this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
114 points (93.8% liked)

politics

18863 readers
4001 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ZagamTheVile@lemmy.world 38 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, they'll revisit it. *looking through the pages of law "Yeah, looks good. Let's do lunch."

[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 29 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

"But wherever we eat, we'll need to avoid that side of town where there's a mass shooter right now."

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

"Wait, on the East side of town with the mass shooter shooting up the school or on the West side of town where the shooter is shooting at a place of worship? You need to be specific."

[–] hikarulsi@aussie.zone 34 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The solution of gun issue is more guns

No wonder the solution of poverty is also more poverty

That’s as American as it gets

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Yes, and the solution to drugs is to ban them...wait no ....uhh the solution to alcoholics is to ban alcohol...shit.

Seriously, our society needs to be fixed. There are 450+ million firearms in civ hands, if we had a gun problem you'd know about it.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

You forgot abortion bans.

I keep saying, America doesn't have a gun problem, America has a culture problem. And our culture is very, very ill.

Love this passage from Discworld about a new idiot taking over the "cops" in that world. (And if someone accuses the author, Terry Pratchett, of conservative thinking, imma choke on my beer). 😆

Swing, though, started in the wrong place. He didn't look around, and watch and learn, and then say, 'This is how people are, how do we deal with it?' No, he sat and thought: This is how the people ought to be, how do we change them?' And that was a good enough thought for a priest but not for a copper, because Swing's patient, pedantic way of operating had turned policing on its head.

There had been that Weapons Law, for a start. Weapons were involved in so many crimes that, Swing reasoned, reducing the number of weapons had to reduce the crime rate.

Vimes wondered if he'd sat up in bed in the middle of the night and hugged himself when he'd dreamed that one up. Confiscate all weapons, and crime would go down. It made sense. It would have worked, too, if only there had been enough coppers - say, three per citizen.

Amazingly, quite a few weapons were handed in. The flaw, though, was one that had somehow managed to escape Swing, and it was this: criminals don't obey the law. It's more or less a requirement for the job. They had no particular interest in making the streets safer for anyone except themselves. And they couldn't believe what was happening. It was like Hogswatch every day.

Some citizens took the not unreasonable view that something had gone a bit askew if only naughty people were carrying arms. And they got arrested in large numbers. The average copper, when he's been kicked in the nadgers once too often and has reason to believe that his bosses don't much care, has an understandable tendency to prefer to arrest those people who won't instantly try to stab him, especially if they act a bit snotty and wear more expensive clothes than he personally can afford. The rate of arrests shot right up, and Swing had been very pleased about that.

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

I'm not going to call him conservative but he is a fantasist that weaves common talking points into his work for comic effect, I'm not going to base my opinions on jokes made in ya fiction.

There are a lot of examples of weapons restrictions in countries round the world including the one I live in, here having a gun will get you significant prison time so if criminals do have one they keep it very well hidden and certainly aren't going to start popping off shots or waving it around in a mugging, burglary, fight or other situation.

Do you know how many times I've been warned not to hang out in front of a club because the bouncer had an argument with a guy who threatened to come back and shoot the place up? Twice, want to guess which country I was in both times? I'll give you a clue it was the only country I've ever seen someone pull a gun when yelling out their car window in a road rage, only country I've ever had to use a different launderette because the regular one had been shot up, only country where I've been in a bar and two people started arguing and everyone started leaving...

You're normalised to it so you don't understand how much it negatively affects your life, a good example is that you're scared of not having a gun - that makes no sense here or any of the places I've visited where guns are sensibly restricted.

[–] gothicdecadence@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

the whole world knows buddy

[–] Trigger2_2000@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

I think they know that ☝️

[–] hikarulsi@aussie.zone 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Many countries have guns and I tell you the big secret: it is not about the numbers, it is about reducing a certain types and the number of people waving them around

No one needs an “assault” rifle to “defend” themselves on a daily basis. A hunting rifle is for useful in hunting area, no one needs one in the car when they are sending their kids to school. If that is the case, you are at war and you should just migrate

Having semi/automatic weapons around is just going to arm that person at a bad day to do lot of damage. And fuel a civilian arm race which only benefits the weapon companies

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

No one has automatic weapons. And no one has assault weapons. Semi autos make up around 95% of all firearms in the USA. Most gun homicides are done with handguns. And all rifles combined make up around 3% homicides a year, that includes your "assault weapons" which average about 50-100 deaths a year with them.

The USA has 450+ million in civ hands. It's absolutely about the numbers.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago

This Supreme Court?

Talk about a waste of time. Haven’t they got other rights to take away, bribes to take, and corporate asses to kiss? Gotta get back to work.

[–] Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Always read these headlines like "damn did another like...big one happen?.. No?.. Oh only like 5 this week? Shit didn't realize it was so low this month."

Fuck this timeline

[–] TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip 17 points 10 months ago

Oh god PLEASE Hunter Biden be the saviour we need. Let the republicans change the constitution and put a dent in the 2nd amendment just to pin something on him. It’d be beautiful. A Biden causing some real change.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 0 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


It was only a year ago that the Supreme Court issued a landmark Second Amendment opinion that expanded gun rights nationwide and established that firearms rules must be consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition.”

Now, on Tuesday, the justices are hearing oral arguments in the wake of the yet another mass shooting, in a case asking it to consider the scope of its 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, this time in the context of domestic violence.

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the Biden administration defends the law, arguing that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is “not unlimited” and it does not prohibit Congress from disarming Rahimi and other individuals subject to domestic-violence protective orders.

In addition, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, when she served on a lower court, dissented when her colleagues rejected a Second Amendment challenge from a man with a felony who was prohibited from possessing a firearm under both federal and Wisconsin law.

One of those cases involves a law which prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” The 5th Circuit struck it down earlier this year, relying heavily on both Bruen and its Rahimi rulings.

Hunter Biden’s legal team has signaled that they plan to use the appeals court’s decision as part of their defense, with his attorney Abbe Lowell previously telling CNN that “the constitutionality of these charges are very much in doubt.”


The original article contains 1,404 words, the summary contains 248 words. Saved 82%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!