Gun control laws do not apply to Native American reservations

[Nosferatu]

The Res where I spent much of my youth was a place where you didn't call residents "Indians" unless you wanted teeth removed from your head.

However, the Res near my current home is a place where you don't call them "Natives" unless you want teeth knocked out of your head.

Hopefully those dentures are working out for ya.

 

[clanhanson]

That's nice but what does that have to do with anything save to be inflamatory?

How is that inflammatory? It was a response to a post stating that it's best to call folks by the cultural name they prefer. I experienced that firsthand... have you ever heard of cultural identity?

If a tribe likes being called Indians, call them Indians. If they prefer Native, stick with that (especially if they're Sioux or Blackfoot, Lakota are more chill).

 

[clanhanson]

Hopefully those dentures are working out for ya.

 

[clanhanson]

Hopefully those dentures are working out for ya.

Can't hit what you can't see, float like a butterfly sting like a bee!

 

[Spitpatch]

The exercise of trying to find "correct" language ("Indian", "Native American", "Indigenous Person") will encounter a root cause of difficulty between a White European world view and that of native cultures that has yet to be reconciled.

White European culture operates on hierarchy. Nearly immutable. Superiors make decisions that subordinates obey.

Such is often completely foreign to Native Peoples. Chiefs have never made anybody do anything.

...and nobody's gonna tell any certain group how they should like to be called.

 

[Flopsweat]

That's nice but what does that have to do with anything save to be inflamatory?

That was probably the whole point. It's kind of his thing.

 

[clanhanson]

That was probably the whole point. It's kind of his thing.

.

 

[BARMAN]

The way I always thought this worked is that reservations were like invisible states, but they are lesser states. They are under federal authority, so all federal laws apply to them (which would include specific exemptions in federal law that apply exclusively to them), but state law mostly does not apply to them, except where the feds says it does, of which I am lead to believe there are many examples but have no idea how to verify (e.g. fireworks sales laws in California[?])

Another weird wrinkle is that First Nations governments are treated as a semi-foreign internal entity. They are not allowed to engage in legally binding international agreements, and are wholly under the federal government in that regard, but they are allowed to negotiate with the federal government as if they were a foreign state, including sign treaties. But this does not apply to their land, which is a grant to them and is held (and owned) by the federal government itself.

The whole arrangement is just weird, and I am not sure there are many people who really understand how it all works. I am of the opinion that we should probably reevaluate the whole thing, seeing is how every single person in question is a full fledged U.S. citizen and really does not need any special distinction, but I keep hearing the argument that if they lose their "First Nation" status that will kill their entire culture.

Culture as a whole is being killed.