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

politics

19089 readers
3836 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
[–] kitnaht@lemmy.world 101 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (7 children)

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 17 points 3 months 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 3 months ago (7 children)
[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 50 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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 3 months ago

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

[–] Jackfinished@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months 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 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] RazorsLedge@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's quite a gun fantasy you have.

[–] BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] nomous@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months 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 3 months ago

Fighting fascists.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee 10 points 3 months ago

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

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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 3 months ago (1 children)

The AR isnt the only rifle that exists.

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Yes I'm aware of this.

[–] Kaboom@reddthat.com 8 points 3 months ago

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

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 months 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 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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 3 months 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 3 months ago (1 children)

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 3 months ago

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

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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 3 months ago

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