this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
297 points (94.6% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3972 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
 

“If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot,” she said, laughing. “I probably should not have said that. My staff will deal with that later.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Y'all are getting caught up on the word fear. The distinction is if someone takes actions that reduce their safety when they intend to increase it.

They are right on average, but outliers do exist. Its not a guarantee of what will happen, but you do have to have some sort of logic to risk assessment.

In my situation, its true a gun in my house increases risk, so I don't have one. I'm sure some people have easily demonstrated needs for that type of protection, you should have to prove it first however.

Sort of like vaccines, guns affect more than the person who has one, so its important to consider the risk to your community as well.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I'm listening, and we can talk, but...

you should have to prove it first however

Whether you or I find gun ownership a Constitutional right, the courts agree it is, and have done so historically. (Unless the owner is black, but that's another story.)

The "prove" part is a hard "no". I don't have to "prove" any of my Constitutional rights. New York had that notion and the court, rightfully IMHO, shot it down. In Alabama you had to have the county sheriff sign off on your "need" to conceal carry. Any guesses as to how that was applied?

guns affect more than the person who has one

I think we're close here...? What do you mean exactly? In any case, how would we remedy the situation? I'm on the constant lookout for gun laws that will pass the courts and have effect.

(And thank you for taking the time to write that up. So rare in these discussions.)

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

**So your argument is guns are a right and you don't need to prove you deserve it. I just disagree morally. We should change that. Sure, you are legally correct, but you can be legally correct and morally defunct at the same time.

The 2nd amendment can and should be changed. Its an amendment in the first place, which sort of seems to imply changes are at the very least possible.

I don't think its possible to change guns in america without amending the constitution first.