this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
493 points (96.6% liked)

politics

18967 readers
3626 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hdnsmbt@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

This cosmetic shit is bullshit and just posturing to make gun owners suffer.

"Suffer" in what way? Having to find a new hobby? Having to use a different boom toy instead of the cool boom toy they want to use? Those poor, poor gun owners!

Compared to the actual suffering of the dying kids and their parents, who do you think has it worse?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The old AWB literally bans certain guns by name and certain cosmetic parts. That's it. They can rename the childkiller 2000 into childkiller 3000 while reworking the buttstock to fit around the thumb hole clause. It literally drives more gun sales, not less.

And it grandfathers in all the guns already out there. It's a fucking nuisance law, not a solution. It's not even a step in the right direction because I can buy an AWB legal hunting rifle and run it with old 30 round magazines for the same effect as the scary black gun with a fore grip and flash hider.

How do you read shit like "make external magazines illegal and weld all the guns so they can't take them" and think this guy likes the gun lobby?

Think for half a second. Read beyond the fucking title.

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

It sounds like you possibly didn't read my question. "Suffer" in what way, exactly? How do you read "'Suffer' in what way?' and go on a tangent about renaming guns? Did you not say "This cosmetic shit is bullshit and just posturing to make gun owners suffer."? Did I misinterpret what you said?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You lost the entire context of it and just went with the catharsis of gun nuts having to spend more money on less than perfect guns. The point was the catharsis doesn't help victims of gun violence.

[–] hdnsmbt@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I asked for clarification on something you said. The context of my question is what you said, which is why I conveniently quoted it for you. My question does not relate to the general point you're making but to this one sentence which I believe I made more than clear through my following-up questions. You seem to prefer to pretend not to understand that in order to worm out of the question, possibly because you're aware that what you said is a slight exaggeration.

Also, what do you believe "catharsis" means?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No what you're missing is I don't care about the single sentence. If that was all there was to the post then that's all I would have posted.

[–] hdnsmbt@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

Yes, it was already obvious you have a problem addressing a stupid thing you said. I'm sure you're not really all that black and white, you're just having a hard time being wrong and admitting it.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No one- and I mean no one- has it harder than someone who has 12 rifles that look like they were designed for military use but can't buy a 13th because of some stupid law that is designed to cause them literal physical pain.

Those dead kids wish they had it so bad.

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

Oh my God dude, you too? You usually actually read posts. How about instead of concentrating on being a nuisance to gun owners and the industry we pass some laws that work. Like maybe these things from that comment you responded to-

  • Stop sending any federal funds to states that don't give prohibited possesor information to the National Instant Background Check System

  • Ban and make illegal all external magazines. Existing weapons to be retrofitted by welding a block and installing an internal magazine.

  • Institute Universal Background Checks.

No, instead we're over here discussing if the Remington 21a hunting rifle can be sold with thumb hole, fore grip, and pistol grip. Or if Remington has to design weird shapes and bumps to provide the same functionality without actually being those things. Meanwhile, the kids you care so much about and the gun suicides that make up more than half of gun deaths are still happening.

This is what pisses me off about the 2A debate. One side wants to sacrifice people for their ego and the other side wants to do no more than pretend they're doing something about it.

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

As long as gun owners don't suffer. That's the main thing. We have to end their suffering! Poor gun owners!

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Right. Clearly you don't want to actually do anything. Just complain. Great.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -3 points 9 months ago

I just want to end the suffering! Of gun owners! Because they're the real victims.