politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Do only rich people deserve guns?
Do the most vulnerable people in society not deserve a means of self defense or self sufficiency when you consider the demographics of lower earners?
What is the spirit of this legislation - what kind of person is supposed to be targeted by this? What kind of person actually commits gun violence?
That's all well and good, maybe guns are inherently problematic. But since no one is paying attention to my wording I'll just say it:
Right wingers and neo-fascists commit the majority of gun violence in this country and will absolutely never give them up. They are not the poor and unsophisticated rednecks you're told they are, they tend to be richer than average and their brand of violence is calculated. Many of them are current and former police officers and therefore won't take their friends' guns away just because the law says so.
If you're poor you're less likely to be white and straight and therefore more likely to be harassed or killed by the aforementioned groups.
This is not me saying that it's time to give up on gun control laws or that we need more guns. Fewer guns in the US will mean a more peaceful country. I'm saying that laws that simply make it more expensive to buy and own guns will not deter violent people from buying them because they impose no restrictions on them.
Can you support your assertion that right wingers and neo-fascists commit the majority of gun violence in this country? I realize how much of the info around this subject is propaganda so I like to look at the data whenever I can find it?
Most shootings are in big cities. Please don't spread your brain washing.
Easy answer to both questions: gun owners
Most uses of firearms in the US are not self-defense. But funnily enough, if there were fewer guns... there'd be fewer need for those few self-defense cases.
Don't waste your time. People here aren't looking for a rational discussion. This is the "shit on anyone who values their own safety" thread. Most of these commenters have only ever seen guns on the news, in the hands of criminals, who obviously don't give a shit about these new laws.
I used to have to listen to my neighbor doing target practice with his semiautomatic pistol until his stepdaughter took a secret video of him beating the shit out of her mom and gave it to her teacher. He got all his most favoritest fancy boy toys taken away and now I just have to listen to him loudly fussing about it and blaming everyone but himself for it happening.
He's an Olympic level cunt muffin with no sense of personal responsibility or care for the safety of others. Everyone I know who owns semiautomatic weapons is pretty much the exact same garbage personality type. Or a cop.
Everyone in the neighborhood is now safer because that fucktard can't go blowing holes in his walls when he gets scared at night.
You have just described the process of making yourself prejudiced. Does it feel nice to know that you harbor prejudice against your fellow American citizens, millions of us?
Waaaaaaah someone else doesn't liiiiiike me. My heteronormative Christian toxic masculine riiiiiiiights, you're preeeeeejudiceddddddd. Waaaaaaaahhhhh.
That's you. That's what you sound like.
Cops, white people, men, and christians have all the fucking power in the US.
Interestingly enough, most gun control laws disproportionately disarm people who aren't in the demographics you listed. In fact, historically, gun control has usually been used to disarm minorities so they can more easily be intimidated, harassed, and murdered. Which side of history are you on? The side that empowers minorities, or the side that disarms them and prevents them from choosing any path other than victimization?
Yeah, that needs a citation. I've heard this point parroted time and again, but never have seen data demonstrating it.
Minorities are getting killed by police, whether they're armed or not.
BMJ, Fatal Police Shootings, 2020
As to your pointed question - I want to be on the side of history that puts an end to daily mass murder events. Which side of history do you want to be on?
From 1917 to today, over 37 million people have been killed by fascist and Marxist dictators. Disarmament of the public is a favored preemptive tactic that they employ. I intend to be on the side of history that isn't so victimized.
The link you shared is great evidence that our police forces, local, state, and federal, need to be disarmed. An armed police officer is significantly more dangerous than an armed civilian.
Where's your data?
No one deserves a gun.
There, no need to even read the rest.