The News Thread

[The Ozzman]

No, those who own them will just hide them away in closets or basements and use the legal <10 round magazines that are still legal.

This does not negate the fact that the law says they are a felon for merely possessing these magazines

Alex Jones

The rally cry for the ivory tower pretentiousness that is bred in the East Coast educated for people who want to ignore reality. I hope you hang yourself from it someday.

You're naive for thinking the government's gonna come kicking down doors...

Already happening:

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-aa-shooting-20181105-story.html

'But Red Flag laws are protecting citizens!' says the bootlicking Fascist police state supporter

 

[Einherjar86]

ivory tower pretentiousness

Ah, the rallying cry for the homegrown folk wisdom of the American heartland. I hope you hang yourself from that someday.

 

[The Ozzman]

Ah, the rallying cry for the homegrown folk wisdom of the American heartland. I hope you hang yourself from that someday.

I can't annoy you if I do that but I'm also not a farmboy.

 

[The Ozzman]

TIL that Cincinnati, OH is considered the American heartland

 

[Dak]

You're naive for thinking the government's gonna come kicking down doors to confiscate high capacity magazines and prosecute people for having them. No, those who own them will just hide them away in closets or basements and use the legal <10 round magazines that are still legal. The only way someone will get in trouble for this is if they get caught doing something stupid with them.

So what's the point of the law then if the only way someone gets caught is if they are doing something else that's already illegal?

They carry handguns for that, and it's easy to find <10 round handguns.

Yeah, larger caliber handguns (eg, .45ACP) often come with 8 round magazines. I guess that's what they want people to buy?

 

[Einherjar86]

So what's the point of the law then if the only way someone gets caught is if they are doing something else that's already illegal?

To restrict the buying and selling, obviously. Although it won't work, people will just buy/sell them among one another.

Yeah, larger caliber handguns (eg, .45ACP) often come with 8 round magazines. I guess that's what they want people to buy?

I wouldn't know (inb4 "so you admit you don't know what you're talking about").

My main point of criticism is that we're talking about a Breitbart article, which is transparent jet fuel for national outrage and paranoia. The right-wing media quite often blows the scope of firearm regulations way out of proportion.

Since we're entertaining fantasies, I'll go ahead and cite personal experience. My hometown is a small little place outside Buffalo NY (NY, yes), and my family's business is in an even smaller village next to that town. People there complain about gun laws all the damn time, yet they all have them (guns, that is), and they have lots of them. No one's getting rid of them, and I don't want them to get rid of them. They have them, it's fine. There's no federal agency coming to break down their doors and take them. They're upset because it's something to be upset about and accuse the left of tyranny.

 

[Dak]

To restrict the buying and selling, obviously. Although it won't work, people will just buy/sell them among one another.

So why not ban the sale and transfer? Why make possession a felony?

Separately, why have unenforced or unenforceable laws on the books?

There's no federal agency coming to break down their doors and take them. They're upset because it's something to be upset about and accuse the left of tyranny.

There's more to tyranny than active SWAT teams. There's a term from the neoreactionary theory that describes the political environment that spawns this type of legislation: anarcho-tyranny - Criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, with concomitant impotence regarding or support for truly criminal activity. It's a felony in NJ to own a standard piece of equipment (not aftermarket) legally purchasable nationally in most cases. Meanwhile:

https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/09/nj_gangs_are_evolving_experts_say_theyre_recruitin.html
https://patch.com/new-jersey/newarknj/166-arrested-massive-new-jersey-gang-fugitive-bust
http://nj1015.com/gangs-of-new-jersey-investigator-says-theyre-in-all-21-counties/

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

But of course if you criminalize [insert anything] "they'll just get it on the black market."

fixed

 

[Einherjar86]

So why not ban the sale and transfer? Why make possession a felony?

I assume it's more difficult to pass something that goes after distributors.

Separately, why have unenforced or unenforceable laws on the books?

Because it looks like something's getting done.

There's more to tyranny than active SWAT teams. There's a term from the neoreactionary theory that describes the political environment that spawns this type of legislation: anarcho-tyranny - Criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, with concomitant impotence regarding or support for truly criminal activity.

I don't really know what to say. There's so much embedded in this comment that would require essays to unpack.

What you're describing are just basic social functions that have been around for centuries. It's not anarchist or tyrannical; it's merely social forms and governance struggling to organize itself. And there's no disregard for criminal activity (or support lol), criminal activity simply will always exist.

Privacy isn't a stable principle; it's something that societies are always in debate over. When one version of privacy changes, the traditionalists clamor that it's unlawful.

EDIT: don't mistake me for thinking there's no such thing as invasion of privacy; I simply think it depends on how society defines and values the individual. I would not be pleased if I knew my home was under constant surveillance, but that's because I've been acculturated to value my privacy, and our social/personal existences depend on that. If we can't imagine that humans might develop new sets of values, then we've really given up on the idea of social evolution.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

my problem with this new law
is really just the weird way that they defined "high-capacity"
you hear "high-capacity" and i think of those specific magazines where the number of bullets in it is way the fuck higher [or maybe even just a little higher] than the "standard-capacity" of the magazine that a particular model of gun holds

so, if the standard magazine holds more than 10 bullets, [almost every freaking gun on the market] you should be able to have that standard-sized magazine
when people try to ban "high-capacity" magazines, it usually sounds like someone trying to ban those "extended-clips" where your [insert gun model here] is loaded with way the fuck more more bullets than the [same model] gun that someone else is holding

banning those extended clip things makes sense, but banning "any clip holding more than X-number of bullets" is stupid
and completely ludicrous because the number "10" is too freaking low

if you raised the number 10 up to the number 20, the law might make sense

 

[Dak]

I assume it's more difficult to pass something that goes after distributors.

Because it looks like something's getting done.

It's much easier to go after distributors - they are already completely documented. But it requires actual effort because they are already documented. Instead, a law is passed which is not followed up because it cannot be realistically followed up, backs are patted, and then the bureaucratic bulldozer slowly, randomly steamrolls helpless individuals. America, fuck yeah.

I don't really know what to say. There's so much embedded in this comment that would require essays to unpack.

What you're describing are just basic social functions that have been around for centuries. It's not anarchist or tyrannical; it's merely social forms and governance struggling to organize itself. And there's no disregard for criminal activity (or support lol), criminal activity simply will always exist.

Privacy isn't a stable principle; it's something that societies are always in debate over. When one version of privacy changes, the traditionalists clamor that it's unlawful.

EDIT: don't mistake me for thinking there's no such thing as invasion of privacy; I simply think it depends on how society defines and values the individual. I would not be pleased if I knew my home was under constant surveillance, but that's because I've been acculturated to value my privacy, and our social/personal existences depend on that. If we can't imagine that humans might develop new sets of values, then we've really given up on the idea of social evolution.

Not all of them are basic, and by support I didn't necessarily mean explicit support (although there is arguably some of that). I think people will continue to be fine with increasing surveillance as long as the state is willing to come down hard on actual crime. Instead we have statements like "criminal activity will always exist", a sholdershrug to the innercity warzones - providing implicit support. This shouldershrug, at the bureaucratic level, is the problem - supported by a mix between a shouldershrug in the constituency and (im)moral outrage whenever there's a crackdown on inevitably "marginalized" groups. Singapore is an example of what can happen when governance is guided by efficacy rather than feelz. Extreme levels of "Broken window" policing and intense surveillance. Of course, there's also a distinct lack of Arabs, Africans, and South/Central Americans, so that probably doesn't hurt either.

https://alvinology.com/2018/01/24/c...rime-rate-can-leave-belongings-public-places/
https://www.internations.org/singap...urity/safety-law-and-crime-in-singapore-16092
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/16/sin...so-low-that-many-shops-dont-even-lock-up.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

No, I didn't--because it's fucking Breitbart.

The nerve of you to say this when 99% of your links are from the liberal propaganda machine.

I hope you hang yourself from that someday.

Classy. You're turning into a Mort.

 

[rms]

the complaint in buffalo regarding guns is how lengthy and bureaucratic the process is, which is coming off as an indirect way to restrict gun ownership -- by lulling them into forgetting.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

High capacity magazines have been banned(at least buying and selling) in California for almost 20 years now.

 

[Einherjar86]

Classy. You're turning into a Mort.

I was literally repeating Ozzman's phrase.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

oh my mistake. I don't read through most of that plebs posts.

 

[Einherjar86]

Are 99% of my links really from liberal propaganda machines? I tend to avoid HuffPost, Salon, etc. I may have shared things from Vox now and then. I almost never post things from NYT or WaPo because they're behind paywalls, although I do read them.

The most recent thing I posted was from Aeon, which is a nonpartisan platform. Hell, one of its most recent pieces was in defense of Francis Fukuyama. Prior to that, I think I shared a link from Quanta in the weird science thread.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

ok i might have been exaggerating by saying 99% but im fairly sure you've posted numerous articles from HuffPo, Salon, WashPo etc.

And while Breitbart does have some good contributors and articles and do indeed focus on stories that tend to get washed away and ignored by the mainstream media(which btw is indeed 99% leftist and is the largest part of that propaganda machine) .. they also have turned into a shitstorm lately by posting some truly cringworthy stuff(some that have nothing to do with politics). Andrew is probably rolling in his grave right now.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

regardless though, most of the articles/sources/links that you post here are indeed written be people who tend to lean left and share your opinions and viewpoints on said topics, even if they're not from those bullshit sites we mentioned.

 

[Einherjar86]

Wouldn't you know it that I used to read right-wing material and agree with a lot of it? I know you think I've been corrupted or brainwashed by the liberal left, but in fact I see it as a legitimate change in perspective. I'm familiar with a lot of right-wing arguments, and have no desire to go back to them.

Also, I'm exposed to right-wing opinions every time I visit my hometown, or family in Virginia or the Carolinas. It's not as though I'm cut off from it. I'm dealing with it all the time.