this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
659 points (94.3% liked)

politics

19144 readers
5938 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 180 points 3 months ago (24 children)

Biden is doing this to drive a wedge into Republicans. The gun nuts and the ones that don't care about guns will have differing opinions because now gun violence affects them directly. It's really smart.

Biden looks presidential. Trump has three choices:

  1. Come out against AR-15s, for obvious reasons. This makes gun nuts less likely to vote for him.

  2. Come out in favor of AR-15s. He looks insane to Republicans who don't care about guns.

  3. Trump ignores the issue or waffles and looks unpresidential.

Number 3 is most likely. Of course the correct answer is number 4: propose a competing policy that is nuanced. But that's impossible for trump.

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 81 points 3 months ago (6 children)

How many Republicans don't care about guns?

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 105 points 3 months ago (5 children)

The ones that are republicans for tax purposes.

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago (10 children)

Is that enough to matter? And is this issue enough for them to change their vote, given the tax stuff? All the other shit Trump does certainly doesn’t matter.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 25 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Lots of them. Do you know any Republicans? None of them care about issues that don't affect them and their families. Even other "conservative" issues. They are not driven by policy.

Only Republicans with guns care about guns. And only 50% of Republicans have guns.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx

They don't care about each other. Liberals care about what other liberals think. Stop thinking like someone who cares about policy.

[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 20 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I've had to explain this to a lot of people who naturally assume that any organization of people will be organized around some kind of shared values. Most of the time that's true, but not for Republicans.

Republicans are just a mish mash of obsessive single-issue voters, and by in large they just don't care about the other single issues that their fellow party members are going on about.

At the head of the Republican party it's people who want to minimize their tax burden, eliminate regulations on corporations, and cannibalize as much of the US government as they can into for-profit institutions. You could say that's three issues instead of one, but the overarching theme is to cater to personal greed, no matter the harm to society. These are the ones who are primarily pulling the strings in the party, at least historically.

Just below them is the military industrial complex and gun manufacturers who just want to sell guns no matter the harm to society. They like to rile up 2A fanatics with conspiracy theories that the government is out to steal all their guns so they'll be defenseless, paving the way for King Biden to ascend to his throne. The industry only cares about selling guns and the fanatics only care about having guns, and neither care about any kind of harm to society.

Then there's the radical Christians whose obsessions cover an eclectic mix of social reactionary positions and literal death cult worship (e.g. Christians who give absolute support to genocide in Palestine because they think Israel's conquest is a crucial step towards the rapture, which they believe is imminent). Broadly speaking the people in this group just want to hoist their religious doctrines onto everyone they can by any means available and no matter the harm it causes to society. They literally only care about "God's Kingdom" in the afterlife.

Then there's people who just lack any capacity for adaptation or learning. Their obsession is to feel like things are staying the same, or even reverting back to a past that they only know how to view through rose tinted glasses. They can't be bothered to comprehend the problems we're facing as a society or how the past was not the idyllic utopia that they mistakenly remember, nor can the old way of doing things sustain a growing and transforming society. These people just want to exist in comforting ignorance by feeling like they get to remain in familiar surroundings, no matter the harm to society.

There's really only one thing that truly unites them: Each one wants one specific thing no matter the harm to society, and that one specific thing that they each want IS HARMFUL to society. But they work well together because none of them care about the harm being caused by any of the others, and as long as they all tow the same line, each one gets what they want.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] TunaCowboy@lemmy.world 55 points 3 months ago (21 children)

Gun control, especially banning the most popular and utilitarian platform, is a massive political loser. This is incredibly poor timing for a struggling campaign.

load more comments (21 replies)
[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 37 points 3 months ago

Trump ignores the issue or waffles and looks unpresidential.

and that is what's gonna get him. because up until now, he looked soooo presidential 😂

[–] Fester@lemm.ee 35 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Any of those options will work fine for Trump. He doesn’t need to have policies, strategies, or responses to anything. His voters can’t remember it anyway. You think they remember that he banned bump stocks in the first place? He could promise to ban AR-15s one day, then criticize his own proposal the next day, and he’ll just get cheered by both sides. Voters are fucking stupid.

All that matters is that he keeps the steady supply of hateful buzzwords flowing. You can’t win chess against an opponent who’s playing hungry hungry hippos.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PythagreousTitties@lemm.ee 19 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Trump already said he'd take away everyones guns, no questions asked, years ago. No one that supported him even blinked. This means nothing to them.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
[–] kitnaht@lemmy.world 100 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (32 children)

Bernie had this right. Despite being pretty progressive, he wasn't for outlawing semiautomatic firearms because they were black and looked scary. He believed that the right to arms was justified. This "AR Ban" is a great way to lose a lot of independents, and even some hard D voters like myself. There are a lot of dems who carry, and a lot of them who own the very firearms he wants to ban.

load more comments (32 replies)
[–] Kiernian@lemmy.world 79 points 3 months ago (16 children)

Holy deep fried frankenfuck will the Democrats NEVER LEARN?!?!?!?!

AFTER!

You talk about guns AFTER the election!

What in the actual pogostickingpopejohnpaul is he THINKING?!?!?

The optics are 1000% awful here.

Uvalde wasn't enough, but a potshot at the planet's most notorious living felon is?

[–] zewm@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago (8 children)

Lose the election speed run any %

I’m 100% sure Dems are actively self sabotaging their re-election.

There is no way the entire party cannot read a fucking room. This has to be on purpose at this point.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] not_that_guy05@lemmy.world 65 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Nah, I think I'll keep my shit and wait for the far right to move.

The fuckin scenario we are in I swear.

Far right: let's kill the left and do fascism.

Democrats: let's ban weapons right now while there's threats of violence against democrats.

Really?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 59 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Just as dumb as when Beto said it before his election...

It'll never pass, and he thinks saying it will get votes, but all it does is motivate idiots to vote trump, even tho he actually did an executive action to try and close a loophole.

It might not have stood, but it worked for a couple of years.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 52 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Banning guns is a losing policy for democrats. It only ever hurts them. I really wish they'd stop lighting political capital on fire with statements like this

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 28 points 3 months ago (6 children)

I said this decades ago... if Dems dropped the gun shit and embraced safe shooting sports, they would win every damn election.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] npz@lemm.ee 50 points 3 months ago (3 children)

It seems like such a lazy non-solution. Essentially telling shooters "Hey, from now on, you can only use ALL THE OTHER GUNS" as if that solves something.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 29 points 3 months ago (18 children)

This is the problem. All banning the AR will do is drive the popularity of another platform up. There's a crapload of powerful semi-auto customizable platforms out there, it's just that the AR variant is the most popular. It's a stupid solution because it's no solution at all - and I don't mean that as a "not good enough so we should do nothing at all" thing, it's just a completely pointless solution.

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 50 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

This is like begging for Republicans to start making up conspiracies about how the Democrats set this all up to take away their gun rights.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 39 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Uhh... They've been making those up for decades.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 47 points 3 months ago (5 children)

I can think of literally no better reason to keep ARs legal than the events of last week.

[–] xionzui@sh.itjust.works 45 points 3 months ago (12 children)

Yes, this is the exact intention of the second amendment. Armed resistance against tyrannical government. If the rise of fascism in America isn’t the time to use it, it’s meaningless.

The founding fathers envisioned state militias that would rival the power of the federal army and keep it in check. That ship has sailed, so it already lost a lot of its bite, but any power it still has can only be justified for that purpose

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] glitchdx@lemmy.world 43 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I'll give up my guns after the christo-facists give up theirs, not before.

[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 42 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Add the cops to that list for me. Any disarming of citizens while the cops still get more military gear is just class war pretending to be progress.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TunaCowboy@lemmy.world 43 points 3 months ago (33 children)

Braindead take, is Biden gonna come to my rescue when some christofascist militia has me on my knees in front of a ditch?

[–] oce@jlai.lu 49 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (22 children)

Sounds like a similar argument to how christofascists justify owning military weapons. It's very disturbing from a European point of view.

[–] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The countries with nukes get permanent seats on the UN Security Council.

Maybe once the US has been around for a few more centuries it'll be different. in the meantime, if the crazies are armed you should be too.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee 33 points 3 months ago

The cops will bring the rope.

Source: George floydd protests

load more comments (31 replies)
[–] Delta_V@lemmy.world 42 points 3 months ago (7 children)

FUCK

its like he's trying to lose

this is not going to get anyone excited about voting for him, but it will galvanize the opposition and push swing voters into staying home on election day at the very least

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] WhyDoYouPersist@lemmy.world 37 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I dunno, it didn't work out so well for Beto.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

Sad things is, if the people who voted for Biden in Texas had voted for Beto, Beto would have won Texas in a landslide.

Texas gubernatorial race: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Texas_gubernatorial_election
• 4,437,099 for piss baby
• 3,553,656 votes for Beto

Presidential election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Texas
• 5,259,126 for Biden

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Fades@lemmy.world 35 points 3 months ago

That fucking horrible assassination attempt would have happened with or without the AR, this is just another knee-jerk emotional reaction, and it could NOT come at a worse time (pre-election). We're fucked.

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 34 points 3 months ago (12 children)

Handguns used in ~2/3 of all gun murders in the U.S.: I sleep

AR-15 used in one assassination attempt of geriatric running for president in 2024: REAL SHIT

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 34 points 3 months ago

Nooo, let’s not. We’re gonna need those pretty soon from the looks of it.

[–] AhismaMiasma@lemm.ee 30 points 3 months ago (48 children)

Anyone looking to ban weapons must not believe Jan 6th was a genuine insurrection.

Why, oh why, would you disarm the people and give the state a monopoly on violence when that state is teetering on the edge of fascism.

load more comments (48 replies)
[–] DontMakeMoreBabies@lemm.ee 27 points 3 months ago

This is a fucking retarded take and I vote Democrat. Jesus.

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 26 points 3 months ago (7 children)

I want you to imagine the following scenario:

The RIAA: "Internet file sharing of mp3s is eating into our profits. Government, we want you to ban the Rio Volt SP250 mp3 player."

The Government: "Yes, banning only that specific make and model of mp3 player and none of the rest of Rio's product catalog, or any mp3 players manufactured by any other brand, will completely and permanently address this scourge of copyright infringement. Consider it done."

That's you! That's how DUMB you sound!

--GLaDOS.

Here's what happens when you ban a firearm by name: manufacturers change some extremely minor detail, change the model number, and keep selling it. The Tec-9 open bolt machine pistol was used in a few school shootings in the 90's, most prominently the Columbine massacre. California banned the gun by name in state law. The manufacturer responded by moving the sling ring from one side of the gun to the other and calling it the Tec-DC9, with "DC" standing for "Designed for California."

It's not an engineering problem. Banning individual makes and models is how you solve (or at least end) an engineering problem. This is a culture problem.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Draegur@lemm.ee 23 points 3 months ago

Fucking typical.

Something comes close to removing a problem created by the conservatives and the Democrats want to take it away!

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 23 points 3 months ago (4 children)

This does nothing to motivate the left and everything to motivate the right....

Biden, are you TRYING to lose?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The type of rifle isn't the problem here. If the shooter had used something better it's likely Trump wouldn't have survived.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting

"Charles Whitman killed seventeen individuals and wounded at least thirty-one others over the course of thirteen hours before he was killed on the observation deck of the UT Tower on August 1, 1966.[72]"

And of course, infamously:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 22 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The only way this is possible is by rewriting the Constitution. FDR was the last president willing to, and that definitely didn't happen.

Biden doesn't have Constitution rewriting level support.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 21 points 3 months ago

Biden tries to throw a sure thing, again.

load more comments
view more: next ›