The Supreme Court on Monday turned away an appeal by a group of gun rights advocates seeking to overturn Maryland’s ban on assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines under the Second Amendment.
The decision, a major win for gun safety advocates, leaves in place a ruling by the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals which ruled that the state may constitutionally prohibit sale and possession of the weapons.
The state legislation, enacted in 2013 after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, specifically targets the AR-15 – the most popular rifle in America with 20-30 million in circulation. They are legal in 41 of the 50 states.
My opinion on gun control has changed over the years.
I used to be very anti gun. didn’t really see the point of regular people having them.
Today though, me giving up my guns would be like Ukraine giving up their nukes but smaller.
That could have been achieved 20 years ago with logical induction on a few things and a thought experiment.
Also Ukraine gave up its nukes voluntarily , and the common opinion was that the Cold War is over and nobody is going to need weapons, except for fighting criminals and terrorists. Russia didn’t ask for Ukraine’s nukes so persistently. USA did, but not everything USA demanded in those years was given.
So the analogy is very fine, it was also understood to be a mistake to give Russia those nukes even before the first Maidan. Somewhere around second Chechen war.
Humanity is stupid.
Seriously, no way. I’m giving up my guns now that we have brown coats.
punctuation. is important
And it seems like a really egregious error with punctuation, too.
yeah it gives the opposite meaning.
Lmao
Edit I spelled the laughy thing wrong
The current laws surrounding guns in the US is probably going to make the inventable next civil war a lot worse in terms of deaths.
Who gives a fuck about death?!
Your should give a fuck about living under dire conditions way way way way WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY THE FUCK MORE than fucking death.
You’re going to fucking die.
Now decide whether you die under the boot or not.
You’re going to fucking die.
Hi Joni Ernst
You realise I don’t live in the corrupt nation named the US?
I’m conflicted. On one hand, I don’t want somebody’s hobby to be the reason why school shootings persist in the hundreds every year. On the other hand, the best way for minorities to protect their rights is to be armed and dangerous. I think the only way for certain to advance as a society is stricter gun laws overall to keep the impule purchases away.
My opinion has also shifted over time, but not quite in the way I expected. I was also very anti-gun and pro-gun control, and maybe you can make an argument that I was being naive or that I’ve succumbed to the decades-long conservative culture war, but I feel like things have gotten so bad that we can’t possibly rely on the police or the military to be able to effectively protect us in times of crisis anymore.
Seems like cops are more likely to shoot you than help you these days, and the military might be under the control of someone competent, or under the control of a fascist demagogue who replaces all the generals with incompetent yes-men, which is a huge national security threat for a disarmed populace. Also, the government using the military against it’s citizens (or non citizen residents) is definitely not off the table - no matter what pretty words the soldiers said about defending the constitution, a lot of them are in bed with the folk who want to exterminate “the enemy within”.
Maybe if we had more stability we could make a push for more restrictive gun laws, but I don’t think it’s politically feasible for either party at this point to make any such suggestion. The tragic part is that mass shootings will continue unabated until we find a way to counteract them without touching on the subject of gun control.
Why not having guns and being for the ban ?
me giving up my guns would be like Ukraine giving up their nukes
The Ukrainians that controlled the nukes were Soviets. They gave them up as part of non-proliferation agreements intended to disarm Russia.
Western Liberals didn’t want Viktor Yanukovych commanding a nuclear arsenal. You guys seem to have forgotten everything prior to Maidan
Why?
:: gestures broadly to current events::
Current events show that guns are pretty useless against dictators, people do just happily vote them in power. The right to free education would have been a better weapon.
Just shut the fuck up if you don’t know history. Seriously. You don’t need to respond to everything when you don’t know what you’re talking about. Just shut the fuck up. It’s a virtue, I promise.
Khadaffi would beg to differ.
Of all ways to get rid of dictators you choose Lybia as a good example. I rest my case.
Lol, that nose stuck straight up in the air is going to obstruct your target acquisition.
I said dictators have been taken down with items less deadly than a gun, and you say “la la la I can’t hear you!”
And you think it’s a gotcha as the cherry on top!
Introspection must be your dump stats.
The real answer?
Because donald trump got re-elected. That’s it. That’s the sole reason why this person now favors owning a gun.
Neo-liberals are like sheep.
Calling people sheep for wanting to be armed against a fascist regime is a new one.
Better late then never you fucking asshole.
There’s no good reason to need a high powered semiautomatic rifle, anything you need can be done with a bolt action rifle.
When the Christian militias come for me I want to be able to lay down suppressive fire 🤷🏻♀️
When you’re alone, it’s a bad idea to waste ammo on this.
But firing bursts makes targeted fire better, so semi-auto is needed, yes.
Just not for anything suppressive, that’s for people with a mounted machine gun with enough ammo to be limited by barrel temperature
Suppression is good for movement under fire and like you said, works well in groups. While an MG would be ideal, it works fine with pistols and rifles, too.
But like you said, if you’re alone, it’s probably best to stay low, concealed, and covered as much as possible. Take targeted shots, and gtfo of the situation if at all possible.
Look around. If ever there was a time for 2a, it’s rn
Yeah, but what if TWO fascists attack you?
Claymore?
Shotgun shot to the legs.
Ok yeah but what about three fascists
How are you getting close enough with a shotgun, when they have rifles?
Real life shot guns are effective at a longer range than video games. Not counting the various ammunition types you can use. Birdshot might not kill at 100 yards, but you’re still not wanting to get hit by it, especially near the face.
Paul Harrell tested birdshot at 100 yards. It fails to penetrate a t-shirt, and gets very few hits at that range.
LuckyGunner tested Buckshot at 100 yards. It was still deadly, but few pellets will hit.
Shotgun Slugs are effective out to 100 yards.
Birdshot from 100 yards will hurt less than a paintball at 50 yards. Birdshot at 100 yards likely wouldn’t even break the skin of a human. And you’re trying to tell me about video games? Fucking pistols are basically useless at 100 yards, let alone a shotgun. And in the non-existent situation where you knew what you’re talking about, I single shot targets with iron sites from 500m with an m249, which isn’t as accurate as an m16, m4, or m14 etc.
So tell me again about how life isn’t like a video game. My guess is that you’ve never even held one considering how many wrong points you had in only 3 sentences. And even shotgun slugs are inaccurate at a distance. Saying things as fact as if you know things you don’t, is how we got trump in the White house.
Making a claim stating I have “wrong points” while making a bunch of false claims and for some reason bragging about video games, doesn’t mean you are correct in anything you said.
Please go get shot in the face by bird shot from 100 yards and report back to us.
Please also stop comparing real guns to video games.
I also don’t know where you got “three” from, but it’s pretty clear you are delusional and live outside reality.
Is this you? You claim to have zero experience with shotguns, and yet here you are trying to be a subject matter expert. https://lemmy.world/post/27230270
You invent “sheeting”, which is shooting twice at the same time.
Fucking dumb.
Actually a bit disappointed in this. I mean, NOW of all times you think keeping “military grade” gear out of regular citizens hands is a good idea.
Well, yeah. NOW of all times is exactly when the fascists would want to disarm the populace.
I genuinely wonder if all the people I’ve had tell me Obama and Biden are going to ban all guns/they’re coming for our guns are going to have a moment of self reflection when the fascists in power come for their guns.
Or is it going to be a “only white people with no unnatural hair coloring and presenting as their birth cirtificate sex are allowed to have guns”
Take the guns first and due process later
This was 2018.
So on your question on if they will have a moment of self reflection, I’m going to go with a no.
You already know the answer to that, Sarge
If they were capable of rising above their quagmire of fear and hate, they probably wouldn’t be conservatives. It’s not about facts or consistency. It’s about feelings. Mostly fear of the out-group.
Right? My tin foil thoughts immediately went to them upholding states’ rights on this because they know which states will ban and which won’t.
Maryland is super-blue politically and includes regions of the wealthiest black people in the country. They don’t want us to have AR’s
Headline is misleading. SCOTUS turned the case down, they didn’t “allow” anything and there’s still potential for another case to be brought before the court.
Honestly, it’s clear SCOTUS cares as much about precedent as your average billionaire cares about the livability of the planet 100 years from now so hearing that they’re not going to listen to a case like this is refreshing
SCOTUS likes guns when poor people shoot each other.
SCOTUS doesn’t like guns when the poor shoot CEOs.
I’ve heard statements before the “assault weapons” bans are pretty weak in their description and can easily be skirted with mild modifications rendering a gun no longer meeting the definition. I got curious what Maryland’s law text said. I found it here: link
I’ll say that the law as written is very detailed with its criteria for what is banned including even minor items like have a threaded barrel such as one would need to mount a flash suppressor. They also go through many iterations of descriptions of magazine size, detachabilty, and thumb hole position.
Just curiosity in the spirit of my original question (guns that would be legal), but still likely run afoul of the spirit (but not the letter of this law), I found this one:
Franklin Armory F17
Its rare apparently, but “the Franklin Armory F17 is the only semi-auto 17 Winchester Super Mag available today.”
“assault weapons” are a nebulous concept. that law sounds like it was closely tailored to match the AR-15 and its clones, since that’s the closest definition anyone can agree on. but it’s not like thumb position, stock design etc. make the AR-15 more lethal than other rifles.
why don’t they just ban semi-auto rifles? for home defense you can use a handgun, for hunting you can use a bolt action rifle of a pump action shotgun. you eliminate the bump stock loophole and it becomes harder to mow down a crowd.
Hand guns are so, so much more common in crime, rifles are barely a blip on the map. Also, handguns have almost no use other than killing humans/sport. (You can argue that they can offer some sort of protection from wild animals when you’re hiking, by scaring them away with noise… I can’t really think of much else)
Semi automatic rifles cover the gamut of utility. They’re not JUST for killing people and/or sport. Every reason you could legitimately need a gun for, the broad category “semi auto rifle” covers, so banning them has a disproportionate impact to people who use them legally and as tools vs banning handguns.
If people seriously want to make a dent in gun crime/accidental deaths/suicide we need to look at handguns, but they’re not scary looking enough so there’s no clout. Instead we get stupid laws that try to ban scary looking black guns or limit magazine sizes. Pisses off gun owners that know it’s useless and doesn’t actually get at anything that can make a difference. It’s all theater.
Considering that the point of the Second Amendment was to enable a “well regulated militia” to maintain “the security of a free state,” military-relevant weapons ought to be the ones most protected by it.
The explicit goal was to enable the populace to defend itself militarily, and you’re not doing that with a handgun (at least not effectively compared to using an assault rifle).
Read the federalist papers if you want to understand the 2nd amendment better. You’re just as wrong as the people who like to say that the 2nd amendment was just to protect having a militia.
Just keep ignoring entire words (“well-regulated”)
In the 1700s, “well-regulated” was a synonym for “well-trained.”
Well trained and well equipped. One of the reasons the 2A exists is because Congress did such a godawful job keeping the continental army equipped during the revolutionary war. The US was originally to have no standing army but militias by and from the populace under the supervision and training of professional federal officers. With a structure like that, militia members need to be able to provide their own arms rather than rely on Congress, which was seen as untrustworthy and partial, particularly in possible disputes between states. However, the 2A was ratified at about the same time the US was realizing that a standing army of some kind was existentially necessary, following catastrophic defeats in conflicts with the natives. It was never meant to be used the way it is now being used.
The US was originally to have no standing army
It still is; that rule never got amended. The entire US Army runs on a loophole, getting “reauthorized” each year. (The Air Force and Space Force too, I guess, since historically speaking, those are technically spin-offs of the Army.)
The Navy and Marine Corps are properly Constitutional, though. Frankly, that’s the loophole they should’ve gone with instead: calling all ground troops “Marines,” and all aircraft “Naval aviation.”
So in order to get a gun Americans need to have training (like driver’s education)?
If we actually followed the Constitution a lot of things would be different.
(Also, I would very much advocate for that.)
No it wasn’t. But sure, anything can mean anything when you change what words mean.
They’re not JUST for killing people and/or sport
I’m trying to think of other use-cases. Do you mean something like mass culling of wild hogs? That’s the only thing I can think of that isn’t killing people or sport.
the only use I can think of is bear defense for someone with bad aim
handguns are much more common in homicides in general, but I think rifles are the weapon of choice in school shootings and other acts of domestic terrorism. they have more potential to kill a larger number of people in a shorter amount of time from a greater distance. in particular I’m thinking about the Las Vegas shooter who infamously used bump stocks to rain bullets on a crowd.
incidentally, we almost banned handguns decades ago. it’s my understanding that that attempt at a ban - saved by last minute edits - are responsible for outlawing short-barreled rifles (they were trying to prevent people from making their rifles into handguns.)
They’re not JUST for killing people and/or sport. Every reason you could legitimately need a gun for, the broad category “semi auto rifle” covers, so banning them has a disproportionate impact to people who use them legally and as tools vs banning handguns.
but do those purposes need semi-auto? can you not afford the extra second to charge the weapon between shots? the only situation I can envision is needing to protect yourself from criminals with semi-autos, which is a legitimate concern.
“assault weapons” are a nebulous concept. that law sounds like it was closely tailored to match the AR-15 and its clones, since that’s the closest definition anyone can agree on. but it’s not like thumb position, stock design etc. make the AR-15 more lethal than other rifles.
I think you missed the point of my post. The law is the opposite of what you said. Its NOT the nebulous concept. In the language of the law (which I linked) they have all kinds of criteria that apply to lots of guns that aren’t and don’t look like the AR-15 platform.
why don’t they just ban semi-auto rifles?
Honestly, that legislation is what makes more sense to me if thats what they’re going for. I’d modify your language slight to be “single action”, instead of non “semi automatic”.
I’d dispute that. Single action is a specific type of system.
What is your definition of your proposed “ban semi-auto rifles”? In other words, what is a rifle that is not semi-automatic?
Semi-automatic is a specific type of action where after firing, the bolt removes the spent case and chambers the next round without further manual input from the operator as would be required in lever actions, bolt actions, etc.
Well, semi-automatic also interrupts the action so it only gives one shot per trigger pull, versus burst mechanisms or fully automatic.
So as for what is not a semi-automatic? Any gun requiring manual operation to clear the spent case and chamber a new round or can fire more than one round per trigger pull.
The solution is turning this on its head and having a law saying which weapons are allowed.
Granted it’s hard with how the archaic constitution of the US is written and how creatively the conservative judges read it, but decisions like this give room for states to try more tiered access to weapons.
Oh man, I would love to be the gun company lobbying for that law.
For home defense you use a shotgun with buckshot. Less aim required, safer for others behind drywall, and can hold 1 - 10 rounds depending on the type. Easy load for 1 shots. Also better for defense claim on trials.
Nice to see a test of sheetrock. I’d still argue that a 9mm would penetrate much more though.
Oddly enough… It’s pretty similar.
I’m for certain gun regulation, I’m not for an outright ban however.
Consider these two events:
-
Before the holocaust the jews had to surrender in their weapons
-
before the nakba, the same happened to the Palestinians, they had to surrender their weapons.
Being able to have weapons to protect yourself from everyday threats but also for if things go south is very important.
If you want to fight fascism if things go south, you’ll need weapons.
Consider these two events
I don’t think that’s what the SCOTUS was thinking about when they reached this ruling.
More likely it was California man arrested near Kavanaugh’s home, charged with attempted murder of justice
If you want to fight fascism if things go south, you’ll need weapons
I guess. But you also need widespread popular support. Randos with guns acting independently aren’t any better at repelling fascist governments than unarmed protestors.
What American liberals lack isn’t merely guns, it’s militias.
You mean some sort of well-regulated militia? That’s crazy, just flood the fucking streets with lead. /s
The Spanish Civil War was Anarchists, Communists, and Liberals vs. a Hitler and Mussolini backed fascist Dictator, Franco.
The resistance had popular support, but the lack of weapons did severely hinder the left’s effectiveness, and caused them to become reliant upon Soviet Russia for weapons supplies, which ultimately spelled their downfall as the Soviets betrayed everyone else and began rounding everyone up to execute them.
I’m not saying having a surplus of small arms in the hands of the leftists would’ve changed the outcome of the war (they also needed tanks, airplanes, and artillery), but it would’ve been a pretty big asset, had they been able to fulfill those other needs some other way as well.
The Spanish Civil War was Anarchists, Communists, and Liberals vs. a Hitler and Mussolini backed fascist Dictator, Franco.
It was Anarchists vs Communists vs Liberals, some of whom aligned with a fascist military commander because they didn’t like how the Anarchists and Communists were treating the Catholic Priesthood.
The resistance had popular support, but the lack of weapons did severely hinder the left’s effectiveness
The Communists were running the country by the 30s. They had all the weapons they could have desired. What they lacked was a petite bourgeois willing to accept their socialist economic reforms. That friction split the military and resulted in a grisly civil war.
I’m not saying having a surplus of small arms in the hands of the leftists would’ve changed the outcome of the war
The anarchists, in particular, had sizable caches of small arms. It was the lack of tanks, airplanes, and artillery that seriously fucked them.
Incidentally, the Soviets were willing to support the Spanish Communists with some number of tanks, airplanes, and artillery. But accepting aid from Stalin meant pissing off the Anarchists (who would ultimately need those weapons when fighting the Fascists).
But the single biggest asset that the fascists enjoyed and the anarchists/communists lacked was trust in one another. Franco built his brand on the back of the Catholic Church in retreat and won the faith of the faithful. Manuel Azaña and Niceto Alcalá-Zamora lost the confidence of key supporters and were forced to watch the Second Republic disintegrate because the fractious caucuses of local independent groups couldn’t align under a single national banner.
Also didn’t hurt that Franco gleefully took favors from German, Italian, and American fascists, while the Spanish Anarchists and Communists were reluctant to accept more than token aid from friendly leftist groups abroad.
I don’t think that’s what the SCOTUS was thinking about when they reached this ruling.
There was no ruling… the case was not taken up, so the ruling of the lower court stands as a precedent (for now).
I think having weapons is purely a stress reduction tool, similar to xanax. Makes you calm to have them around, but when you need them they won’t help much. Incredibly risky things to have around in any sort of quickly usable manner as well.
Consider Waco, TX. And that was 30 years ago before the massive leaps forward in drone, communications, satellite and digital technology.
Having guns does not protect you from the government. It may even barely protect you from an armed burglary. Guns are largely used for hunting deer shooting stationary paper indoors.
If you actually want to use guns to fight back against the government you needed to have built your fortified underground structure which is completely sound proof and infrared proof, and fully self sustaining for air, food, water and sewer filled with hundreds of people by now.
Alternately, see the Bundy ranch standoff. A lot of guns and implication of actually using them led to the government basically backing down.
bad example imo. Bundy’s militia set up check points to demand anyone driving past proved they were a US citizen at gunpoint, and then went on to committ the 2014 Vegas Mass Shootihg, or were sent to jail for more than a decade. The leaders (Bundy and two sons) were arrested and put on trial several times and only escaped due to a jury deadlock and prosecutorial mishandling of documents.
They were also against the Bureau of Land Management, not the US Army or ICE, and their armed stand off caused those threatening the Land Mgmt agents to be arrested by the FBI and incarcerated.
The situation discussed (vs a hypothetical US ethnic cleansing) is not about a Land dispute with the land bureau over cattle grazing, and is also started before 9/11, two Bush and two Trump administrations and the expansion of powers to ICE and immigration
Let’s also consider the decades of little to no mass shootings and gun violence in these entire countries: Japan Singapore South Korea United Kingdom Australia New Zealand Norway Iceland Denmark
-
Here’s everything you need to know. CBS Sunday morning interviews a gun nut job. She states a demonstratively false statement about how many guns kill a people a year, and gets fucking zero push back. That’s how we got to where we are. It’s harder to get a driver’s license than it is to get a gun.
EDIT: As we all know “knives and blunt objects” are obviously used to kill more people than assault rifles.
Everyone acknowledges that the problem is mental health, everyone is convinced that solving guns is the answer.
You wanna know what I can make using styrofoam (or soap) and gasoline? Fucking napalm. You wanna know what will cause a lot more harm than a gunshot? Fucking napalm.
It must be the 90s again to see someone saying that styrofoam and gasoline makes napalm lol. That is not actual napalm. It could hurt people, but it’s more like being lit on fire in modern plastic clothes than it is napalm.
Having easy access to guns is just objectively stupid.
Having easy access to guns is just objectively stupid.
No you don’t get it, since we cannot eliminate all dangerous things that could injure or kill people the only option we have is to not even attempt to control any dangerous things that are currently killing and injuring people. /s
Hah, thank you. Feel like I’m arguing with some who lacks the ability to understand nuanced argument. Its OK to be wrong or disagree on a topic without being 100% right or wrong is a lesson that seems to be disappearing these days.
Dude it’s stuff that I can set on fire that will stick to you, and that’s not including all of the other things that can hurt you like cars that are infinitely easier to access and operate. People like you would have us ban everything for no other reason than you’re afraid.
Nice strawman. Regulation is not the same thing as banning. You shouldnt be able to buy guns so easily.
Regulation? Seriously?
I can have a drone equipped with a fiber optic cable and a jar of not napalm ready to use on some random nobody for about a thousand bucks. Up that price a little bit and I can not only increase the range — I can just fucking make thermite, use the drone to set a whole neighborhood on fire.
Should we regulate red iron oxide because I’ve put the spectre of drone warfare into your mind? Do you have any idea how dumb it is to be fixated on guns?
Just checking the thread… but holy fuck you are weirdly obsessed with drones and thermite. I responded to you elsewhere and I want to make it more clear. I have the education and skills required to design and build the things you are acting like you know about. Even though I have the credentials, I hate flexing them in this capacity.
You are sort of useless from a short reading of your comments. Bring something to the table before arguing about things you don’t understand.
And you’re advocating for a fascist government seizing individual firearms. Let me think, for a second, how much I give a shit about your opinions… nope, I don’t.
Edit: ad hominem after ad hominem, looks like someone’s a fascist afraid to get shot
Are you sure cars are easier to access? You need to be licensed to operate a car in public.
And it’s generally illegal to operate a gun in public…
Well, it’s strictly illegal to operate a gun in public — and if we’re talking about places that don’t have open carry, it takes considerably longer to get your concealed carry and a lot more training.
Not to mention, you can pretty much bet that everyone around you has access to a car in the U.S. . The memes might make you think that every single American has firearms but the reality is that they don’t.
They’re arguing with an imaginary person and reciting talking points. I’m not sure they understand that I like guns, but understand that we need to control access to them.
I’m not afraid and don’t think they should be banned. I like going shooting in the woods for fun. Cars require registration and a license like guns should.
Easy access to guns is objectively stupid. Read what I say without implying things.
Napalm is not styrofoam mixed with gas, full stop.
Red iron oxide and aluminum flakes. Fiber optic drone for around 1-1.5k.
None of that is regulated and I can do far more damage with that than a gun. Give me enough time and I can do better because it’s already being done in other countries like Ukraine.
You wanna regulate red iron oxide and drones now that I’ve put the spectre of thermite drones into your mind? Oh, sorry — you’re too fixated on the not napalm to realize the point. My mistake.
Put the meth down.
Thermite is only dangerous in very specific situations. You aren’t some scary bad ass because you think you know how to make bombs. Bigger and better explosives are made with other things that get you put on a list for buying to much of.
Guns need to be regulated is such a broad statement. Its meant to allow dumb people to interpret it however they want. Easy access to guns is objectively stupid.
What makes you think I’d be using thermite as a bomb?
Ok, Mr. “I know what I’m doing and you don’t” - I’m not going to continue elaborating on how unregulated materials can easily be used in destructive ways. Apparently someone remotely causing a wildfire in a neighborhood just can’t compare to a crowd getting shot.
Beyond anything I’ve said, one thing is clear - you’re advocating for a fascist government continuing to seize individual firearms.
Most handgun calibre rounds are, well, round, for the most part. Bullets get the pointy end as we move towards bigger calibres, right?
Not really.
There’s lots of big ammo that is “round”, such as .50AE,. 475 Nitro, 30-30 Win, etc.
Actually, I’d say most large calibers between .404 PM and .700 Nitro Express are on the round side of things.
And, there is plenty of “pointy” small caliber rounds, like 5.7 x 28mm,. 17 HMR, 4.6x30 H&K, and depending on your leniency for what is “pointy,”, even 9mm parabellum (luger) might apply.
Single issue ammosexual voters allowed all our other rights to be stripped, watered down, limited and degraded while they deified their gun fetish.
Leopards are indiscriminate.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who could have supplied the fourth vote needed to add the case to the court’s docket, issued a statement saying the question was significant and could soon warrant review but that he hoped additional opinions from lower courts could assist the justices on the issue. He wrote that the Supreme Court “should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next term or two.”
—NYT
In 2 Weeks, like Trump always says
Tf the point is? They gonna use another gun instead
So, let’s just do nothing about guns? Just give up and let public shootings happen as an unavoidable fact of life, but only for the U.S?
We are kind of past that point. In only two days we have seen what appears to be a Hamas terrorist attack at a pro Isael gathering and the murder of a prominent gay man. Republicans will say shit like ‘guns are a fact of life in the US’ and its absolutely true. We can see it in the fact that they called the cops requesting help and each time they where ignored and this shit happens regularly. No law will protect us from that only we can.
Turns out the people saying how we need guns to protect ourselves where the people we needed to protect ourselves from.
“Hamas terrorist attack at pro israel rally”
You just have to label him Hamas even though he’s clearly an independent actor?
You would prefer to call him pro Palestine?
I used to think along the lines of the Churchill quote of “Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted.” Turns out that was giving us way too much credit.
Well, I don’t know what to tell you. Hell, not that long ago a deputy’s son shot up a school and everyday cops murder unarmed citizens. In the end I am pro gun control, but its going to take more then a law to solve this.
I am against guns, but I don’t believe the police brutality has to do with guns
They are supposed to prevent it. Besides, do you want guys like the dude who shot Joss to be the only ones with guns? Because I can promise you the cops will turn a blind eye to them
Turns out we’ll try all sorts of bizarre schemes before we’re willing to try doing the obviously right thing.
We’re actively eating our own face off, as a country, because we refuse to even taste progress.
Nah, Kavanaugh said he wants them to take one up, this isn’t the right one to suit him apparently. They just need one more vote to take one up.
You’re a fucking idiot for celebrating this, if you are, under a fascist regime. You’re literally fucking brain mush.
For folks actually interested in defending themselves and not just cosplaying as Delta Farce or Gravy Seals:
If you can’t handle the fact that you may have to take a life someday, DON’T BUY A GUN PERIOD. Gun ownership is a serious responsibility that we as a country unfortunately don’t treat as such. If you do decide to get one, the MOST IMPORTANT thing is to train, even just target practice, don’t buy something and stash it in a shoe box (have somewhere secure to keep it!). Make sure you take a stop the bleed class (good idea if you’re American period), and know your local self defense/gun laws backwards and forwards. If you’ve never touched a gun before, have someone who can show you how to safely operate and handle it before even considering buying one. This may be difficult if you’re openly leftist/LGBTQ+, but there are liberal/LGBTQ+ gun owner groups, or the Socialist Rifle Association, who might have, or help you find local groups/organizations/stores that aren’t right wing cultists. They should also be able to guide you on buying something that fits your use case (e.g. Home Defense or Concealed Carry) and that you can safely handle.
For a few options that aren’t an AR: In states that ban the AR by name but don’t have a blanket AWB, you may be able to get a Ruger Mini 14. Uses the same caliber, and has interchangeable magazines, only difference is it’s wood and patterned after the M1/M14. Ruger also makes something called the PC Carbine, which is a 9mm carbine that can take Glock magazines. Then, there’s the SKS which can be retrofitted to take box magazines, but those are now rare and expensive. There’s also the good ol’ AK-47/74 but those tend to be swept up in legislation that ban weapon platforms by name. You could also choose to get really, really good with a lever gun or shotgun. Heck, if you join the Civillian Marksmenship Program, you can get an M1 Garand! You can also get a pistol such as a Glock 19 or 43x which, while less effective than a long gun, is something at least. I would choose the 43x if you decide to get a concealed carry permit; it’s very slim, good for small hands, and has a 10 round magazine which is legal most everywhere. There’s a lot of options to choose from out there that get overshadowed by the AR, and thanks to our gun fetishism, it’ll probably be a while before they’re all legislated away.
And how exactly will an AR-15 help you against a fascistoid government?
Same way the IRA, the Vietnamese and the Afghans did.
Same way ak47s did for Afghanistan when they were being invaded
Through the acute, ballistic application of lead.
The government has much more affective atoms to use against us.
If we’re at that stage, I’m not sure I’d try fighting back.
We’d likely get to that stage if fighting back showed any signs of being effective.
Pew! Pew! Pew!
Haven’t you seen Rambo II? The AR-15 is how we won Vietnam.
Do you think a bunch of couch potatoes will stop fascism with AR-15s? They are the SAME people who VOTED for fascism! Buy a clue.
There’s only two kinds of American
-
Couch potatoes who won’t do anything, no matter what
-
Tankie extremists who nobody likes because they want to do too much
That’s why I’m putting all my money on the liberal vanguard I know I can trust: Cops.
The only way to stop fascism is to call the police and report it, while staring out your window and sneering.
-
Good.
