544
submitted 2 years ago by GiddyGap@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 98 points 2 years ago

I just wish Dems would stop trying to ban any guns, and not because I'm against gun control, but because it's a losing issue. It's never passing through this Congress, and if it ever did, the Supreme Court would strike it down. Given that that's fairly undeniable, why lose the people who organize and vote on this issue alone?

[-] farcaster@lemmy.world 52 points 2 years ago

This has been said about many issues in the past. Effecting change isn't easy but giving up doesn't help. Americans support gun control. Only our crappy political system stands in the way.

[-] Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago

On both sides, Republicans block any gun control, and Democrats only propose useless legislation

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

This has been said about many issues in the past.

Which issues? Civil Rights? Gay marriage?

Those are issues in which the American people were opposed, and then societal views changed. As you pointed out, that isn't the case here. Americans already favor reform, but they aren't going to vote these people out based on the status quo.

Newtown was the wake up call, if nothing changes after a bunch of small children get massacred, you're not getting change. Not without wholesale changes. Proposing an AWB is political theater, nothing more.

[-] farcaster@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

If it's popular, why wouldn't the Democrats keep fighting for it?

Whether it will realistically happen anytime soon, yeah I'd say the odds are very low.

But let's not just give up as it can't ever happen.

Also "political theater" is like half of actual politics, so don't knock it too easily :P

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Kleinbonum@feddit.de 42 points 2 years ago

it's a losing issue. It's never passing through this Congress, and if it ever did, the Supreme Court would strike it down.

You know, that's exactly what people said about Roe v. Wade and about banning abortion.

Turns out that you can keep losing on an issue for 50 years, yet winning only once will drastically change the trajectory of the entire issue.

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago

That's the opposite situation. Pro-life voters and pro-gin voters are the 2 largest single-issue voting groups in the country.

Look at it this way. If you swapped Trump and Biden's positions on abortion but changed nothing else, how many pro-choice Democrats would have voted for Trump?

Basically zero, right. Meanwhile, millions of pro-life Republicans would have flipped because abortion is the singular issue upon which they base their vote.

Guns are in the same boat. Hundreds of thousands of voters vote strictly based on their love of guns. There's no political advantage in the general election for being anti-gun, and the Dems are sacrificing a whole lot of seats to fight this losing battle.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Vytle@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

Yeah nevermind that the constitution says "shall not be infringed"' If abortion rights were in the constitution there would be no way of banning it, just as it is with firearms.

load more comments (21 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 25 points 2 years ago

What do you propose? Just accept the massacres?

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

Advocate for shit that would actually change things.

[-] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago

What do you propose?

I guess I'd ask you the same question. I don't have a proposal because I don't think any of it will make it through Congress. And if it somehow made it through Congress, the Supreme Court would strike it as unconstitutional.

Short of voting out these members of Congress and balancing the court, there's no hope of reform. So drop the issue to appeal to more voters. Win more elections, balance the court, then you're in a position to effect change.

Also, AWBs are pretty useless. They tend to grandfather in existing weapons and they exclude handguns, which are the weapon used most often to commit murder. Magazine limits, which were in the 1994 law, were the only piece to show a genuine reduction in violent crimes.

load more comments (31 replies)
[-] DanglingFury@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Enforce our ban on domestic abusers owning firearms. We already passed it, but no one enforces it. It would eliminate a huge chunk of gun violence in the nation, but its not as appealing to the mob as the "assault style" ban.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 years ago

Plus if they focused on mental health and preventive measures they could maybe bring over some fire arms enthusiasts, who otherwise vote republican or atleast get them to not vote.

Mind you the effectiveness may be scattershot at times since its alot easier to get the guy going postal than it is to get the an ideologically motivated shitbag.

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

Republicans block efforts for increased healthcare of any kind let alone mental health. They also block preventative measures like red flag laws.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It’s not a mental health issue. There are people with mental health issues all over the civilized world and those countries don’t deal with mass shootings weekly, even if the citizens are allowed access to guns. It’s the relatively unrestricted access to firearms with minimal to no oversight of gun owners, and no rules to secure said firearms.

Edit: well, here we go again.

https://abc7.com/unlv-active-shooter/14148302/

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

Seriously. Pivot to mental health funding or something. At least that has a chance of passing and even if it doesn't cut down on shootings it will still help people.

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

It's also a lightning rod issue that turns more voters away than it attracts.

Sure there are staunch anti-gun people under the Democrats' tent but they're not the kind of people who will vote Republican if the party suddenly scaled back or ended its decades long futile efforts at gun bans.

On the other hand there are a ton of white working class voters on the suburban-rural fringes of swing states who would absolutely at least consider a Democrat if the party wasn't so easily cast as "gun grabbers and job killers who only care about minorities".

You get a pro-union, pro-legal-gun Democrat on a ticket who speaks on issues affecting rural whites as much as they do urban non-white voters (who are equally important), and you'd have a winner in many of these areas where they've been quite red, but not so rabidly Trumpy as other areas.

Even moreso if that's a change that happened at the party/platform level.

I feel like from a campaign strategy standpoint, guns are just a lose-lose for the Democratic party. Playing to a base that would be loyal anyway for other reasons, even if the party dropped that position completely (which would not only eliminate a deal breaker issue for rural Democrats but also eliminate a cornerstone of the GOP platform in "protecting the second amendment"). Unless they did a complete about face and suddenly became as cozy with the NRA as Republicans, anti-gun voters might be upset, but they're still voting blue.

After all there's still abortion, electoral reform, racial justice, the environment, education, foreign policy, infrastructure, legal weed, LGBT rights, healthcare, and a host of other issues where the Dems are still their people.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Donjuanme@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago

Because it wasn't the reauthorizing of the assault weapons ban, it was an entirely new version of... The same measures we had 2 decades ago...

The fuck are you talking about it would never pass Congress or the supreme Court, it's the same damn thing we already had you muppet.

[-] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

Are you under the impression the politics of 1994 are remotely similar to 2023? Have you read the Supreme Court cases of Heller (2008) or Bruen (2022)?

Name call all you want, but you're the one tragically out of touch. This Congress, especially the Republican majority in the house would NEVER pass this bill. SCOTUS has completely changed gun rights in this country since 2008. First finding an individual right to gun ownership, then drastically reducing those gun limitations that are allowable under the 2nd amendment.

I suggest you do some reading before spouting nonsense. Your comment somehow states the bill is simultaneously "entirely new" and also the "same damn thing". Muppet.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[-] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 78 points 2 years ago

GOP: Gentlemen Gentlemen this is a mental health issue which is we can't ban 2A rights.

Everyone: Ok then give us better mental health?

GOP: Nope that's commie talk. Just get Jesus. (Also shocked why people hate them)

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

I support the 2nd. I also support single payer healthcare, including dental coverage and expanded mental Healthcare services. Then again, I dont support Republicans.

[-] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 10 points 2 years ago

If dems got off the 2A stuff they would get more voters ::cough cough:: Texas. I know people that are like yeah abortion is not a deal breaker for me but guns are. Mostly people who are too old to have kids anyway. I'm sure Mass shooting will go down once we have social nets to get people the help they need. Guns are like Cars. Fine when used by responsible adults baaaad otherwise. No one does these things because they have happy content lives.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Dwayne_Elizondo_Mountain_Dew_Camacho@sh.itjust.works 44 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)
[-] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 15 points 2 years ago

All too often the sad but true story about the US of A.

[-] quindraco@lemmy.world 29 points 2 years ago

Banning specific guns is pure theater, even if it passes. There's zero real safety in it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

It’s a small price to pay so we can have dorky looking fake machine guns when a tyrannical leader sends waves of drones and infantry.

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

It's hilarious to me that you think your semi auto AR-15 is going to do shit against the US Army in the first place. Lmao

[-] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

It's not even that, it's shocking to me because most of the people who love guns are on the side of the fascists anyway. Fight the government? They're going to vote for the authoritarians.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Ferrous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 2 years ago

So the US has never had any issue with guerilla warfare when the adversaries had mostly small arms? Cool it with the American exceptionalism.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 12 points 2 years ago

you ever notice that when a vote is 49-51 conservatives win whether they're the 49 or the 51? Or how if it looks like they're gonna lose the vote by a large enough margin to actually lose that they can just prevent a vote from happening at all? You ever wonder how the government dare call itself "representative" and then ignore something that 92% of us want?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

According to the article it's the same AWB from the Clinton years.

They can fuck right off. It's not what we need. We need to ban external magazines. This cosmetic shit is bullshit and just posturing to make gun owners suffer.

We need to withhold all federal funding from states that do not send information to the NICS system and we need universal background checks.

Banning external magazines works because every rifle can be retrofitted by welding a magazine in place and loading with stripper clips.

Edit - ITT people who think they have a right to carry guns everywhere but are too afraid to write a reply.

Edit 2 - And apparently most of the ones willing to reply fall into the camp of pretending to care as they've laser focused on one word. No I'm not going to change it. Being a nuisance is not the objective. Cathartic release is not the objective. Cutting gun violence is the fucking objective.

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

We could just ban all guns, unless you're part of a well organized militia. No need to worry about cosmetics or any real particulars that way.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
544 points (100.0% liked)

politics

24483 readers
2822 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS