544
submitted 11 months ago by GiddyGap@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

It's the worst political theater. It makes it look like something is being done when it isn't. Gun sales go up and liberals feel good. More kids die.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago
[-] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

The solution is for law enforcement to properly enforce the existing laws that could have stopped countless shootings already.

My personal solution is not to worry about gun violence because it's extremely rare and highly unlikely to affect me. America is quite safe to live in for the majority of us.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

My personal solution is not to worry about gun violence because it’s extremely rare and highly unlikely to affect me.

Oh, well as long as it is unlikely to affect you...

I mean illegal abortion is unlikely to affect me, so why should I give a shit, am I right?

[-] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

That's really a bad comparison, because you're arguing for the point of taking away rights from Americans, by making reference to a right that was taken away (since it was never properly added to the Constitution). I support all rights for all Americans - we should all have the rights to bear arms and to privacy + bodily autonomy.

So instead of arguing to take away more rights, you should be arguing to add more rights. Lobby for the rights to privacy and bodily autonomy instead.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Make up your mind. Do you care about things that don't affect you or not?

[-] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Of course I do, and you should too. You should care about all the rights of Americans, just as I do and AS I ALREADY MENTIONED.

I have already addressed everything you mentioned previously, so now you're just pissing in the wind.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

My personal solution is not to worry about gun violence because it’s extremely rare and highly unlikely to affect me

Your words.

[-] agitatedpotato@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I like how you ignore the first half of their comment then reply to the personal part, aka the non political half, and examine it as if it the only thing they said about gun violence at all.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

I'm afraid at this point there's no legislation that will survive the Supreme Court. The next realistic move is to mirror the federalist society. Get enough judges appointed with the idea that the second does not protect personal gun ownership and reach a critical state.

If I could waive a magic wand without breaking the character of the US, we'd ban external magazines, have universal background checks, and stop federal funds from going to states that don't send information to the National Instant Check System. There's so much low hanging fruit. But even when SCOTUS wasn't busy boofing beers the Brady Campaign gave us shit laws designed to harass people, not reduce violence.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

None of what you just proposed would reduce violence..

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Frustrating the reload slows down active shooters. Solidifying the NICS means criminals can't just go to the next state over. And Universal background checks takes away the secondhand market from criminals as well.

A program to groom judges on this just like the conservatives did with Roe V Wade will do the most in the long term because we'll be able to have laws based on the actual amendment, not just a few words of it.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Yes...because no active shooters have ever made plans....and no active shooters have ever not been flagged correctly when they were prohibited already...and no one buys drugs on the black market cause that's illegal...and no one makes straw purchases which are already illegal.

RvW needs to be signed into a law, not used as a bargaining chip for votes for Democrats. They need to use their political capital to make it a federal law.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

This isn't a good faith argument. The logical extent is that we can't stop every criminal so we should have no laws at all.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

We already have laws for these things you listed... literally murder is illegal...so is buying or owning a firearm and being a prohibited person...you gonna make it double illegal? I'm not the one arguing in bad faith. You are

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Right, first you argue we can't catch them all so we shouldn't have laws, and now your arguing that we just have to sit back and let them kill people.

Go home.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Where did I say we shouldn't have laws?

this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
544 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3780 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