Biden says it’s ‘time to outlaw’ AR-15 after Trump assassination attempt
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-shooting-biden-assault-weapons-ar15-b2580981.htmlOpen linkView original on lemmy.world660
Comments455https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-shooting-biden-assault-weapons-ar15-b2580981.htmlOpen linkView original on lemmy.world
Biden is doing this to drive a wedge into Republicans. The gun nuts and the ones that don't care about guns will have differing opinions because now gun violence affects them directly. It's really smart.
Biden looks presidential. Trump has three choices:
Come out against AR-15s, for obvious reasons. This makes gun nuts less likely to vote for him.
Come out in favor of AR-15s. He looks insane to Republicans who don't care about guns.
Trump ignores the issue or waffles and looks unpresidential.
Number 3 is most likely. Of course the correct answer is number 4: propose a competing policy that is nuanced. But that's impossible for trump.
How many Republicans don't care about guns?
The ones that are republicans for tax purposes.
Is that enough to matter? And is this issue enough for them to change their vote, given the tax stuff? All the other shit Trump does certainly doesn’t matter.
The richest places in America are pretty solidly blue. A lot of rich people like good public schools and colleges, clean water, the arts, etc. and understand that taxes and charity are how those things are paid for.
Other rich people like gated communities and stopped reading books^1^ when someone stopped assigning them. They’re the Republican rich people.
^1^ Some will read a book about war or some shitty airport bookstore thing that’s 80% out-of-context quotes about how to be a leader.
Rich people don't give a fuck about public schools, lmao, they send their kids to private ones.
Private schools often suck. Rich people aren’t smarter. They just have more money. There’s plenty of districts where the best public high school is way better than whatever private schools exist. Half the private schools are for weird religious groups or kids who got expelled.
There’s almost always good public schools in cities. That’s why there’s always loopholes that allow rich people’s kids to go to them.
And in colleges, Harvard isn’t better than UC-Berkeley or the honors programs at most state flagship institutions. It’s just older. (There have been studies that compared students who got into an Ivy League school and ultimately chose a public flagship and the Ivy grads only did better in the first few years after graduation. But then the public flagship attendees caught up.)
I wonder how many of those hedge fund billionaires down on Wall Street are Democrats. I doubt that it’s many of them. Bankers? Nah. Media and Telcom? Not likely. They’re all based in NYC, the bluest of the blue cities.
They all like tax cuts and deregulation. Trump is the one who’s promising that, whereas Biden promised and already delivered more of both to them all.
I don’t have any desire to defend hedge fund or VC billionaires so I’ll concede the point. There’s a reason San Francisco has NIMBY policies and New York City can’t elect mayors for shit.
Yeah, because the people who own all of the businesses and real estate constantly battle those who work at the businesses and live in all that real estate, which just goes to show what a fucked up and unbalanced role money plays in our so-called democracy.
Now you're just making things up. You can't just say "nah, not likely" and prove anything. It's a lack of effort that shows you don't have evidence.
NYC is a "blue city" (whatever that means) because of these professionals. The actual working class people in NYC make up a lot of the conservatives. That's why cities are more liberal: because they have more educated people. Those people work in banking or media; they're not all artists or plumbers or something.
Hilarious. OK, where’s your evidence, then?
EVERY group is big enough to matter. Reminder that the last two elections were determined by around 10,000 votes.
Those republicans already know he's fucking crazy and they don't give a fuck what his stance is on guns.
At this point Donald Trump could build a shrine to and start worshipping Obama as a God.... It won't affect anything.
And the ones that are Republicans to fuck over everyone but the rich. They'd definitely prefer "poor folk" didn't have guns at all.
And who don't give a shit either way about guns to make any effect
Lots of them. Do you know any Republicans? None of them care about issues that don't affect them and their families. Even other "conservative" issues. They are not driven by policy.
Only Republicans with guns care about guns. And only 50% of Republicans have guns.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx
They don't care about each other. Liberals care about what other liberals think. Stop thinking like someone who cares about policy.
I've had to explain this to a lot of people who naturally assume that any organization of people will be organized around some kind of shared values. Most of the time that's true, but not for Republicans.
Republicans are just a mish mash of obsessive single-issue voters, and by in large they just don't care about the other single issues that their fellow party members are going on about.
At the head of the Republican party it's people who want to minimize their tax burden, eliminate regulations on corporations, and cannibalize as much of the US government as they can into for-profit institutions. You could say that's three issues instead of one, but the overarching theme is to cater to personal greed, no matter the harm to society. These are the ones who are primarily pulling the strings in the party, at least historically.
Just below them is the military industrial complex and gun manufacturers who just want to sell guns no matter the harm to society. They like to rile up 2A fanatics with conspiracy theories that the government is out to steal all their guns so they'll be defenseless, paving the way for King Biden to ascend to his throne. The industry only cares about selling guns and the fanatics only care about having guns, and neither care about any kind of harm to society.
Then there's the radical Christians whose obsessions cover an eclectic mix of social reactionary positions and literal death cult worship (e.g. Christians who give absolute support to genocide in Palestine because they think Israel's conquest is a crucial step towards the rapture, which they believe is imminent). Broadly speaking the people in this group just want to hoist their religious doctrines onto everyone they can by any means available and no matter the harm it causes to society. They literally only care about "God's Kingdom" in the afterlife.
Then there's people who just lack any capacity for adaptation or learning. Their obsession is to feel like things are staying the same, or even reverting back to a past that they only know how to view through rose tinted glasses. They can't be bothered to comprehend the problems we're facing as a society or how the past was not the idyllic utopia that they mistakenly remember, nor can the old way of doing things sustain a growing and transforming society. These people just want to exist in comforting ignorance by feeling like they get to remain in familiar surroundings, no matter the harm to society.
There's really only one thing that truly unites them: Each one wants one specific thing no matter the harm to society, and that one specific thing that they each want IS HARMFUL to society. But they work well together because none of them care about the harm being caused by any of the others, and as long as they all tow the same line, each one gets what they want.
I've never met any Republicans that were pro-gun-bans. I really don't believe you'll be able to find a single one either.
This is dumb as fuck timing by Biden, but I'm sure he can't help himself because he's been super anti-gun for decades so it's probably just like a reflex at this point for him to to off about banning guns after a shooting.
Trump, for one
How many of them will stay home or change their vote because the head of the party they're still a part of despite all the gun nuts continues acting like a gun nut?
If Biden is trying to use guns as a wedge issue for Republicans, he's the person we saw at the debate all the time.
Not a lot but every wedge is probably worth it
The ones that are antiabortion or evangelicals who don't own guns. GOP has the most gun owners but its not even like half their voters. Vocal minorities is all it is.
The only issue the GOP is actually united on right now is how they don't like democrats.
Gun control, especially banning the most popular and utilitarian platform, is a massive political loser. This is incredibly poor timing for a struggling campaign.
What does that mean?
Presumably, “good” in most situations, with extensibility for specialized configurations that are both common and accessible.
The AR platform is highly customizable for different chamberings, sizes, attachments etc.
People who are "into guns" usually have at least one pistol or rifle that is built on the AR platform. ARs are great for everything from target shooting as well as hunting. Very practical.
Narrator: its a made up phrase
Aren’t all phrases made up?
Made up words? Who ulis up to these shenanigans ?
No, it's like the jeep or old chevy pickup of guns. Does whatever you need well enough you don't need 5 guns.
Noone needs a gun in their personal lives, thats the point.
There are plenty of uses for them professionally though.
My closest friend (a smaller woman) is only alive because she carries, so I know there is merit. Your comments are as stupid as "why have a smoke detector, how many times has your house burnt down? And don't get me started on seatbelts!" It isn't even living in fear. There are a lot of merit to gun regulation and nobody needs to be open carrying an assault rifle, and yes we all know what that term means, come at me with "tHAt iSnT a gUN drrrr". I could make a case for it in home protection ...but I am biased, having trained with an M-4, but even there, regulated ownership is fine....like driving a car.
/WastingBreath
Well, there is currently no requirement that someone be well-trained or understand collateral damage to own and use a gun in America. Some examples of other dangerous to use items that require training: cars, forklifts, surgical equipment. You can trust the people using those generally know how to use them and what bad things could happen.
Using an anecdote of someone who saved their own life with a gun isn't the slam dunk you think it is. I never said she shouldnt be able to defend herself. There are things besides guns to defend yourself with that are less capable of mass lethal events, such as tasers, pepper spray, small physical weapons/knives. Your friend also could fit into the well-trained group, which if we at least required licenses to own a firearm, she would still have been allowed to own and protect herself with it. I'm sure there would be many women who would want to be licensed to carry for protection.
I'm willing to compromise a bit on the no guns thing, thats why I said professionally. I'll add that if there were a license with a very short expiration and you have to prove competence in use, safety, and gun law, I think that would be reasonable. Sort of like the CCW permits some states use, but would be applied to all guns.
I'm very skeptical of any efforts to make guns harder to use or less capable as a way to limit peoples behavior, but maybe there are some limited examples of exceptionally dangerous guns or guns with little practical use that would make sense for.
That's just dumb, bud.
Is it now? What else is it good for?
It's good for shooting small, very fast bullets. May that be hunting, target shooting or self-defense.
If they want to ban AR-15s, they should ban all semi-automatic rifles otherwise it would be ridiculous. The would-be assassin could have done the same thing with a whole assortment of mostly equivalently performing rifles. Some just as "scary looking" black rifles, some with wooden parts.
And if they ban all those guns they should finish the job while they're at it and just ban guns, glad we agree.
Indeed, they would have to go down the route Australia went. But I don't see this happening in America any time soon.
If piles of murdered kids didn't do much to move the needle, shooting an inflammatory politician isn't going to do it. We'll see how the MAGA respond to this event or hopefully when they lose the elections. Maybe (but hopefully not) they'll act violently enough to force facing America's relationship with guns.
and that is what's gonna get him. because up until now, he looked soooo presidential 😂
Any of those options will work fine for Trump. He doesn’t need to have policies, strategies, or responses to anything. His voters can’t remember it anyway. You think they remember that he banned bump stocks in the first place? He could promise to ban AR-15s one day, then criticize his own proposal the next day, and he’ll just get cheered by both sides. Voters are fucking stupid.
All that matters is that he keeps the steady supply of hateful buzzwords flowing. You can’t win chess against an opponent who’s playing hungry hungry hippos.
All of that wastes trump's time and makes him look unprofessional to swing voters. He can't win with just his fans. That's why he lost big time in 2020. The swing voters saw him failing to respond to an actual issue.
Correction: He lost big time because of mail-in votes. Trump in 2020 got the record high for votes for a Republican candidate at something like 67.2 million, which was just about a million votes less than what Obama got during his first election (which was a record-breaking turnout). Biden got around 80 million votes in 2020, breaking every voter turnout record ever.
Swing voters are still crucial because that's how Hillary lost despite having only 100,000 less votes than Obama did in his second election, but I feel like swing voters have probably more or less already made up their minds. If you don't see Trump for what he is already, the odds of his reaction here being the final straw seems unlikely. I think if people had better access to voting, we'd easily see a repeat of 2020 even if we were to vote right this minute.
Trump already said he'd take away everyones guns, no questions asked, years ago. No one that supported him even blinked. This means nothing to them.
That's just bullshit, he did not. He said the one stupid thing about ignoring due process for red flag law situations. This is pretty far and away from "everyone's guns"
You made me curious, thank you. The actual quote is "take the guns first, go through due process second."
I'm pretty sure the NRA had a heart attack when they heard that 🤣
Trump will go with number 5: "Did you know socialist immigrant windmills causing cancers kill more Americans than guns?"
He will do #2, and his base will cheer. Not a single person from that camp will think he's crazy.
This is the kind of Democrat logic that makes me cringe...
He can just say nothing. His position is already clear and he just selected a VP candidate who was pictured in social media with an AR15 recently, and openly suggested the ATF doesn't need to exist.
Or... he just doesn't want to get shot himself. Just saying. not wanting to get shot is a powerful motivator...
Not that it's perhaps prudent. or you know, god forbid, actually a good fucking idea.
Option 4: trump and the GOP in general still views his assassination attempt as the danger you have to live with to live in a “free nation”. It’s the cost of freedom. Something something “just because i got shot doesn’t mean taking everyone’s rights away is a good idea”
Growing up in texas, this is a very common view.
Admittedly, knowing the coward Trump is (He literally doesn't order his own food because he's afraid of poisoning) There's a very slim chance Trump will declare the AR-15 is evil and act afraid of it.
Actually that’s a pretty distinct possibility
I guarantee that he will say that the attack wouldn't have happened if more of his followers had ar 15s there
2 and 3 only matter if reality matters to you. Most people being trump don't care how insane things look, or if trump "looks presidential".
What you're arguing would make sense with logical voters. So of course it doesn't apply here. When have Republican voters marked 'D' or stayed home instead of voting for a pro-gun candidate!? It just doesn't happen.
And "wedge" issue?? Come on, Republican voters are either all-in on Trump or they reluctantly mark the 'R'...
It'll be 2 because the Republicans who don't like guns are a minority. It's a cult, there's nothing Trump can do to lose support. You can't trick him into doing something stupid, he's always doing something stupid, people clap for it anyway.
It's just dumb. The sniper that killed the guy wasn't using an ar-15. Stopping ar-15's wouldn't have done anything to change something like this.
What do you mean, it was an AR-15. I don't support a ban, just clarifying facts.
Sorry if I wasn't clear in my statement. When I said "the sniper that killed the guy" I was specifying the the secret service sniper that successfully head shotted Crooks. I wasn't referring to Crooks.
Pointedly, I was saying that the guy who hit what he was aiming for wasn't using an AR. Not the guy who failed.
Ah ok, I get you, then. I didn't downvote your comment.
Guns are tools. And what's more, "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
You sure about that?
If that source doesnt work for you, here's the president of the United states:
That's from the linked article.
Sorry if I wasn't clear in my statement. When I said "the sniper that killed the guy" I was specifying the the secret service sniper that successfully head shotted Crooks. I wasn't referring to Crooks.
Pointedly, I was saying that the guy who hit what he was aiming for wasn't using an AR. Not the guy who failed.
So youre saying that since the wannabe assassin missed, that ARs are not effective weapons?
Even if you gloss over the all the heavily published mass murder events committed with AR that the president alluded to in the quote above, are you aware that Trump turned his head a split second before the bullet hit his ear? That this likely is the only reason he's alive?
I'm saying that AR's aren't a requirement or a need for a shooter and that stopping sales of AR's just means that something else will be used. You don't need an AR.
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.
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.
What do you need an ar for ?
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.
The AR platform is also just useful in general, which is why it's become so popular.
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.
So when shit hits the fan I can "borrow" 5.56 ammo from the military.
That's quite a gun fantasy you have.
Can't run up a flight of stairs, but ready to take on the us military
How'd Afghanistan go?
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.
Fighting fascists.
Why do you need the freedom of speech to write this comment?
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.
The AR isnt the only rifle that exists.
Yes I'm aware of this.
The AR isnt special. So why are they going after ARs specifically?
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.
The next would be assasin will be forced to use a weapon appropriate for distance killing. They would be more likely to succeed.
The failed Trump shooter used a rifle completely appropriate for the distance. He was just a "comically bad" shooter, according to acquaintances.
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.
If you didn't reply within 14 seconds of me correcting my post, yeah. That's what I corrected it to.
ANSWER FOR YOUR 14 SECOND CRIMES
14 seconds in the dungeon seems only fair
He's not gonna do shit, he's just gonna continue to bark at one of the symptoms of the problem.
this right here folks. its a wedge issue and it doesnt solve the real problems
Gun nuts are shit no matter what political label they have.
How do you figure?
The magic of pure ignorance, I am guessing.
Anyone who makes an object, guns, cars, pcs, weed, media they are fans of, etc. a significant aspect of their person, just means there wasn't much person there to begin with. It is possible for something to be important to you, something you do for fun, something you enjoy, and not be your personality.
That's kind of a creepy take, and a little dehumanizing, tbh. Just let people live their lives the way they want to and do what they enjoy.
I am not stopping anyone from making guns, or cars, or whatever, their personality. I will just avoid them.
Holy deep fried frankenfuck will the Democrats NEVER LEARN?!?!?!?!
AFTER!
You talk about guns AFTER the election!
What in the actual pogostickingpopejohnpaul is he THINKING?!?!?
The optics are 1000% awful here.
Uvalde wasn't enough, but a potshot at the planet's most notorious living felon is?
Nah, I think I'll keep my shit and wait for the far right to move.
The fuckin scenario we are in I swear.
Far right: let's kill the left and do fascism.
Democrats: let's ban weapons right now while there's threats of violence against democrats.
Really?
Just as dumb as when Beto said it before his election...
It'll never pass, and he thinks saying it will get votes, but all it does is motivate idiots to vote trump, even tho he actually did an executive action to try and close a loophole.
It might not have stood, but it worked for a couple of years.
On its own its a dumb idea, but I do think another commenter had it on the money how this is more a ploy to catch trump with his pants down. Trump can either agree and piss off his pro gun base (and look like a coward given his previous statements), he can argue against it and seem like hes inviting more violence and alienate anyone in his base who thinks gun violence is bad. Or he can ignore it and look like hes a doddering old fool oblivious to whats happening around him.
ie exactly nobody
to his base it would look strongbrave to ignore it with the most bigly beautiful thickskin
Banning guns is a losing policy for democrats. It only ever hurts them. I really wish they'd stop lighting political capital on fire with statements like this
I said this decades ago... if Dems dropped the gun shit and embraced safe shooting sports, they would win every damn election.
Which is hilarious cuz trump said he would
I actually know a guy who plans on voting for Trump simply because "They can't drag me to the concentration camps if I have guns"
He doesn't think Biden wants to drag him off btw, he thinks Trump will... but it won't matter because he had guns..
The number of people I know who won't vote for them because of gun shit is too damn high. There are cheaper ways to solve gun violence anyway. Single issue voters are dumb, but democrats need to accept that they exist and this is the biggest single issue
We'd have universal healthcare and constitutional abortion rights if nothing else.
Rich people would lose a lot of money should that ever happen, so whenever things start to look even a little good, you bet your ass some idiot in the Dems is going to scream "hell yes we'll take your guns".
This is like begging for Republicans to start making up conspiracies about how the Democrats set this all up to take away their gun rights.
Uhh... They've been making those up for decades.
Yes, but now he's basically telling them to.
How is that a conspiracy? Thats literally what Biden is advocating for here
Removed, civility.
It seems like such a lazy non-solution. Essentially telling shooters "Hey, from now on, you can only use ALL THE OTHER GUNS" as if that solves something.
This is the problem. All banning the AR will do is drive the popularity of another platform up. There's a crapload of powerful semi-auto customizable platforms out there, it's just that the AR variant is the most popular. It's a stupid solution because it's no solution at all - and I don't mean that as a "not good enough so we should do nothing at all" thing, it's just a completely pointless solution.
Noooo you don't understand, banning pistol grips and front sight posts is totally effective! It totally didn't spawn an entire new segment of "compliant guns" that had the same level of lethality the last time we did it...
I'm not even sure the AR is the most popular. It may be the best seller in the US, but I'm pretty sure that the AK-47 is more popular globally, and there's absolutely no way that they will outlaw the AK-47 in the US since we manufacture them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47
The AK is a global weapon for sure. My commentary deals with the popularity of US gun platforms because that's the country whose laws we're talking about. So the global popularity of the AK isn't really directly relevant.
Well sure, but the reason I brought it up is that I'm not entirely certain that the AK or M-16 aren't more owned in the US than the AR. AR has only been standard issue for the military since after I got out in 2004. I would wager there are far more AKs and M-16s in private hands than ARs
You'd be wrong. The AR platform is the civilian version of the M-16/M-4. And the flat-top carbine length version of the M16A4, called the M4, was standard issue for infantry units being deployed since at least 1999. They were increasingly being sold to civilians in semi-auto only configurations right up to the 1994 Assault weapons ban that named them specifically. That just resulted in a bunch of AR platforms with different names that narrowly skirted the rules of the ban, called "Compliant ARs". After 2004, when the ban expired, sales of AR's seem to take off because now they can sell freely under the AR name that got a ton of publicity. And now in 2024 they're going to start selling the AR platform in Sig's new 6.8mm flavor. To be fair the Spear itself is different enough it some people may not considerate it an Armalite platform. Other would argue it's an AR-16 platform.
Technically, the AR was around before the M-16.
The M-16 is the military version of the rifle, not the other way around.
Sure.
The M-16 and AR-15 are the same gun barring the full auto mechanism. Armalite originally made the AR-15, sold it to Colt, who pitched it to the military, and when it was adopted, was designated the M-16. (Simplified history) So while it may not have been standard issue as the AR, it’s been around for a very long time. Obviously it’s changed up a little over time as manufacturing has changed hands, but I’m not sure if it’s worth debating what’s in private hands other than how they’re designated when they’re essentially variants of the same gun.
Gotcha, they didn't exactly go into the manufacturing history in boot when they trained us on how to use the thing, and I have had exactly 0 reasons to touch a firearm since boot.
I would assume that banning them would include banning all semiautomatic long guns
This is an issue that Biden has consistently refused to understand to be a political loser well before any suggestion of a decline. He's consistently vocal on it in a way that would suggest he genuinely believes it to be a winning position.
In reality, it's practically impossible to do and mostly serves to energize the right and alienate voters in states he actually needs to win. It'd literally be better politically to say nothing on the topic, but he insists on pouring fuel on the "they want to ban our guns" fire.
I have been, on the whole, positive about Biden, but this is a massive blindspot he's held for a long time.
I can think of literally no better reason to keep ARs legal than the events of last week.
Yes, this is the exact intention of the second amendment. Armed resistance against tyrannical government. If the rise of fascism in America isn’t the time to use it, it’s meaningless.
The founding fathers envisioned state militias that would rival the power of the federal army and keep it in check. That ship has sailed, so it already lost a lot of its bite, but any power it still has can only be justified for that purpose
in b4 /pol mods delete this for "inciting violence".
Nope. Judging by how they used militias at the time, they meant it for defending the federal government against both invasions and rebellions. The "defense against tyranny" reason is just an invention of people trying to justify their guns.
Nope. There WAS no federal army at the time. They used militias IN STEAD OF a standing army, not as a check on an existing one. Which of course invalidates the entire amendment now that the country has the biggest and most advanced military in the history of humanity.
All of that being said, I consider assassination of a tyrant you can't rid the people of in any other way the only form of murder that's acceptable as it serves the common good.
Putin is one such tyrant, Orban probably is, and Donald Trump DEFINITELY is. The world would have been a much better place if Crooks had been a better shot.
I mean, that's the exact opposite of what the federalist papers said. We don't have to speculate what the founders intended, they wrote it down. But don't take my word for it. Let's ask Alexander Hamilton from federalist 29
The Federalist Papers were a bunch of editorials, not laws. The amendment itself clearly says that it's for the security of the nation and doesn't mention tyranny at all.
Alexander Hamilton's opinion on standing armies is not the second amendment.
It's a bunch of editorials, written by the same people who wrote the constitution, explaining their thought process and exactly what they intended when writing the constitution.
I do admire your gumption, pretending to know the rationale behind the 2nd amendment better than Alexander fucking Hamilton.
Fun fact: sometimes the founding fathers didn't agree on everything.
The section of his editorial you quote doesn't say that it's the rationale behind the second amendment. It doesn't mention it OR tyranny.
The amendment, which specifically spells out the reason before the conclusion does NOT reference standing armies or tyranny.
You're just assuming connections that aren't there and then accusing ME of pretending to be a mind reader 🤦
The entirety of federalist 29 is about the second amendment. I think it's safe to assume the paragraph I quoted from federalist 29 also is.
Calling militias "the best possible defense" against a standing federal army seems pretty cut and dry. No mind reading necessary, just regular reading.
Everyone gets a free scope and 100 hours of shooting lessons with purchase.
Scopes aren't versatile enough for the AR platform. Free LVPO with purchase and 100 hours of training.
1 in 5 Americans score adequately high enough in their spacial reasoning to qualify for an M32 or M320 credit. The M203 will only be available on surplus legacy rifle systems via lottery.
Braindead take, is Biden gonna come to my rescue when some christofascist militia has me on my knees in front of a ditch?
Sounds like a similar argument to how christofascists justify owning military weapons. It's very disturbing from a European point of view.
The countries with nukes get permanent seats on the UN Security Council.
Maybe once the US has been around for a few more centuries it'll be different. in the meantime, if the crazies are armed you should be too.
That's military not civilians, it seems justified as long as there are authoritarian regimes with imperialist ideas. Completely unrelated to civilians having military weapons. Unless you're saying civilians should have nukes too.
Unarmed protest will not stop putin
...the military will.
Will they though? Last I checked, the EU mostly underfunds their military. They dont even meet nato obligations
This is rapidly changing, all thanks to Putin.
Seems Ukrainian stopped it pretty well without having civilians carrying military weapons outside of military duty.
Not true at all. Ukraine was handing out AKs like candy to any citizen willing to fight for several days before the invasion.
Because they were expecting a foreign military invasion, it still is military duty.
Nope. A civilian fighting in a war does not make them part of the military. It makes them a civilian fighting in a war.
regardless of whether this statement is true or not, it would be because they were expecting and preparing themselves for military invasion.
also there was armed conflict already in progress before start of the "3 day special operation".
so completely true after all... 😆
No, you said Ukraine fought Russia back without arming their civilian populace, then tried to walk it back by saying they were expecting an invasion. Yeah, no kidding. But the fact of the matter is that they did exactly that. They handed out full auto rifles and held bomb making classes for the public. Ordinary people fought back, and a rifle behind every bush was indeed critical to pushing Russia back.
Yes, it is absolutely true that Ukraine fought Russia by having ordinary citizens fighting back with military weapons.
i couldn't have tried to walk anything back for two reasons:
and
that is how it works. you are a civilian, until you are given weapons and task to do, such as fight invading armed forces.
how long you were on a army's payroll before is just splitting hair. different para-military and guerilla forces are part of the armed conflicts all over the world.
and from the context of this discussion it is pretty clear that "civilians carrying military weapons outside of military duty" refers to some fucking meal team six redneck from some confederate state who only ever saw a war in television and carries his assault rifle to walmart to protect himself against people laughing at his small dick, not people fighting in actual war.
so thanks for playing darling, better luck next time.
Seeing how 2A it almost took down a fascist it's getting hard to argue against it.
If you think arming yourself because there are organized fascists in the country is a similar argument to fascists wanting guns to do fascism you're a fascist and nothing less.
Ah, didn't know you would consider most of EU and the developed world to be fascist, thanks for the insult.
You would have been the worst kind of fence sitter right up until the germans boarded in your house. You are a fascist.
The cops will bring the rope.
Source: George floydd protests
Is this what your life is like?
Soon to be "our". And not just in America, unfortunately.
I don't think you know what the world is like outside your gun nut bubble.
Then you should probably be a little less judgy about what folks think they need to do to defend themselves within that bubble.
Since you aren't from the US, you may not be aware of Project 2025, but "some christofascist militia has me on my knees in front of a ditch" is a plausible eventual outcome for many over here if Trump gets in again.
no, he shouldn't be. folks in gun nut bubble don't need to defend themselves, they are just gun nuts, that's the whole point of the argument 😆
Hey I've got news for you - all the US is the gun nut bubble, and we all take the impacts from it, whether we own guns or not. You may have heard about our problems with school shootings, for example, or our police who are convinced everyone wants to kill them, and so open fire at the slightest provocation....
hey, i've got news for you as well - more guns is not a solution to the problem. more guns is the problem.
https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10259683/mother_jones_gun_deaths_by_state.png
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/america-mass-shooting-gun-violence-statistics-charts
How often are you shot at? Have many enemies trying to kill you? Grow up.
I'm not even a gun owner buddy, but I'm not going to pretend the world is going to stay safe for everyone who isn't (or can't pretend to be) a white cishet christian if Project 2025 comes to pass.
Edit: They are already ramping it up more, as if that were possible. They want to be ready to hit the ground running on Day 1 of Trump's second term. https://www.advocate.com/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-rnc
Yeah a ton of people will lose their rights with project 2025, but how does having a gun help you fix that? Are you talking about like civilization declining into groups of people killing each other in the streets?
Gun nut? I'm not replying regarding guns, but the rise of right wing nationalism
I'm with you until the last part, I've tasted it, and I wouldn't wish it on DJT himself. I understand the emotion, but there's a better way homie
Hey, I appreciate you at least. At my old job they had a big office in Monterrey, and they were some of the most hard working teams I had the pleasure to work with. I absolutely lost my shit if anyone treated them any differently and I hated how the company ran that division. Working with those teams is the only thing I miss.
The fact that they always had to get permission for any time off from the team leads, were scrutinized for every cent, and often not even given the tools they needed for their job, all in the name of "saving" money, was absolute bullshit. There really were some ridiculous double standards. We never denied time off and purchased what you needed. We knew how shitty the system was and did what we could.
So, one shitty American to an awesome Mexican, thank you. For every cook, every maid, field slave, factory worker, engineer, installer, and human from your country that just wants to exist somewhere safe, feed their family, and have a roof over your head, thank you.
do you plan to resolve any of your problems, real or perceived, with ar15?
If brown shirts start lynching my neighbors for being a certain race, do you have any better suggestions? Should I scold them, ever so sternly?
here, you can run in circles yourself, you don't need me for that.
https://lemm.ee/post/37269870/13324037
Page not found.
Thanks for not even considering what I asked.
reload, or fix your instance redirect, or w/e, and you'll see i did
I'll give up my guns after the christo-facists give up theirs, not before.
FUCK
its like he's trying to lose
this is not going to get anyone excited about voting for him, but it will galvanize the opposition and push swing voters into staying home on election day at the very least
I dunno, it didn't work out so well for Beto.
Sad things is, if the people who voted for Biden in Texas had voted for Beto, Beto would have won Texas in a landslide.
Texas gubernatorial race: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Texas_gubernatorial_election
• 4,437,099 for piss baby
• 3,553,656 votes for Beto
Presidential election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Texas
• 5,259,126 for Biden
Shows you how the independents and left aren't strictly anitgun. Was such a huge blunder on his part and the person asking him gave him repeated chances to walk it back and clarify it to not mean what he said, and he still insisted on total ban.
It's not that, they literally just didn't vote at all.
If I was a registered Democrat in Texas and actively didn't want Beto to win because of his anti-gun stances, why would I vote for him in the gubernatorial? I can't vote R, so best thing I can do is just not vote.
Biden is much less likely to succeed in pushing national level bans compared to Beto and state level bans, so voters who didn't vote for Beto might've later voted for Biden.
Also, presidential elections simply have a higher turnout.
Oh don't I know it, preaching to the choir here.
That fucking horrible assassination attempt would have happened with or without the AR, this is just another knee-jerk emotional reaction, and it could NOT come at a worse time (pre-election). We're fucked.
Handguns used in ~2/3 of all gun murders in the U.S.: I sleep
AR-15 used in one assassination attempt of geriatric running for president in 2024: REAL SHIT
Nooo, let’s not. We’re gonna need those pretty soon from the looks of it.
This is a fucking retarded take and I vote Democrat. Jesus.
I want you to imagine the following scenario:
The RIAA: "Internet file sharing of mp3s is eating into our profits. Government, we want you to ban the Rio Volt SP250 mp3 player."
The Government: "Yes, banning only that specific make and model of mp3 player and none of the rest of Rio's product catalog, or any mp3 players manufactured by any other brand, will completely and permanently address this scourge of copyright infringement. Consider it done."
--GLaDOS.
Here's what happens when you ban a firearm by name: manufacturers change some extremely minor detail, change the model number, and keep selling it. The Tec-9 open bolt machine pistol was used in a few school shootings in the 90's, most prominently the Columbine massacre. California banned the gun by name in state law. The manufacturer responded by moving the sling ring from one side of the gun to the other and calling it the Tec-DC9, with "DC" standing for "Designed for California."
It's not an engineering problem. Banning individual makes and models is how you solve (or at least end) an engineering problem. This is a culture problem.
This does nothing to motivate the left and everything to motivate the right....
Biden, are you TRYING to lose?
Fucking typical.
Something comes close to removing a problem created by the conservatives and the Democrats want to take it away!
The type of rifle isn't the problem here. If the shooter had used something better it's likely Trump wouldn't have survived.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting
"Charles Whitman killed seventeen individuals and wounded at least thirty-one others over the course of thirteen hours before he was killed on the observation deck of the UT Tower on August 1, 1966.[72]"
And of course, infamously:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy
With the Texas tower shooter it was the shooter himself the difference. He was a Marine sharpshooter. Oswald was also a former Marine.
These guys were extensively trained.
The only way this is possible is by rewriting the Constitution. FDR was the last president willing to, and that definitely didn't happen.
Biden doesn't have Constitution rewriting level support.
Eh, the constitution is already ignored on this point plenty, since there's lots of 'arms' that have been restricted. Why not ignore it some more?
I think the answer is closer to treating them similarly to automatic weapons. They are not banned completely, they are simply regulated with strict access controls.
We don't have school shootings with automatic weapons, do we? (Note the Vegas bump stock skirted this ban specifically)
Biden tries to throw a sure thing, again.
...Does Pres. Biden really think that the assassination attempt would have gone less well if Crooks had been using a Ruger American bolt action rifle chambered in 6.5CM? Does he really think that?
Let's be super-clear here, and AR-15 uses an intermediate cartridge. Most bolt action hunting rifles are going to use full-power cartridges, cartridges that have a longer range, may have a flatter trajectory, have less wind drift, and have a helluva lot more power when they hit their target. A center mass hit with an AR-15 at 150y is going to be bad; a center mass hit with a .308 or 6.5CM at 150y is going to be the end of someone's world. Bear in mind that many hunters do not consider a .225/5.56x45mm bullet to be ethical for deer hunting because it's lower power, while there's very broad agreement that 6.5CM and .308 are just dandy.
Also, calling for banning guns in an election year where you're already behind? When gun bans tend to galvanize Republicans and get them out to the polls? Incredibly dumb. Unbelievably dumb.
Of all the reasons to ban a gun, trumps little knicked ear is low on my list
I mean, fine. But the recent attempt didn’t make the AR-15 look especially dangerous.
Time to force registration of guns. Time to force psych evals for gun owners. I own two guns. One is a SKS I bought in 1990. Although considered a assault rifle it is nothing more than a semi automatic hunting rifle. I would gladly submit to what I propose in order to ensure that some broken soul doesn't have access to a weapon. Anyone who is against accountability in this matter is probably a danger.
The SKS has the same size standard mags as an AR-15 and can do everything else the AR-15 can, but with a more powerful round.
How is it "just a semi automatic hunting rifle" if the AR-15 isn't?
So can a browning 306. My SKS doesn't use mags you can get stripper clips but it doesn't hold that many shots. Its nice you googled something and got it wrong.
My SKS uses 30 round detachable magazines, so OP is not incorrect. it's a rifle that's been around forever with tons of different configurations
You can modify them to use a mag. I did for a short time years ago but restored it to its original configuration. Using a magazine kinda sucks with that gun.
Dude, I was in gun sales for years. I've had my hands on a thousand SKS rifles.
Just because you don't have detachable mags doesn't mean it can't use them on the rifle. Like an AR it's a very adaptable platform.
Sks is a 7.62/30-06 round, which is a good round for medium to large game. The ar15 is 5.56/.223 which is much smaller and not suitable for more than varmint or coyote.
It's incrediblly not a 30.06. SKS fires a 7.62x39mm cartridge with about 1400 ft/lbs of muzzle energy.
A 30.06 is 7.62x63mm cartridge with around 3000ft/lbs or muzzle energy.
A .223 from an AR has about 1300 ft/lbs, making it MUCH closer to the SKS than the BAR.
Holy shit you have no idea what you're talking about LMAO
There's a really wide range of opinions on what animals 5.56 is ethical for. I'm not gonna say they're all valid, but this opinion this person shared is an opinion people have.
(Boost for Lemmy went fucky wucky so I reposted this comment)
Sounds like a great way for conservatives to make sure their victims don't get guns. They'll go back to pretending to be concerned for trans people and stuff. Remember when women were forced into psych wards for being "disobedient"? I bet it'd basically be the same type of labelling anyone going against the fascist agenda as mental illness.
I'm all for it in the progressive parts of the country (like Massachussetts) where minorities (including lgbt) probably wouldn't be targetted like that by the government. But in the regressive states like Mississippi, or Louisiana, or West Virginia, or Florida, or Texas... no thanks, I don't want to have my house raided when overlord Trump becomes supreme leader and the state decides I don't deserve human rights unless I convert to Christianity (the right kind of Christianity though obviously, the wrong kind will get you dragged out into the street and shot)
I think it just boils down to "gun control requires the government to enforce it especially fairly and in good faith" which I do NOT trust a conservative government to do. One shitty election, and suddenly leftists or minorities can't get guns and all my gun data next to my address and SSN is conveniently accessible to fascists, along with the statistics bought from corporations saying I'm a filthy socialist
I live in Canada. We had mandatory gun registration passed in 2001. From that point on, the Conservatives used every opportunity they could to scrap the registry and finally succeeded in 2012. Since then, the reintroduction of a gun registry has been off the table.
Canada has nowhere even close to a gun culture the way the US does. The main opponents of gun registration here were hunters and farmers, a much smaller portion of the population than in the US (which also includes substantial gun enthusiast, militia, and survivalist cultures).
So what does all this mean? Gun registration laws are laughably unrealistic in the US. There is absolutely no way you will ever get a gun registry to stick as long as the Republicans have any chance whatsoever of winning an election.
Just because Canada couldn't swing means no one can. Gotcha.
That's not the comparison. The comparison is if Canada cant pass gun laws do you think a country less functional and more pro gun can?
I sincerely wish you the best of luck. I really do.
Sounds like a great way for conservatives to make sure their victims don't get guns. They'll go back to pretending to be concerned for trans people and stuff. Remember when women were forced into psych wards for being "disobedient"? I bet it'd basically be the same type of labelling anyone going against the fascist agenda as mental illness.
I'm all for it in the progressive parts of the country (like Massachussetts) where minorities (including lgbt) probably wouldn't be targetted like that by the government. But in the regressive states like Mississippi, or Louisiana, or West Virginia, or Florida, or Texas... no thanks, I don't want to have my house raided when overlord Trump becomes supreme leader and the state decides I don't deserve human rights unless I convert to Christianity (the right kind of Christianity though obviously, the wrong kind will get you dragged out into the street and shot)
I think it just boils down to "gun control requires the government to enforce it especially fairly and in good faith" which I do NOT trust a conservative government to do. One shitty election, and suddenly leftists or minorities can't get guns and all my gun data next to my address and SSN is conveniently accessible to fascists, along with the statistics bought from corporations saying I'm a filthy socialist
To me it sounds like a good way for malfunctioning republicans to get identified. Its what they fear most. The idea that everyone will know they are sociopaths, psychopaths or have plain old NPD. When you hear someone say they don't believe in therapy you know they are afraid of being exposed.
Are you suggesting that we do it to expose peoples' medical information to the public..? Or am I misinterpreting this
I think them being openly Republican lets everyone know well enough that they lack empathy/humanity. It's on people (well, more like our education system to teach people) to recognize that, WITHOUT violating basic privacy rights. Plus, knowing the publics' ableism and perception of mental disorders, people will probably start suggesting that ASD, ADHD, etc. should disqualify you from having a gun if the laws aren't just listing out arbitrary diagnoses.
Personally, I currently live in a very red part of Georgia (not for much longer though) and I'm pretty queer and have ADHD and stuff, so I'd rather not let the government even know what guns I own. When the state or federal government becomes social democratic, I'll be completely fine with it
No I'm not suggesting that. Way to reason in advance of your data. I'm suggesting though experience that people who are against mental health are usually against it to hide their problems. I worked in mental health for a decade. Most cluster B's, people with APD, NPD or BPD can't stand the thought of getting help. All of them feel that its never their fault. They play the victim but are always the victimizer. None of them need a gun.
Why would I think people with ASD or ADHD would be a threat? I have ADHD and I also get treatment.
Seems like you are picking a outrageous example in an attempt to fluff up your position. but some types are dangerous and those are the ones who avoid therapy. Who fear it.
No they're saying nobody gets exposed because health info is held to high privacy standards and your comment didn't make sense unless those mental health evals were public info, so they assumed that's what you were arguing for.
You don't have to make them public. Why is that a requirement? Its crazy that that is the only way people see it.
No, actually it's long past time to redefine hate groups and fascists as domestic terrorists and send in the FBI.
What guarantees you won't become a broken soul now that you have the weapons ?
What would make you comfortable giving them up ?
Do you train in a militia ? Would you be willing to submit to a state or county base militia every month for the rest of your active life to keep your guns ?
Do you feel any responsibility when your fellow gun owners act not just irresponsibly but act out of malice towards the public with their firearms ?
Those are "your people". Make a better case to keep your military weapons other than "i'm not crazy".
I think leaning into the well regulated militia part of 2A is where I would focus. In my thinking every town or district or whatever would have a local militia. Anyone could be involved whether they want to be armed or not. Basically the militia would train for all sorts of emergency situations in a very local way. It would have to be independent from the government though. Like, only in your town. Where do we meet? What resources will we have? Are there good choke points we should defend? Under what circumstances? And then of course actually training as a defensive militia. Each militia should have an armory/barracks. While the individual person would still technically own the weapon, anything other than hunting weapons would need to be kept in the armory unless the militia declared an emergency and everyone got their guns and manned their posts. Maybe even hunting weapons. Just have a system for checking your weapons out for hunting or practice. I'd be willing to make this sacrifice. And I'd feel much more secure knowing I lived somewhere with a well organized militia and not reliant on some far off government or a bunch of yahoo vigilantes.
I like it. I meant it is kinda the point of the natty guard, but that got too big and too military. An active community support group would be neat to see more of.
Right? The guard can get called to go to other places though, and is controlled by the government. I just think people should be prepared for whatever in their own communities, and if you're a responsible member of that well regulated "militia", then sure you can own guns.
The SKS is the first gun I ever bought. The other gun was one of few things my dad ever gave me that wasn't broken. Of course he thought it was broken when he gave it to me but it was simple fix. Simple enough for a twelve year old to fix. Why would I give up what is essentially a two hunting rifles. Sure one has a place for a bayonet but I don't own one. All of you defeatist always naively think outlawing them will get rid of them.
Every X years you have to pass again the psychiatric test.
Licensing, recurrent registration, and insurance. Mandated storage. If you can afford an arsenal, you can afford the rest of it.
I agree with all of these things, except affordability shouldn't be the issue. It should be subsidized for poorer people. I don't want only the wealthy to be well armed.
I’ve heard the “wealthy people” argument many times. Like I said, if you can afford the guns you can afford the ability to secure them. Failure to secure guns is what gets people killed, either because of accidental shootings, theft, or the guns being taken without permission. I’m not interested in debating poverty and gun ownership if the lack of ability to pay for insurance or a safe means someone else has to pay with their life. We’re already there and it’s already a massive problem. It’s why this discussion is even happening.
E: this is the most ‘Murica thing I’ve ever heard. Guns are a fucking problem, people have proven they can’t be responsible for them, and here we have people suggesting we use public money to distribute them for free or at little cost. Yeah, the answer is MORE guns. Tf is wrong with people.
Like I said, subsidize it for poorer people (including the gun). We subsidize all kinds of things to ensure poorer people can still do things they should be allowed to do but can't afford at the same level. If we managed to get as far as what you want, it'd be fairly trivial to add a gun/ammo tax or something that is used to offset the costs for poorer people. I'm agreeing with your concept, but ensuring only the wealthy can be armed is a horrible idea.
It's trivially easy to put a gun behind a lock. Licensing, registration, and insurance is a cost that can become arbitrarily large.
Insurance, because only white people should be able to have guns without paying exorbitant fees. Pass.
I used to have insurance for my firearms.
Then a bunch liberal activists hadn't hounded all the credit card payment processors to refuse to work with insurance companies who offered it, calling it "murder insurance."
Now I can't buy it because people on both sides of the debate refuse to act in good faith.
Poll taxes are racist
What an idiot. Does he not realize talking about banning guns is the number one way to motivate right wingers? The US is NOT going to ban guns especially with the current Supreme Court. This is an example of his old team running old plays that haven't been successful since the 90s. He needs to go before he causes any more damage to his party.
Marx warned against this. without armed workers the dismantling of the state machine will be much harder.
Let's ban assassination too, that will show 'em!
It's Pete coming for yo guns energy. Please drop the guns dems for the love of your country.
Time to ban roofs.
Biden speed-running losing the election.
At this point all Trump has to do is pretend this didn't phase him, then not say anything too stupid and I'm sure Biden will do his best to just hand it over.
Guessing you dont like the Supreme Court reforms he just announced either?
Do I like, or the general public? I hate Trump more than Biden if that's essentially what you're trying to question. And yes we do need supreme court.
But will the general public give a shit or even know about this plans? Doubt it. Trump getting shot at is much more attention grabbing.
I take it you're new to trump
You say that, but Trump has been doing just that lately.
What intelligent thing has he said? What unintelligent thing has he kept to himself?
The optics on this are abysmal. I get that he's trying to be consistent with party ideology any time there is a shooting where someone dies, but we've got an election in 4 months and talking about banning guns of any kind gets conservatives motivated to turn out.
Sandy Hook
“Fun” fact: those kids would be old enough to vote this year, had they not been gunned down.
Bro why? I'd vote for a fucking shoe over him at this point, unfortunately it's between sundowners and down syndrome. These guys want to destroy everything this country was founded on and developed over the years and banning a gun is where you go?!
At this point it's intentional sabotage. No one fucking wants this. It won't change anything. Just leave it the fuck alone and start doing something for the lower and middle classes to secure your goddamn votes. Or just let the conservatives use your stupidity as a stepping stone to steal your voters by fulfilling their fear mongering.
Buddy, if you don't want to be President again just step down and let someone else run.
He thinks that because someone took a shot at trump with one, its a good time.
Biden has forgotten the whole point of 2a.
Like honestly, hes trying to throw the election at this point.
Lemmings love to shit on Biden no matter what he does. Literally no matter what. Please criticize him or any leader, but maybe also check your bias against individuals.
This is a very legitimate criticism. Biden is fucking up again with this dumb move at the wrong time.
Talking about gun bans is one of the hugest motivators to drive Republicans to vote against you. We have seen this for fucking decades already.
Actually practically no one is changing their vote for any reason, but this does force Republicans to squirm and that's a good thing. But sure, Biden did it so it's horrible
Will republicans vote in favor of protecting their candidate? Or their base's blood lust? This is a great time for Biden to put them in a hard place.
The answer is simply they will hate it if Biden does it but not care if Trump does.
They will vote republican no matter what. Logic doesn't apply so forking them doesn't work.
But that's the official state rifle of the school shooter!
Not sure this will make a difference for the election. At this point, I suspect that support for gun control/rights is petty well understood and priced into support for the candidates. No one expects Biden to veto gun control legislation and no one expects Trump to sign it. Granted, Trump can be a bit of a wild card sometimes (see: bump stocks reclassification).
That said, this is likely a very hollow promise. Such legislation is almost certainly a dead bill in Congress. And even if it somehow passed, it's likely not going to make it past the current Supreme Court.
At best, this is just empty rhetoric.
Meh. Our soldiers are trained on these. They are familiar. Why ban the weapon people know how to properly use and maintain?
If I want to snipe someone, I'm using a high powered hunting rifle like a .308 or 7mm.
I have so many questions
I have exactly one. Is Biden trying to lose?
It make sense that if corporations control both parties, and Boden has done good work for workers rights, they'd hamstring the "not-super-evil" party and push for the other party.. It's a conspiracy theory but billionaires want Trump since he promises tax cuts, relief, and loopholes. For the rich.
Most labor friendly president in US history = protecting rail corporations from a stike?
Standards are low.
There's been a union "surge" in the south directly because of Boden policies
Trump brings with him chaos. He's going to use those presidential immunity powers to murder people. I don't see how that uncertainty will bring profit.
Yeah, I gotta say that making the election a referendum on Trump personally seems a whole lot more likely to be successful than making it a referendum on the federal AWB. That wasn't a political success story for the Democrats.
But, I dunno. Maybe his team has some kind of angle, like they're trying to move some critical demographic that they think that they can influence.
EDIT: I gotta say that aside from the question of whether it's a good policy or whether it's a good move politically, every time it sounds like a ban is proposed, it sets off a massive wave of firearms sales, so I'd guess that firearms vendors are going to have a good time.
At least he is sticking up for Vice President Trump
Ooh this is smart
As a foreign, I don't know why US need to buy real AR-15 at home.
If you want to play, buy Airsoft. If you want to hunt, buy a rifle.
Anyone remember that one Hamas dude who became a very good sniper using an old M1 lol.
Resistance movements still use even older rifles like the Mosin Nagant. Banning the AR-15 isn't going to accomplish anything of value.
I think a way funnier and better option would be to require marksmanship exams that you have to pass in order to have a license for rifles and shotguns. A hilariously large amount of people would fail to qualify.
And make it expensive so it immediately disuades anyone trying to get a capable firearm quickly.
Thanks Biden, guess I have some shopping to do before prices go up.
I buy stock when these things happen and sell when it cools down. You folks pay me a TON. Thanks!
God bless capitalism <3
How about we outlaw nukes instead? F-35s? Missile cruisers? Reaper drones? Whatever they have in orbit that can kill us?
Yes
My point was that the US thinks it's important to outlaw certain civilian arms while its military constitutes an existential threat to continued human civilization. I think it's ironic, but apparently people don't like that here.
And the planet as a whole. I think we're going to have to move past this model if we're to survive. You can't just keep feeding Moloch ad infinitum.