this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
227 points (99.6% liked)

politics

19107 readers
2656 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
 

Summary

White supremacist Avi Rachlin used racist slurs during a Michigan Senate committee hearing, claiming proposed gun legislation unfairly targets white people while suggesting lawmakers focus on Black communities in Detroit.

Representing the extremist group “Groypers for America,” Rachlin falsely argued the bill was retaliation against white Trump supporters.

His comments, including the use of the N-word, were condemned by lawmakers, with Sen. Jim Runestad calling the remarks inappropriate.

The committee ultimately advanced the bill, which would expand the ban on firearms in Michigan’s Capitol, initially requested after armed protests in 2020.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ThePantser@lemmy.world 27 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

White person from MI here. I don't want anyone to have easy access to guns, especially white people. And I don't want them to be allowed where peaceful protests happen. Armed protestors are not protesting they are intimidating.

[–] abigscaryhobo@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

I do wonder if there is some value in like a "protestor defense volunteer". Like a group that their job is just to protect the people in protesting areas, regardless of affiliation or reason. Can't call it a problem if everyone gets defended while exercising their rights, and then protestors don't have a reason to bring guns.

Edit: I guess that would normally just be the police?