503
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2025
503 points (98.8% liked)
politics
23060 readers
3407 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I love his energy, but I sincerely disagree with the whole gun control narrative right now. Leaning into that when there are about to be a shitload of far right militias deputized is an absolutely fucking idiotic plan.
I get it, but this is where he comes from, I thought the same thing you did until I read this.
So like… I was in my early thirties when this happened. I know. I remember. I watched some of the news livestreams as it went down.
I said what I said understanding that.
I am by no means trying to diminish, demean, discredit, disparage, or otherwise detract from his experience. Im saying that I am very fucking concerned that an actual war is coming, and disarming right before a war is a great fucking way to get killed.
And I hear you, and may even agree, I was just sharing this guys Pov
If there's an actual war, I can't see Democrats having any really power at the national level until it's over anyway.
Those laws wouldn't get passed until this whole thing is over and there are progressives in office able to actually do things, if that happens. You wouldn't have gun control as the law of the land in two months. And guns need to take a massive fucking back seat in America. No more blood cult shit, because that's what it is.
Go for what you actually want, which is freedom. Freedom is when you aren't surrounded by people with guns.
Freedom is black folks being able to shoot Klanners who try to burn down their homes. The 2nd Amendment isn't just for pricks.
Exactly. He has the right idea on this, but given his gun control background I don't trust him any farther than I can throw him. Gun control is, at this point, nothing more than a way to lose votes. To an anti-gun liberal, gun control is good policy that saves lives. To a pro gun person, gun control is an unconstitutional civil rights violation that makes a candidate unlectable. This turns away an awful lot of pro-gun moderates from rural areas- these are the voters who make a difference in elections.
And as for the anti-gun base, and anti-gun moderates, what are they going to do, vote Republican in protest? Let's be real.
Gun control is a lose lose proposition
someone should show him betos runs, yea it wont work.
Gun control means: mandatory background checks, waiting periods, bans on previously convicted violent criminals owning guns, potentially magazine limits or limits on fully automatic licenses to specific users (like you may need to demonstrate you have proficiency and be a member of a gun club). None of this goes against "the right to bear arms".
It does not mean nobody can buy guns or that guns are taken away - this is the fearmongering always pushed by the very conservative, very pro-Trump NRA.
We agree on what "gun control" means. We do not agree on the need for gun control, nor do we agree on the affects of gun control on the right to keep and bear arms.
That means forced to go to an FFL dealer before trading guns with your friends and neighbors. No private sales, even to trusted parties. Unacceptable. Every legitimate purpose that a mandatory background check provides can be accomplished by creating public access to NICS. With that in place, every seller can know, and so is expected to know their buyer's status. But, "public access to NICS" is not part of our shared definition of "gun control", and has been fervently opposed by Democratic leadership every time it has been proposed.
Even in theory, waiting periods can only achieve their intent with first-time gun buyers. For everyone else, they serve no purpose other than to hassle gun owners. You could theoretically walk in to a gun store with an AR15 hanging from your chest, a Remington 870 over your shoulder, a S&W 500 holstered on your waist, a 1911 on your hip, a Glock 26 on your ankle, and an LCP in your pocket. But, while you're walking around with three defensive pistols, a big game handgun, a shotgun, and an intermediate caliber rifle, the clerk at that gun store won't let you leave with a bolt-action .22LR plinker. Suffice it to say, waiting periods are unacceptable.
The only reason to even mention such bans is to deceive people into thinking they don't already exist. They do. That deceit is completely unacceptable.
The usual limits proposed are 6 or 10 rounds. These numbers are not derived from any studies on defensive need. They do not consider whether 6 to 10 rounds is sufficient to stop a deadly threat. They do not consider multiple attackers. Unacceptable. The various proposals often apply to guns that can accept such magazines, rather than the magazines themselves, and would thus make most existing guns illegal. Only firearms with fixed magazines could comply with such laws. Unacceptable.
Fully automatic firearms, suppressors, SBRs and SBSs are already overburdened with excessive licensing restrictions. Unacceptable.
Harassing gun owners with these ridiculous gun control measures is costing elections. David Hogg was brought to the DNC by the inept leadership to support their losing message on gun control. He and his pet issue are part of what the Guillotine Party needs to excise.
The USA is alone in the entire world in that it has a mass shooting almost every day of every year, and yet when faced with modest controla you're like, "if I, a citizen with no gun dealer licensr can't just sell whatever guns whenever I like to neighbours and friends then any changes are unacceptable".
You say pro gun-control candidates will cost the Democrats votes, well I think I just found a single issue voter.
It's not my vote you need to worry about. I voted for Harris, Biden, Clinton, Obama, Obama, Kerry, Gore, and more Democratic governors, legislators, judges, commissioners, and administrators than I feel like counting. Democrats didn't, and won't lose my vote over gun control.
The votes you should be concerned about are the ones who aren't here, arguing with you. The votes you should be concerned about are the ones that turned former bellwether swing states into reliably red states. Ohio for example. A state that voted for the eventual winner in 36 of the last 41 elections, going back all the way to the civil war. A state that is now considered reliably red.
Democrats did nothing to prepare for the kids and grandkids of the first generation of concealed carriers across the country. Kids who now have their own carry licenses. The Democrats never bothered to consider the effects of 30 million new gun licensees in 42 of the 50 states, nor their families and friends. Never bothered to consider that voter opinion on guns might have shifted since the civil rights era.
Gun control is one of the more prominent issues of dissatisfaction with the Democratic party.
Gun control seems to mean 'a little more'. This comic is popular among gun owners because it reflects the feeling of constantly ratcheting 'compromise'.
A perfect example of that is background checks. The original bill was a compromise, All gun sales at gun stores are required to have a background check, but the compromise is that private sales between one person and another are exempted. That was a negotiated compromise between the pro gun and anti-gun side. I think for the most part it was a decent compromise. But now the anti-gun side is trying to roll it back calling it the 'gun show loophole' which is horribly named because a gun dealer at a gun show has to do a background check anyway, and most gun shows require background checks for all sales either from a dealer or a private citizen.
The problem with universal background checks is the concept of a transfer. For example, under some proposals, if you want to lend somebody your hunting rifle to go hunting with, that might count as a transfer, which means you have to go to a gun store and pay about $50 and fill out paperwork to legally transfer ownership of the gun to them. And then when they return they have to transfer it back to you.
You should also know that an awful lot of gun owners absolutely hate the NRA. They serve a useful purpose, but their constant deranged rabble rousing fundraising makes gun owners look like paranoid morons.
What I would much prefer to do is outreach and education. An awful lot of gun control laws are based on a total misunderstanding of what guns do and how they work and what makes them powerful or not, I think if more Democrats actually understood guns you would see fewer attempts at bad laws that do nothing to increase safety but just try to turn the screws on gun owners.