this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
895 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19090 readers
4979 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
 

Maryland House Democrats introduced a controversial gun safety bill requiring gun owners to forfeit their ability to wear or carry without firearm liability insurance.

Introduced by Del. Terri Hill, D-Howard County, the legislation would prohibit the “wear or carry” of a gun anywhere in the state unless the individual has obtained a liability insurance policy of at least $300,000.

"A person may not wear or carry a firearm unless the person has obtained and it covered by liability insurance issued by an insurer authorized to do business in the State under the Insurance Article to cover claims for property damage, bodily injury, or death arising from an accident resulting from the person’s use or storage of a firearm or up to $300,000 for damages arising from the same incident, in addition to interest and costs,” the proposed Maryland legislation reads.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] thoughtorgan@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Really?

How is affordability a concern for insulin, when it also costs money?

Obviously one is a medical necessity and the other is not. But the point carries.

Lawful users of firearms are disproportionately affected by this, compared to the murderer that's getting their firearms illicitly.

It's not solving a problem, it's pushing the accessibility further away from the common man. Bit by bit.

[–] SkippingRelax@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

As a non American. Why the fuck do you need access to an ar15 or whatever that was in the first place though. Normal people would think that ousting accessibility away from the common man is a fucking good thing! Are you also interested in getting your hands on chemical weapons while we are at it? do you see it as a problem when your government is trying to limit access to mustard gas or chlorine gas for the common man?

Bit by bit, these bills could help the US to get into the 20th century and start to catch up with Western world civilization.

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

It's a gun?

There's nothing special about an AR-15. It's 2023, detachable magazine and rail mounts are not some whacky new technology.

You're incredibly uneducated about firearms, their features and effectiveness. It shows. Retards like you trying to pass legislation on something you know nothing about is how we got to where we are.

You're afraid of a big black gun with optics and a laser. Not realizing a rifle from the early 1900's compares reasonably well ballistically with a modern rifle. A fucking shotgun used for hunting is really just as deadly as an AR-15 in the grand scheme of things.

There's more guns in America than people. The cats out the fucking bag. You're never going to see reduction in ownership, it just isn't happening.

We're (common man) limited federally to semi automatic only. It's been that way for ages. Only military and certain police agencies can get fully automatic firearms.

I need access because I don't trust cops to protect me. I want to be self sufficient, I want to be able to protect myself.

You enjoy being not responsible for your own safety. I don't.

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

It's actually because of retards like you that YOU collectively are where YOU are. I'm not there with you, I live in a place where my kids don't have to do drills at school for shootings. But sure you know better because you know something about firearms.

What I really enjoy is to live in a safe place. You are not romantically responsible for your own safety as you like to think, you are just a pathetic wannabe cowboy.

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

How can you realistically make the argument that someone who knows nothing about something can make a proper decision about it.

You're fixated on AR-15's, which is tech from the 1960's. There's so many comparable options it's laughable.

[–] SkippingRelax@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

What an interesting angle. I don't know much about guns technical details, I know about banning firearms. The country I live in did it and was successful at it, you gin nuts keep hiding behind minutiae.

I'm not fixated on ar15. I mentioned it just because the guy above me did. All guns should be banned from the US, more clear now?

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Also non-American here and I have indeed eyed an AR-15 once or twice. That'd be contingent on me getting a hunting license, though, and while I'd like to it's probably something for retirement.

Why AR-15? Semi-auto, reliable, very accurate. "But it's a weapon of war" a) no it isn't, it just looks like one because it's modern and b) your grandpa's Mauser 98 is a weapon of war, it probably even was on the front!

[–] thoughtorgan@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

But it's big, black, and scary!!

[–] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social -2 points 9 months ago

>Bit by bit, these bills could help the US to get into the 20th century and start to catch up with Western world civilization.

what does "under no pretext" mean?