658
submitted 2 years ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] kitnaht@lemmy.world 101 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Bernie had this right. Despite being pretty progressive, he wasn't for outlawing semiautomatic firearms because they were black and looked scary. He believed that the right to arms was justified. This "AR Ban" is a great way to lose a lot of independents, and even some hard D voters like myself. There are a lot of dems who carry, and a lot of them who own the very firearms he wants to ban.

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago

I had a friend that said he only voted for Trump in 2016 cause he felt like he needed somebody to protect his rights to own a gun. This guy that “protected” host rights to own a fun also did massive amounts of damage to other people rights.

I wish Dems would quit talking about guns. It’s a mistake.

[-] sfxrlz@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago
[-] rayyy@lemmy.world 50 points 2 years ago

Actually that is a good question. You don't need an AR-15 because there are non-AR semi-automatic rifles that will do exactly the same thing but aren't viewed as bad-ass. (BTW, auto-loading rifles have been around since 1883.) The AR-15 is a civilian semi-automatic and the basis of the M-16, so larpers can fulfill their G.I. Joe fantasies and a cuddle them when they are told to fear something by Fox.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 years ago

The AR platform is also just useful in general, which is why it's become so popular.

[-] Jackfinished@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

Need? I don't but I wanted one so here we are. AR ban is stupid will only help conservatives in the election. I'm not against gun control legislation that will actually do good.

[-] ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 15 points 2 years ago

So when shit hits the fan I can "borrow" 5.56 ammo from the military.

[-] RazorsLedge@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

That's quite a gun fantasy you have.

[-] BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

Can't run up a flight of stairs, but ready to take on the us military

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago
[-] nomous@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

Or Vietnam, or the Revolutionary War for that matter.

These idiots will take every gun you have right before Hitler v2 seizes power, it's wild.

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

Fighting fascists.

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago

Why do you need the freedom of speech to write this comment?

[-] Psythik@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Have you ever fired one before? They are way more accurate than a handgun. You could be 5ft away from someone with a handgun and still miss (especially in a high adrenaline situation). It's considerably more difficult to miss with an AR.

[-] rekorse@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

The AR isnt the only rifle that exists.

[-] Psythik@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Yes I'm aware of this.

[-] Kaboom@reddthat.com 8 points 2 years ago

The AR isnt special. So why are they going after ARs specifically?

[-] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 years ago

As an independent, I could care less about this sort of thing. I see it as virtue signaling to staunch democrats. It won't win him a single vote, since his entire platform has always been about being a super traditional Democrat.

We need new traditions, not rehashing of old, tired trades against things like specific types of guns and obesity.

[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

The next would be assasin will be forced to use a weapon appropriate for distance killing. They would be more likely to succeed.

[-] JamesTBagg@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

The failed Trump shooter used a rifle completely appropriate for the distance. He was just a "comically bad" shooter, according to acquaintances.

[-] Drusas@kbin.run 11 points 2 years ago

He wasn't against outlawing them because they looked scary implies that he was in favor of outlawing them because they looked scary.

I think you mean he was against outlawing them because they looked scary.

[-] kitnaht@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

If you didn't reply within 14 seconds of me correcting my post, yeah. That's what I corrected it to.

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 25 points 2 years ago

ANSWER FOR YOUR 14 SECOND CRIMES

[-] valkyre09@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

14 seconds in the dungeon seems only fair

[-] whostosay@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

He's not gonna do shit, he's just gonna continue to bark at one of the symptoms of the problem.

[-] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

this right here folks. its a wedge issue and it doesnt solve the real problems

this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
658 points (94.3% liked)

politics

31376 readers
2699 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS