this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
25 points (96.3% liked)

politics

18866 readers
21 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
 

WASHINGTON — Sen. Angus King of Maine was introducing a gun control bill Thursday that he said would regulate the sale, transfer, and manufacture of gas-operated semi-automatic weapons.

King, an Independent, and Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich, of New Mexico, were introducing the bill together, called the Gas-Operated Semi-Automatic Firearms Exclusion (GOSAFE) Act.

top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Goddammit, this isn't going to go anywhere and it's just going to rile up the anti-gun control crowd.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (3 children)

This is called wasting political capital, and both parties need to learn that term.

As a liberal gun nut, this shit pisses me off. Performative legislation that is certain to be struck down and which takes away from solutions that might help.

And excepting the recent lunatic, does Maine have a gun problem?! I would guess NO.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Accidents and suicides are the problem in Maine, setting aside the recent event.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"Accidents" are often failed suicides and suicides are half the problem. Gods I wish I could think of a workable answer.

https://old.lemmy.world/comment/5736838

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

suicides are half the problem

The majority of firearm-related deaths are suicides.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Sooner we get to comprehensive health reform and registering firearms like personal cars the better imo, but lemmy isn't ready for that conversation.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

Meh... I'm not ready for registration, and maybe I'll be proven wrong someday.

Imagine you're Shalafi. 40+ guns of all sorts and surrounded by half-and-half liberal and conservative neighbors. Everyone knows you're armed to the teeth. Only have 2 out the safe, and many are in pieces, or aren't really "guns" (black powder/pellet/BB). But still, you're an armed liberal.

Some of your neighbors are dear friends, some merely acquaintances, some actively hate your guts. (Never fuck the girl next door guys, just don't.)

Given the current political climate, how much you willing to bet some of these boys won't become Brown Shirts in 2024? Maybe come around with a list? A government list you're on for owning $X. Maybe they're just "checking" on folks like you, "for your own protection"? It's the Deep South, so they feel safe going door to door. The black folks on the street are willing to talk to the man flying a Trump 2024 flag, be neighborly. How much resistance they expect?

You loathe being in this state of mind. You're disgusted your America has come to this. Revolted that the American flag has become a virtue signal for fascists.

But you see where the paranoid conservatives have been coming from regarding registration. All good until the opposition takes the reins. And this time the opposition ain't trying to merely ban AR-15s. They've declared you to be "vermin", an "internal enemy", one that must be wiped out. They wish to ban your very life.

You'll just have to imagine you're Shalafi.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

In fairness, that asshat was responsible for the SECOND mass shooting in that tiny little town:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Bowdoin%E2%80%93Yarmouth_shootings

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Lewiston_shootings

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

It's written such that it does nothing but cause fear. This is essentially a blanket ban, with some exceptions, on every rifle designed in the last 100 years since it explicitly bans guns that dont have permanently fixed magazines, and it doesn't get smarter from there. This bill is basically a campaign add against democratics.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

If Democrats would pull their heads out their asses and cut it out with the ineffective gun laws, just imagine the single-issue voters they would pull.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

2008, D.C. vs Heller - Supreme court already ruled that you can't ban an entire class of guns.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570 "1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."

...

"The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There are some slow learners in the legislature.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

And they won't until the bans in California, Oregon, and Washington hit the Supreme Court and get struck down after years of legal work and millions of taxpayer dollars.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

So whiny people are arguing against sensible restrictions. Shocking.

This seems reasonable,and narrowly targeted. Haven’t always agreed with Senator King, but this isn’t about alliances and politics.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Tbh let's just ban them all and be done with it. Let the civil war start sooner, so it can end sooner. Just typical election cycle bullshit imho.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Can't ban them all without an amendment, and George Santos shows what it takes to get 290+ congress critters to agree on something.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah cause banning drugs stopped the opiod epidemic

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

I'd like to introduce you to intentional hyperbole.