politics
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
view the rest of the comments
Why do we allow so many terrorists to own guns?
If you use a gun to commit a crime, you should lose the right to own guns forever.
Maybe, just Maybe if one of these fucking right wing nuts take out a politician then watch real quick we will get new gun laws. Long as they shooting up schools, and churches and hurting us common folk nothing will change.
Gabby Giffords? Congressional baseball shooting?
And Steve Scalice's shooting?
That was the baseball one.
Thanks for the reminder. I thought it was a congressional baseball game. How these people literally get shot and still don't see the need for reform, I don't understand.
Hey, I'll have you know a few feet of your lower intestine, part of your colon, and almost dying is a small price to pay when you can insider trade and rake in that sweet sweet NRA money
Easiest way to kickstart it is arming at-risk minorities.
California's strict gun laws have their roots in white conservatives' reaction to the Black Panthers marching with rifles while St. Reagan was governor of the state.
The upside of this strategy is that if the gun laws don't change, then at least those minorities will have some means of protecting themselves.
+1, if anyone wants to know why California has such restrictive gun laws those started in response to the Black Panthers policing our cops.
Edit: https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2020/04/the-black-panthers-nra-ronald-reagan-armed-extremists-and-the-second-amendment/
So, yeah, have black people show up with ARs in some state capitols and you'll kickstart gun control right quick. Arming liberal women, gays and trans people in red states and having them show up at the capitol might work too.
The down side is that it gives white supremacists the same excuse to execute minorities in the street as the police use.
If guns actually helped oppressed and abused minorities, America would be the safest place in the world for them. Instead, they're routinely hunted by domestic terrorists, almost all of whom are legal gun owners.
The reality is that the gun lobby figured out that you can sell hero fantasies to leftists too.
The reality is that they already have all the excuse they need.
Personally, I'm not a fan of the side that's perfectly happy with pursuing genocide having the perception that they have a monopoly of violence.
Have you seen the Ahmaud Arbery video? Did you know that the DA of that county is under indictment for trying to bury that case when all 3 defendants were eventually convicted? These monsters don't wait for an excuse, the existence of anyone who isn't a cishet white Christian Republican is their excuse to be violent.
If Arbery had a gun they'd have 100% been acquitted. Cops regularly point to weapons in the rough vicinity of black men to justify their shootings.
That's the thing, if Arbery had a gun, it's very likely several of them wouldn't have survived the encounter. Which, as far as racists go, is a very preferable turnout to me.
Sure, and that's a systemic issue that needs solving or it will only get worse as people join specifically to kill and oppress minorities.
But guns are still no solution and anyone promoting them as one is clearly just parroting gun lobby talking points without actually thinking them through.
If Ahmaud Arbery had a gun within 20ft of him, everybody involved would be walking free.
But beyond that, when exactly was he supposed to open fire on police and how do these gun advocates expect that to play out? The moment a minority uses a gun to defend themselves from police, they're as good as dead. The best case scenario is decades in prison.
And if all minorities started doing it? Police executions would skyrocket -- including for unarmed people -- and we'd never see them convicted again.
If a Republican politician were taken out, it would be open season on Democrats.
If they kill a Democrat, the right will just cheer. If they kill a Republican, the right will proclaim loud and long how this proves they're the victims of violent Democrats and it'll get brought up for years to "both sides" political violence, the way that the Congressional baseball game shooting is today. Plus the more deranged part of the base wall immediately create new conspiracy theories about how it wasn't really a Republican/right-winger that did the shooting, it was a left-wing antifa/FBI plant controlled by George Soros, Bill Gates and Tom Hanks using the space lasers to control their 5G+vaccine zombie trial and now that the trial run has succeeded you all need to be aware because the civil defense sirens will sound at 10pm next Tuesday and that's the signal for the National Guard to come through and scour the neighborhood and arrest everyone and intern then into FEMA camps.
Edit: fix autocorrect words
....and then pass rules that Republicans politicians at all levels be exempt from any gun restrictions, even on someone else's private property. They would proudly wear hip holsters onto the House floor during debate and claim that is the only way they can be safe. The first shooting victim on the House floor will be a person of color from a Republican gun.
If it happens to be a radical from the left that does the initial killing, then there's even a possibility Republicans would support gun restrictions on Democrats.
Remember, the conservative answer to too much gun violence is always adding additional guns.
I am going to have to deduct points there. You forgot to add in Hunter Biden and laptop into your well developed right wing conspiracy theory.
No definitely not. They didn't do anything after Gabby Giffords was shot back in 2011, they're not going to now.
Only if it's a Republican politician that is not considered a "RINO".
I mean shit, James Hodgkinson got pretty close.
Maybe not 100% of the time but at least 80-90% of the time it's always the police, or DA failing to do their job properly. If you're pending a felony trial you cannot own/buy guns until you're proven innocent, and they should be confiscated. I cannot imagine how this man would not be chargeable.
Similar goes for many shootings, they plea down to a lesser charge or the cops just don't do their job and let go obvious crimes.
Can’t keep your position as a sheriff or DA who are always “tough on crime”. When you start holding right wing gun owners to the law they get upset and won’t vote for you. They’re the ones most punishment-happy and also simultaneously hold themselves above the law, as events over the last several years should obviously indicate.
Which will promptly turn in to
I'm not making a sophistical argument, they already do this. It's just that they currently focus more on codewords like "thug" to make sure a black man who had three joints in his house can never vote again. If you want gun control, arm every LGBT person in the country and Republicans will ban everything more advanced than a rubber band shooter the very next day, just like how the first sweeping gun control legislation was instituted by then-Governor Reagan to keep the Black Panthers down.
Texas will legalize biracial transgender lesbian atheists before Texas starts actually taking people’s guns away.
Texas takes (usually black) people's guns away all the time, they're not even close to having the most permissive gun laws in the country. As with all things Republicans do, Texan gun culture is massively hypocritical to fulfill a racist double standard.
Yes, data on felony convictions is available to the public.
Those are already legal according to the Constitution.
Not according to the Republican Party
Sadly you're 100% correct. They cling to the bathroom panic even though their arguments have basically no basis whatsoever in reality. Even the "Family Research Council", a religious right-wing think-tank, was only able to find 23 cases of “bathroom incidents” over the span of 18 years - most of which involved cis men, not trans women or even crossdressers, and two cases of discrimination against trans women who were just using the bathroom. Plus in one case a conservative man entered the women's changing room when KIDS were changing to "make a point" about a nondiscrimination law that was recently passed. Everything these creeps claim the left is doing is always just projection.
Meanwhile states that discriminate against trans students have the same rate of sexual assault as other states, and trans teens are much more likely to be victims of assault, especially when they're denied access to facilities that match their identity:
Gun lobby: "$500 is $500“
Kind of self-explanatory. People who are willing to commit crime with guns also don't care if law forbids them owning one.
Which is why when you pull back the layers, most efforts to curb gun ownership ultimately leads to full confiscation and bans. Restrictions won't do what they want.
That's not true. Banning felons from having guns allows the police to arrest them before a new crime is committed, because they are breaking the gun possession law. They don't have to wait until the eventual robbery or whatever is in progress.
It also adds another crime to tack on after the fact to get a confession more easily. It's easier to prove that a felon possessed a gun than to examine their intent in a minor robbery (robbery vs assault vs attempted murder).
Felons are already prohibited from firearm posession... and have been for quite some time. Violent offenders are regularly released back into the streets. Not sure what your point is.
You said:
I provided some examples of how that gun restriction helps prosecute repeat offenders.
Should not even be a right to begin with.
The trouble with that is you cannot be deprived of rights without due process. You cannot be guilty of committing a crime with a gun without having gone to trial or plead out. It would be highly unlikely to get some law pushed through that survives both NRA opposition/propaganda and the inevitable SCOTUS case.
Bail could be used if they still pose a risk, but that's not entirely the point of bail and would also see heavy opposition.
Due process doesn't mean found guilty in a court of law. If that's what it meant then nobody could be held in jail or in police custody even before their trial. If you are booked for a felony, especially one involving a gun, I believe it's perfectly reasonable to have your guns taken temporarily or permanently if you're found guilty of a felony offense.
Only works if a) you are convicted and b) it's a felony charge.
c) anyone bothers to check
Repeal 2A with exceptions for people who actually live in the wilderness or can prove they have a need to own one for their livelihood