3 ms·

With good reason.

by lisper 2y ago

With good reason.

llm_trw 2y ago
Carter deregulated more than Raygun. Raygun introduced more gun regulations than Carter. Both parties are worse than the other on the issues they promise to be better on. It's almost like it's a big club that you're not a member of.
- lisper 2y ago
  That may be, but that doesn't make them the same.
- HaZeust 2y ago
  >"Raygun introduced more gun regulations than Carter" People forget this, Reagan literally started the charter and expectations for the modern gun control movement just because of Black Panther advancements and protests in the street with firearms.
  - trhway 2y ago
    He got scared of their right to carry arms back then as a CA governor and started the gun control there.
    - acdha 2y ago
      Prior to the NRA’s big push in the late seventies, gun control as a concept was uncontroversial as the first gun control laws dated back to the earliest days of the country. Reagan expanding coverage due to the Black Panthers was in line with earlier precedent (after Kennedy was assassinated, during WWII, during the Mob / prohibition era, etc.).
      - HaZeust 2y ago
        A bit more nuanced than that; the NRA didn’t become the hardline defender of minimal gun regs until its 1977 leadership shift. Reagan’s 1967 Mulford Act as Governor targeted the Black Panthers, and then he signed 1986 FOPA as president, which relaxed some rules but banned new machine guns. It was a broad compromise package from the start.
        acdha 2y ago
        My focus was really the hardline individual right stance: I know people who left the NRA over that because they were sportsmen or retired military who thought it was quite reasonable to have civilian restrictions, especially mental / proficiency restrictions.
- Aunche 2y ago
  > Carter deregulated more than Raygun. Raygun introduced more gun regulations than Carter Both these ignore a lot of context. Carter had to do something about stagflation. Deregulation that promotes competition and appointing Volcker to the Fed aren't directly eroding worker's rights like Reagan's solution of union busting. Reagan signed the machine gun ban as part of an amendment to pass the Firearms Owners' Protection Act that was endorsed by the NRA. > It's almost like it's a big club that you're not a member of. Agreed, but not in the way that you're thinking of. The "big club" is capable of understanding nuance and making dispassionate decisions (or at least their can hire people who can do that on their behalf). Regular voters react to emotional sound bites and outsource their critical thinking to those in the "big club" who superficially align with their worldview.
techdmn 2y ago
I like to jokingly argue that the primary difference between Democrats and Republicans is disagreement on whether it's more important to subsidize large corporations directly or through tax policy. In reality I think there is a lot of daylight between the parties on social issues that do not affect current power structures. Abortion, trans rights, women's rights, gay marriage, religion in public schools, etc: Tons of difference. Funding genocide, subsidising the fossil fuel industry, maintaining a for-profit healthcare system, opposing ranked choice or instant run-off voting, keeping third parties out, refusing to enforce anti-trust law, refusing to raise the minimum wage, no accountability for police brutality, etc: Broad bipartisan support.
- lisper 2y ago
  > Tons of difference. QED.
  - llm_trw 2y ago
    https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRQSONuHQL9qc4w3ZR2AeFQHP02kivX4BWqV899xw62Sn4U8GPHHxpBrOef&s=10 https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRQSONu... Or https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSaFnDHpW4azH19pkAtI8vAsqBMnhv73tjx5oksvgxFcBdDVViR_MgbUl87&s=10 https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSaFnDH... What choices we have. Replace the Israeli flag with the US one when we invade someone else again.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  I'll resist the urge to combat some of your specific points and focus on the forest. I think there's simply a difference between funds going towards foreign policy, and ones that basically deny you autonomy. America is highly individualistic, but that's also just human nature. Many will care more about their groceries increasing by $10 a month than a billion dollars going towards a war somewhere else. Also helps that America hasn't experienced a war on its soil in almost 80 years now. Or technically 200 years since I don't think Hawaii was ratified yet. The idea barely registers as possible to happen.

With good reason.

by lisper 2y ago

With good reason.

Carter deregulated more than Raygun. Raygun introduced more gun regulations than Carter. Both parties are worse than the other on the issues they promise to be better on. It's almost like it's a big club that you're not a member of.

lisper 2y ago
That may be, but that doesn't make them the same.
HaZeust 2y ago
>"Raygun introduced more gun regulations than Carter" People forget this, Reagan literally started the charter and expectations for the modern gun control movement just because of Black Panther advancements and protests in the street with firearms.
- trhway 2y ago
  He got scared of their right to carry arms back then as a CA governor and started the gun control there.
  - acdha 2y ago
    Prior to the NRA’s big push in the late seventies, gun control as a concept was uncontroversial as the first gun control laws dated back to the earliest days of the country. Reagan expanding coverage due to the Black Panthers was in line with earlier precedent (after Kennedy was assassinated, during WWII, during the Mob / prohibition era, etc.).
    - HaZeust 2y ago
      A bit more nuanced than that; the NRA didn’t become the hardline defender of minimal gun regs until its 1977 leadership shift. Reagan’s 1967 Mulford Act as Governor targeted the Black Panthers, and then he signed 1986 FOPA as president, which relaxed some rules but banned new machine guns. It was a broad compromise package from the start.
      - acdha 2y ago
        My focus was really the hardline individual right stance: I know people who left the NRA over that because they were sportsmen or retired military who thought it was quite reasonable to have civilian restrictions, especially mental / proficiency restrictions.
Aunche 2y ago
> Carter deregulated more than Raygun. Raygun introduced more gun regulations than Carter Both these ignore a lot of context. Carter had to do something about stagflation. Deregulation that promotes competition and appointing Volcker to the Fed aren't directly eroding worker's rights like Reagan's solution of union busting. Reagan signed the machine gun ban as part of an amendment to pass the Firearms Owners' Protection Act that was endorsed by the NRA. > It's almost like it's a big club that you're not a member of. Agreed, but not in the way that you're thinking of. The "big club" is capable of understanding nuance and making dispassionate decisions (or at least their can hire people who can do that on their behalf). Regular voters react to emotional sound bites and outsource their critical thinking to those in the "big club" who superficially align with their worldview.

techdmn 2y ago

I like to jokingly argue that the primary difference between Democrats and Republicans is disagreement on whether it's more important to subsidize large corporations directly or through tax policy. In reality I think there is a lot of daylight between the parties on social issues that do not affect current power structures. Abortion, trans rights, women's rights, gay marriage, religion in public schools, etc: Tons of difference. Funding genocide, subsidising the fossil fuel industry, maintaining a for-profit healthcare system, opposing ranked choice or instant run-off voting, keeping third parties out, refusing to enforce anti-trust law, refusing to raise the minimum wage, no accountability for police brutality, etc: Broad bipartisan support.

lisper 2y ago
> Tons of difference. QED.
- llm_trw 2y ago
  https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRQSONuHQL9qc4w3ZR2AeFQHP02kivX4BWqV899xw62Sn4U8GPHHxpBrOef&s=10 https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRQSONu... Or https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSaFnDHpW4azH19pkAtI8vAsqBMnhv73tjx5oksvgxFcBdDVViR_MgbUl87&s=10 https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSaFnDH... What choices we have. Replace the Israeli flag with the US one when we invade someone else again.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
I'll resist the urge to combat some of your specific points and focus on the forest. I think there's simply a difference between funds going towards foreign policy, and ones that basically deny you autonomy. America is highly individualistic, but that's also just human nature. Many will care more about their groceries increasing by $10 a month than a billion dollars going towards a war somewhere else. Also helps that America hasn't experienced a war on its soil in almost 80 years now. Or technically 200 years since I don't think Hawaii was ratified yet. The idea barely registers as possible to happen.