this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
288 points (99.7% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3431 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
 

Summary

White supremacist Avi Rachlin used racist slurs during a Michigan Senate committee hearing, claiming proposed gun legislation unfairly targets white people while suggesting lawmakers focus on Black communities in Detroit.

Representing the extremist group “Groypers for America,” Rachlin falsely argued the bill was retaliation against white Trump supporters.

His comments, including the use of the N-word, were condemned by lawmakers, with Sen. Jim Runestad calling the remarks inappropriate.

The committee ultimately advanced the bill, which would expand the ban on firearms in Michigan’s Capitol, initially requested after armed protests in 2020.

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 9 points 12 hours ago

what a racist goblin.

dude exudes small penis energy.

the legislation should put forward a new bill that actually targets racist gun owners just to prove a point.

sometimes the smallest "chuck" at the bar has the loudest mouth and needs a reality check.

Somebody's gunning for a cabinet appointment

[–] 01011@monero.town 3 points 12 hours ago

It's amazing how frequently white supremacists take the ahistorical route to justify their beliefs.

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 45 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] pyre@lemmy.world 35 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

easiest way to implement gun control, arm black people en masse and make sure to advertise it

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 6 points 12 hours ago

happened when the Panthers started showing up armed (legally) to protests.

happened when someone started to threaten congress with their own dirty movie rentals in DC.

It's almost like management won't do anything until you make it their problem.

[–] SulaymanF@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago

Start a group of Muslims for Gun Rights and watch bigotry work its magic.

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 21 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

There was an episode of Bojack Horseman titled Thoughts and Prayers in which during a rise in mass gun violence, the Government is debating gun control. It doesn't appear to be going anywhere until (following some sub-plotlines) there's a huge surge in women owning handguns for self-protection and empowerment. The govt then pretty quickly moves to ban all guns.

Quote from the summary: "A senator asks what his constituents are supposed to do, not compliment random women on the street? and says they can't live with that kind of fear." and "Diane then says she can't believe this country hates women more than it loves guns."

10/10 show

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ever heard of the black panthers? The state only allows this kind of thing for pale people.

[–] ours@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

Republicans tripped over each other to enact gun control when they saw organized and arm black people excersiding their right to bare arms.

It feels like 70% of US laws and agencies were motivated by racism and oppression of minorities.

[–] 100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it 1 points 12 hours ago

Like all other Western countries the US were built on genocide and slavery, I wouldn't be too keen on arming the oppressed either

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 65 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Weird, because historically gun control happens when white people get scared a black man has the same rights as them.

Just ask Dredd Scott v Sanford , or Ronald Reagan.

[–] aramis87@fedia.io 57 points 1 day ago

“It is racial because the people who carry in the Capitol are primarily white people“

Because the black ones are accosted and harassed if they're armed? Something I heard a long time ago was that whites fear becoming a minority because they know how minorities are treated. I just find it odd that they use that as a reason to obsessively cling to power instead of trying to make everyone's lives better.

Back in 2020, Democratic lawmakers requested a change to firearm regulations in the Capitol when armed demonstrators and militia members went into the building demanding an end to COVID-19.

Funny how gun laws and gun restrictions are okay when it comes to protecting lawmakers, but not okay when it comes to protecting schoolchildren.

[–] ThePantser@lemmy.world 36 points 1 day ago (1 children)

White person from MI here. I don't want anyone to have easy access to guns, especially white people. And I don't want them to be allowed where peaceful protests happen. Armed protestors are not protesting they are intimidating.

[–] abigscaryhobo@lemmy.world 5 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (2 children)

I do wonder if there is some value in like a "protestor defense volunteer". Like a group that their job is just to protect the people in protesting areas, regardless of affiliation or reason. Can't call it a problem if everyone gets defended while exercising their rights, and then protestors don't have a reason to bring guns.

Edit: I guess that would normally just be the police?

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 hours ago

Yeah, most of the time the protesting groups bring their own armed people. They don't take part in the protests generally though. They stand to the side and watch (at least for leftists, I think the right they're more directly part of it).

Ideally the police is what you're asking for, but I wouldn't put much faith in them.

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 1 points 13 hours ago

The police is the arm of the government, so they usually find a bullshit reason to dismiss a protest violently. Unless you are a white christofascist group, then have at it.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (2 children)

White supremacist Avi Rachlin

Avi?

[–] Tujio@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

Short for Avolf.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's just a name. Maybe a fake name... But zionism is a white supremacist ideology.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/1/9/the-zionist-fallacy-of-jewish-supremacy

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago

Tell the Klan that.

[–] Captainvaqina@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 day ago

This scum doesn't deserve to exist anymore.

[–] ATDA@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

His emderpened speech may have come off better if it white, and klan, folk weren't the #1 source of terrorism for two decades.

Is that the majority of gun deaths? No but good luck anyone caring after that talk.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Because of course it's anti-white.

FFS.