It's actually worse than just "virtue signaling". It sends a political hat-trick of bad to the right side of the political spectrum: It curtails real freedom, lectures condescendingly, and proportionally doesn't actually help.
It reminds me of some of the extreme positions the NRA has taken. Like talking about arming all teachers in response to school shootings. Nobody thinks that's a good idea, whatever you think about gun rights.
I'm realizing that positions like that, or this straw thing... the ideas are successful with groups because they're impractical and dumb. It's about exhibiting group fealty. I'm so devoted, I'll say things that any non-member thinks are ridiculous. It's like burning the boats behind you when you land on shore.
I don't think arming teachers is a good idea but I do know people that literally do. And Betsy DeVos has apparently been floating the idea of using federal funding to purchase those guns. [1]
On the flip side, I've seen an op-ed in NYT or Washington Post (I don't recall) calling for the repeal of the second amendment - and I can't imagine how incredibly stupid the person making that must be. It will never happen and yet it plays exactly into the "Obama wants to take our guns"-type arguments. Of course, that author isn't actually stupid, they just aren't motivated by gun control legislation but rather by getting themselves attention.
It was in the NYT and it was by Justice John Paul Stevens [1]. I don't think it's stupid and certainly doesn't seem like a ploy for attention.
Repealing the second amendment does not mean banning firearms altogether. Writing a new amendment with better scope might be an option, or relying on congress to enact sensible limits might also be an option. But I do agree with you that such an amendment would be received as "[the left] wants to take our guns." That's the challenge of politics: you have to meet that criticism head-on and be clear about what sort of policies would get changed. This is no different from debating critics of socialized medicine who quickly throw up their hands and say "Death Panels!"
You're probably right given who it was that it wasn't a call for attention. However, the more respectable, more established someone is, the worse it makes this. It's hard to brush off the claims that the left wants to take away their guns when it's not just a bizarre fringe. I do think this is qualitatively different from arguing for socialized medicine - in this analogy that would be equivalent to talking about increased mandatory background checks, increasing the ability of police to seize guns, etc. The analog of arguing for repealing the second amendment would be to actually propose making things called "death panels."
I know that the slightest thing gets misconstrued by the other side (regardless of what side) but you don't have to serve it to them on a silver platter!
>> Nobody thinks that's a good idea, whatever you think about gun rights.
I am a gun rights supporter, very extreme one as I believe all gun laws on the books today are clearly violations of the pain reading of the 2nd amendment, any federal gun laws would require the passage of a constitutional amendment.
I also support the idea that any teacher that has the desire to be armed for their own defense and the defense of others should be allowed to be under the law. No teacher should be forced to carry as a condition of their job however no teacher should be prevented from it by law either.
That is the "extreme" NRA position you believe no one thinks is a good idea, but in fact is widely supported in libertarian circles, as well as actual gun rights circles.
If you believe "no one" supports it then I would question if you exist in a echo chamber
I don't want to debate the actual particulars here but it's peculiar that you use the word 'extreme' to describe your point of view and then suggest that the parent's use of the word 'extreme' is unfounded. Your post appears to contradict itself.
> I am a gun rights supporter, very extreme one ...
> That is the "extreme" NRA position you believe no one thinks is a good idea ...
You have to tailor the message to the audience. In my family/original community (before moving out west), I was considered 'moderate' at best on firearms. For this crowd and the West Coast in general, I (like GP) am considered 'extreme'. Case in point - I don't think it's a terrible idea to arm the teachers _who want to arm themselves_. Forcing teachers who don't want to carry to do so is incredibly short-sighted and dangerous. However, there's a non-trivial number of teachers (generally far away from the Left Coast political enclaves) that very much would like to carry, but are hamstrung by federal law. Those are the ones I believe we should allow to carry, IF the desire is there. Just my $0.02.
The NRA positions itself as a civil rights organization, but is really a trade group. The NRA has been pushing these extreme positions with their conservative politician pals because guns were an old man thing that was dying in the 90s. Now it’s one of the three legs of the conservative stool (taxes, abortion, guns)
If you read an old copy of the American Rifleman (nra magazine), it was a very different agenda, mostly focused on hunting and skills. Problem is that hunting is a dying sport... and the gun industry could not and cannot survive in its old form.
Enter the rise of fringe politics and talk radio, where 24/7 paranoia has convinced a generation that they need to stockpile guns. The fact that people who are otherwise intelligent are advocating arming teachers and pushing concealed carry shows how effective this type of marketing is.
People like me left the NRA because they focused too much on hunting.
We want them to focus less on hunting and more on civil rights, I am not a hunter. I do not own guns for hunting. I want an organization that will stand of for my right to own a gun, not to hunt
I respect where you’re coming from, but your position is sowing the seeds to destroy the rights that you care deeply about.
Eventually, some group of people will decide to take up armed insurrection, and that will be the (tragic) end to the issue. The urban population doesn’t get any of the culture around guns at all, and their vision of freedom and independence just doesn’t line up with yours.
Their vision of freedom and independence is not freedom or independence
"Urban" aka liberal culture openly advocates surrendering all liberties for security and safety. Surrendering all libertarians to achieve "social justice". etc
From free speech, to the ability to engage is commerce the "urban" culture believes everything should be regulated, controlled, and approved by a central authority
>>Eventually, some group of people will decide to take up armed insurrection,
Unlikely, the most likely scenario is that the "urban" culture will attempt to use people with guns they employ to violently seize the guns from people they do not employ.
I understand that my view on the constitution is extreme, I admit that, even in gun right circles my position on the constitutionality of gun laws are viewed as extreme as most gun rights advocates believe under the current legal foundation the government does have the authority to regulate things like Automatic weapons where I believe they lack this constitutional authority. That is the extreme position.
However The position the NRA has on teachers and self defense is not in fact an extreme one at all in gun rights circles
It feels like you’re strongly supporting his closing point: the ideas are successful with groups because they're impractical and dumb. It's about exhibiting group fealty. I'm so devoted, I'll say things that any non-member thinks are ridiculous. It's like burning the boats behind you when you land on shore.
For the 99.9% who don’t define themselves through group membership as whatever version of libertarian you are, and out ideology far above practicality it’s nuts. What you’re saying however does strongly proclaim your membership in that group, sort of like a communist carrying around a little red book. The fact that it turns off everyone else is a bonus proving your devotion.
>>What you’re saying however does strongly proclaim your membership in that group,
I did not really proclaim my membership in either group I mention, I stated what the opinions of people in those groups are
This was done not "define myself through group membership" but to refute the position that "no one" or very few people support such a position.
HN has a echo problem, most people on this site lean in a single political direction, and share a singular political view, that of the Silicon Valley left..
The point of my comment was that the entire nation does not in fact share they view and to believe "no one" shares the "extreme views" of the NRA highlights nicely that echo chamber
HN has a echo problem, most people on this site lean in a single political direction, and share a singular political view, that of the Silicon Valley left.
I’m neither in SV, nor am I enough of dove to be “Left” in any reasonable measure. I object to the American characterization of politics as a binary “L/R” formulation. I’m hawkish on defense, anti-communist, anti-fascist, pro-gun, pro gun control, pro universal healthcare, I’m for calling people whatever pronoun they prefer and against being told to stop using gendered pronouns in general. I’m pro-Israel, but I’m not Islamophobic. Im pro-immigration, but not for 100% freedom of movement, and honestly I don’t entirely know what the balance should be. I accept that there are a lot of problems I don’t have good answers to.
I’m not part of anyone’s echo chamber, because sooner or later one of my views sees me excommunicated from either of the rigid American political poles. You seem to be arguing that such poles don’t exist, America has two parties with any power and has for decades and decades. Both parties are to the Right of most of Europe, even today, and both parties are incredibly similar to an outside view unless you talk about guns or abortion.
In my limited experience here, the most dominant ideologies seem to be some bastardized version of libertarianism, and whatever you call the desire to get rich and retire early. Left and Right don’t seem to enter into it as much as the desire for personal advancement, and a general sense that people here are so smart that given the right conditions they can solve anything, even if they don’t understand the problem.
The "straw laws" are tailor made for a backlash.