems to generally recognize that when power is concentrated into a point, that power is almost certainly abused" In this situation, the gun is power, and thus the gun is abused.

lamontcg 5y ago

Ironically, the biggest risk of a tyrannical government I can see is coming from the people passing these laws and the people likely to buy the guns.

prions 5y ago

> Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely You could definitely say this about their self contained power grid. If Texas was so interested in spreading out power, then surely they would be more willing to trust their elected, representational Federal government instead of having a Texas specific version of everything? > Texas generally fears a tyrannical government more than they fear a random shooting Why do you think this is the case?