this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
292 points (94.0% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2315 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] OpenPassageways@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I've never heard a single politician propose banning guns. I've only ever heard Republican pundits SAY that Democrats want to take away your guns.

Sensible gun regulation can be enacted without banning all guns. It's only the extreme right that interprets the 2nd amendment as disallowing ANY regulations.

The right uses the 2nd amendment to cut off ANY discussion of gun reforms, and the eventual result COULD be that the 2nd amendment is eliminated using the methods you described, since it could be seen as the only way to enact sensible restrictions.

I don't want to lose the second amendment, do you? I'd rather see sensible regulations put in place while still largely retaining the right to bear arms. If those of us who are interested in gun ownership fight tooth-and-nail against ANY regulations, then it will make efforts to eliminate gun ownership entirely more likely to eventually succeed.

I'd prefer be part of the conversation to determine where the right line is on gun rights, rather than trying to cut off the conversation entirely by invoking the 2nd amendment.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Beto O'Rourke is probably the most notable:

https://youtu.be/lMVhL6OOuR0

Biden too:

https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/

Which has since been taken offline and now has the best 404 ever... CNN archived parts of it here:

https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_b584f336-923d-49d9-98c5-d82883116eb4

"Along with banning the "manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines," Biden's plan includes mandating that people who own assault weapons either sell theirs to the federal government or properly register them with the authorities."

[–] OpenPassageways@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Of course I'm aware of the calls for banning assault weapons and that we had an assault weapon ban for many years. Certainly a reasonable discussion should be had about where the line is. I'm not sure whether I agree with the assault weapon bans or whether they have a good classification, but either way they aren't calling for banning ALL guns, they're calling for banning certain types of guns.

This just proves my point that the 2A crowd is shooting themselves in the foot by not being willing to discuss reasonable reforms.

If you insist that the 2A allows you to have a gun that can shoot up a football stadium, then people are eventually just going to eliminate the 2A altogether, which would be harmful IMO.

Instead we should acknowledge that there IS room for sensible reforms. For example, people should not be able to have nuclear missiles. Seems like common sense to me, maybe that's a good place to start? Maybe there we can work our way down through artillery and figure out where the line is on guns that can shoot up massive crowds of people.

Instead of insisting that a sentence written hundreds of years ago means you can do whatever you want with no restrictions, maybe come up with a reasonable argument as to why it is important for our democracy for you to bear those particular arms.

Also, if you're going to take on the tyrannical government, you'd probably need those nuclear missiles.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

they aren't calling for banning ALL guns, they're calling for banning certain types of guns.

From a rights oriented perspective "that's how it starts". Especially for the folks online calling for an Australia style ban.

people are eventually just going to eliminate the 2A altogether, which would be harmful IMO.

That would require a new amendment and that's just not possible given the current governmental dysfunction. You'd have to start by getting 290 votes in the House, the same folks who needed 15 tries to get the 218 votes needed to decide who their own leader would be. :(

Instead of insisting that a sentence written hundreds of years ago means you can do whatever you want with no restrictions, maybe come up with a reasonable argument as to why it is important for our democracy for you to bear those particular arms.

People confuse semi-automatic rifles for fully automatic rifles. I was uneducated myself, until I went out and bought an AR-15 myself and ran through a training class with it. I felt I needed that experience to speak intelligently about it.

Like any other semi-automatic, it fires one time every time you pull the trigger. It's not dramatically different from other kinds of rifles, other than it automatically ejects the shell and loads the next round instead of the shooter having to do it manually with a lever, pump or bolt.

But man, have you SEEN some of those non semi-auto shooters?

Pump:

https://youtube.com/shorts/TUSjkwGopdw

Bolt:

https://youtube.com/shorts/I5P7qlix-hU

Lever:
https://youtube.com/shorts/CHJEwLtmLXw