Biden is doing this to drive a wedge into Republicans. The gun nuts and the ones that don’t care about guns will have differing opinions because now gun violence affects them directly. It’s really smart.
Biden looks presidential. Trump has three choices:
-
Come out against AR-15s, for obvious reasons. This makes gun nuts less likely to vote for him.
-
Come out in favor of AR-15s. He looks insane to Republicans who don’t care about guns.
-
Trump ignores the issue or waffles and looks unpresidential.
Number 3 is most likely. Of course the correct answer is number 4: propose a competing policy that is nuanced. But that’s impossible for trump.
How many Republicans don’t care about guns?
The ones that are republicans for tax purposes.
Is that enough to matter? And is this issue enough for them to change their vote, given the tax stuff? All the other shit Trump does certainly doesn’t matter.
The richest places in America are pretty solidly blue. A lot of rich people like good public schools and colleges, clean water, the arts, etc. and understand that taxes and charity are how those things are paid for.
Other rich people like gated communities and stopped reading books1 when someone stopped assigning them. They’re the Republican rich people.
1 Some will read a book about war or some shitty airport bookstore thing that’s 80% out-of-context quotes about how to be a leader.
Rich people don’t give a fuck about public schools, lmao, they send their kids to private ones.
Private schools often suck. Rich people aren’t smarter. They just have more money. There’s plenty of districts where the best public high school is way better than whatever private schools exist. Half the private schools are for weird religious groups or kids who got expelled.
There’s almost always good public schools in cities. That’s why there’s always loopholes that allow rich people’s kids to go to them.
And in colleges, Harvard isn’t better than UC-Berkeley or the honors programs at most state flagship institutions. It’s just older. (There have been studies that compared students who got into an Ivy League school and ultimately chose a public flagship and the Ivy grads only did better in the first few years after graduation. But then the public flagship attendees caught up.)
deleted by creator
I wonder how many of those hedge fund billionaires down on Wall Street are Democrats. I doubt that it’s many of them. Bankers? Nah. Media and Telcom? Not likely. They’re all based in NYC, the bluest of the blue cities.
They all like tax cuts and deregulation. Trump is the one who’s promising that, whereas Biden promised and already delivered more of both to them all.
I don’t have any desire to defend hedge fund or VC billionaires so I’ll concede the point. There’s a reason San Francisco has NIMBY policies and New York City can’t elect mayors for shit.
Yeah, because the people who own all of the businesses and real estate constantly battle those who work at the businesses and live in all that real estate, which just goes to show what a fucked up and unbalanced role money plays in our so-called democracy.
Bankers? Nah. Media and Telcom? Not likely. They’re all based in NYC, the bluest of the blue cities.
Now you’re just making things up. You can’t just say “nah, not likely” and prove anything. It’s a lack of effort that shows you don’t have evidence.
NYC is a “blue city” (whatever that means) because of these professionals. The actual working class people in NYC make up a lot of the conservatives. That’s why cities are more liberal: because they have more educated people. Those people work in banking or media; they’re not all artists or plumbers or something.
Hilarious. OK, where’s your evidence, then?
EVERY group is big enough to matter. Reminder that the last two elections were determined by around 10,000 votes.
And the ones that are Republicans to fuck over everyone but the rich. They’d definitely prefer “poor folk” didn’t have guns at all.
And who don’t give a shit either way about guns to make any effect
Lots of them. Do you know any Republicans? None of them care about issues that don’t affect them and their families. Even other “conservative” issues. They are not driven by policy.
Only Republicans with guns care about guns. And only 50% of Republicans have guns.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx
They don’t care about each other. Liberals care about what other liberals think. Stop thinking like someone who cares about policy.
I’ve never met any Republicans that were pro-gun-bans. I really don’t believe you’ll be able to find a single one either.
This is dumb as fuck timing by Biden, but I’m sure he can’t help himself because he’s been super anti-gun for decades so it’s probably just like a reflex at this point for him to to off about banning guns after a shooting.
Trump, for one
How many of them will stay home or change their vote because the head of the party they’re still a part of despite all the gun nuts continues acting like a gun nut?
If Biden is trying to use guns as a wedge issue for Republicans, he’s the person we saw at the debate all the time.
Not a lot but every wedge is probably worth it
The ones that are antiabortion or evangelicals who don’t own guns. GOP has the most gun owners but its not even like half their voters. Vocal minorities is all it is.
The only issue the GOP is actually united on right now is how they don’t like democrats.
Gun control, especially banning the most popular and utilitarian platform, is a massive political loser. This is incredibly poor timing for a struggling campaign.
utilitarian platform
What does that mean?
Presumably, “good” in most situations, with extensibility for specialized configurations that are both common and accessible.
The AR platform is highly customizable for different chamberings, sizes, attachments etc.
People who are “into guns” usually have at least one pistol or rifle that is built on the AR platform. ARs are great for everything from target shooting as well as hunting. Very practical.
Narrator: its a made up phrase
Aren’t all phrases made up?
Made up words? Who ulis up to these shenanigans ?
No, it’s like the jeep or old chevy pickup of guns. Does whatever you need well enough you don’t need 5 guns.
Noone needs a gun in their personal lives, thats the point.
There are plenty of uses for them professionally though.
My closest friend (a smaller woman) is only alive because she carries, so I know there is merit. Your comments are as stupid as “why have a smoke detector, how many times has your house burnt down? And don’t get me started on seatbelts!” It isn’t even living in fear. There are a lot of merit to gun regulation and nobody needs to be open carrying an assault rifle, and yes we all know what that term means, come at me with “tHAt iSnT a gUN drrrr”. I could make a case for it in home protection …but I am biased, having trained with an M-4, but even there, regulated ownership is fine…like driving a car.
/WastingBreath
Well, there is currently no requirement that someone be well-trained or understand collateral damage to own and use a gun in America. Some examples of other dangerous to use items that require training: cars, forklifts, surgical equipment. You can trust the people using those generally know how to use them and what bad things could happen.
Using an anecdote of someone who saved their own life with a gun isn’t the slam dunk you think it is. I never said she shouldnt be able to defend herself. There are things besides guns to defend yourself with that are less capable of mass lethal events, such as tasers, pepper spray, small physical weapons/knives. Your friend also could fit into the well-trained group, which if we at least required licenses to own a firearm, she would still have been allowed to own and protect herself with it. I’m sure there would be many women who would want to be licensed to carry for protection.
I’m willing to compromise a bit on the no guns thing, thats why I said professionally. I’ll add that if there were a license with a very short expiration and you have to prove competence in use, safety, and gun law, I think that would be reasonable. Sort of like the CCW permits some states use, but would be applied to all guns.
I’m very skeptical of any efforts to make guns harder to use or less capable as a way to limit peoples behavior, but maybe there are some limited examples of exceptionally dangerous guns or guns with little practical use that would make sense for.
That’s just dumb, bud.
Is it now? What else is it good for?
It’s good for shooting small, very fast bullets. May that be hunting, target shooting or self-defense.
If they want to ban AR-15s, they should ban all semi-automatic rifles otherwise it would be ridiculous. The would-be assassin could have done the same thing with a whole assortment of mostly equivalently performing rifles. Some just as “scary looking” black rifles, some with wooden parts.
If they want to ban AR-15s, they should ban all semi-automatic rifles otherwise it would be ridiculous.
And if they ban all those guns they should finish the job while they’re at it and just ban guns, glad we agree.
Indeed, they would have to go down the route Australia went. But I don’t see this happening in America any time soon.
If piles of murdered kids didn’t do much to move the needle, shooting an inflammatory politician isn’t going to do it. We’ll see how the MAGA respond to this event or hopefully when they lose the elections. Maybe (but hopefully not) they’ll act violently enough to force facing America’s relationship with guns.
Trump ignores the issue or waffles and looks unpresidential.
and that is what’s gonna get him. because up until now, he looked soooo presidential 😂
Any of those options will work fine for Trump. He doesn’t need to have policies, strategies, or responses to anything. His voters can’t remember it anyway. You think they remember that he banned bump stocks in the first place? He could promise to ban AR-15s one day, then criticize his own proposal the next day, and he’ll just get cheered by both sides. Voters are fucking stupid.
All that matters is that he keeps the steady supply of hateful buzzwords flowing. You can’t win chess against an opponent who’s playing hungry hungry hippos.
All of that wastes trump’s time and makes him look unprofessional to swing voters. He can’t win with just his fans. That’s why he lost big time in 2020. The swing voters saw him failing to respond to an actual issue.
Correction: He lost big time because of mail-in votes. Trump in 2020 got the record high for votes for a Republican candidate at something like 67.2 million, which was just about a million votes less than what Obama got during his first election (which was a record-breaking turnout). Biden got around 80 million votes in 2020, breaking every voter turnout record ever.
Swing voters are still crucial because that’s how Hillary lost despite having only 100,000 less votes than Obama did in his second election, but I feel like swing voters have probably more or less already made up their minds. If you don’t see Trump for what he is already, the odds of his reaction here being the final straw seems unlikely. I think if people had better access to voting, we’d easily see a repeat of 2020 even if we were to vote right this minute.
Trump already said he’d take away everyones guns, no questions asked, years ago. No one that supported him even blinked. This means nothing to them.
That’s just bullshit, he did not. He said the one stupid thing about ignoring due process for red flag law situations. This is pretty far and away from “everyone’s guns”
You made me curious, thank you. The actual quote is “take the guns first, go through due process second.”
I’m pretty sure the NRA had a heart attack when they heard that 🤣
Trump will go with number 5: “Did you know socialist immigrant windmills causing cancers kill more Americans than guns?”
He will do #2, and his base will cheer. Not a single person from that camp will think he’s crazy.
This is the kind of Democrat logic that makes me cringe…
He can just say nothing. His position is already clear and he just selected a VP candidate who was pictured in social media with an AR15 recently, and openly suggested the ATF doesn’t need to exist.
Biden is doing this to drive a wedge into Republicans. The gun nuts and the ones that don’t care about guns will have differing opinions because now gun violence affects them directly. It’s really smart.
Or… he just doesn’t want to get shot himself. Just saying. not wanting to get shot is a powerful motivator…
Not that it’s perhaps prudent. or you know, god forbid, actually a good fucking idea.
Option 4: trump and the GOP in general still views his assassination attempt as the danger you have to live with to live in a “free nation”. It’s the cost of freedom. Something something “just because i got shot doesn’t mean taking everyone’s rights away is a good idea”
Growing up in texas, this is a very common view.
Admittedly, knowing the coward Trump is (He literally doesn’t order his own food because he’s afraid of poisoning) There’s a very slim chance Trump will declare the AR-15 is evil and act afraid of it.
Actually that’s a pretty distinct possibility
I guarantee that he will say that the attack wouldn’t have happened if more of his followers had ar 15s there
2 and 3 only matter if reality matters to you. Most people being trump don’t care how insane things look, or if trump “looks presidential”.
What you’re arguing would make sense with logical voters. So of course it doesn’t apply here. When have Republican voters marked ‘D’ or stayed home instead of voting for a pro-gun candidate!? It just doesn’t happen.
And “wedge” issue?? Come on, Republican voters are either all-in on Trump or they reluctantly mark the ‘R’…
It’ll be 2 because the Republicans who don’t like guns are a minority. It’s a cult, there’s nothing Trump can do to lose support. You can’t trick him into doing something stupid, he’s always doing something stupid, people clap for it anyway.
It’s just dumb. The sniper that killed the guy wasn’t using an ar-15. Stopping ar-15’s wouldn’t have done anything to change something like this.
What do you mean, it was an AR-15. I don’t support a ban, just clarifying facts.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear in my statement. When I said “the sniper that killed the guy” I was specifying the the secret service sniper that successfully head shotted Crooks. I wasn’t referring to Crooks.
Pointedly, I was saying that the guy who hit what he was aiming for wasn’t using an AR. Not the guy who failed.
Ah ok, I get you, then. I didn’t downvote your comment.
Guns are tools. And what’s more, “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
FBI special agent in charge Kevin Rojek said Crooks used an AR-style rifle chambered in 5.56mm, a common caliber for such weapons. Authorities said the weapon was identified and traced using records from a gun dealership that is no longer operating.
If that source doesnt work for you, here’s the president of the United states:
“An AR-15 was used in the shooting of Donald Trump, just as other assault weapons were used to kill so many others, including children."
That’s from the linked article.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear in my statement. When I said “the sniper that killed the guy” I was specifying the the secret service sniper that successfully head shotted Crooks. I wasn’t referring to Crooks.
Pointedly, I was saying that the guy who hit what he was aiming for wasn’t using an AR. Not the guy who failed.
So youre saying that since the wannabe assassin missed, that ARs are not effective weapons?
Even if you gloss over the all the heavily published mass murder events committed with AR that the president alluded to in the quote above, are you aware that Trump turned his head a split second before the bullet hit his ear? That this likely is the only reason he’s alive?
I’m saying that AR’s aren’t a requirement or a need for a shooter and that stopping sales of AR’s just means that something else will be used. You don’t need an AR.
-
Bernie had this right. Despite being pretty progressive, he wasn’t for outlawing semiautomatic firearms because they were black and looked scary. He believed that the right to arms was justified. This “AR Ban” is a great way to lose a lot of independents, and even some hard D voters like myself. There are a lot of dems who carry, and a lot of them who own the very firearms he wants to ban.
I had a friend that said he only voted for Trump in 2016 cause he felt like he needed somebody to protect his rights to own a gun. This guy that “protected” host rights to own a fun also did massive amounts of damage to other people rights.
I wish Dems would quit talking about guns. It’s a mistake.
What do you need an ar for ?
Actually that is a good question. You don’t need an AR-15 because there are non-AR semi-automatic rifles that will do exactly the same thing but aren’t viewed as bad-ass. (BTW, auto-loading rifles have been around since 1883.) The AR-15 is a civilian semi-automatic and the basis of the M-16, so larpers can fulfill their G.I. Joe fantasies and a cuddle them when they are told to fear something by Fox.
The AR platform is also just useful in general, which is why it’s become so popular.
Need? I don’t but I wanted one so here we are. AR ban is stupid will only help conservatives in the election. I’m not against gun control legislation that will actually do good.
So when shit hits the fan I can “borrow” 5.56 ammo from the military.
That’s quite a gun fantasy you have.
Can’t run up a flight of stairs, but ready to take on the us military
How’d Afghanistan go?
Or Vietnam, or the Revolutionary War for that matter.
These idiots will take every gun you have right before Hitler v2 seizes power, it’s wild.
Fighting fascists.
Why do you need the freedom of speech to write this comment?
Have you ever fired one before? They are way more accurate than a handgun. You could be 5ft away from someone with a handgun and still miss (especially in a high adrenaline situation). It’s considerably more difficult to miss with an AR.
The AR isnt the only rifle that exists.
Yes I’m aware of this.
The AR isnt special. So why are they going after ARs specifically?
As an independent, I could care less about this sort of thing. I see it as virtue signaling to staunch democrats. It won’t win him a single vote, since his entire platform has always been about being a super traditional Democrat.
We need new traditions, not rehashing of old, tired trades against things like specific types of guns and obesity.
The next would be assasin will be forced to use a weapon appropriate for distance killing. They would be more likely to succeed.
The failed Trump shooter used a rifle completely appropriate for the distance. He was just a “comically bad” shooter, according to acquaintances.
He wasn’t against outlawing them because they looked scary implies that he was in favor of outlawing them because they looked scary.
I think you mean he was against outlawing them because they looked scary.
If you didn’t reply within 14 seconds of me correcting my post, yeah. That’s what I corrected it to.
ANSWER FOR YOUR 14 SECOND CRIMES
14 seconds in the dungeon seems only fair
He’s not gonna do shit, he’s just gonna continue to bark at one of the symptoms of the problem.
this right here folks. its a wedge issue and it doesnt solve the real problems
Gun nuts are shit no matter what political label they have.
How do you figure?
The magic of pure ignorance, I am guessing.
Anyone who makes an object, guns, cars, pcs, weed, media they are fans of, etc. a significant aspect of their person, just means there wasn’t much person there to begin with. It is possible for something to be important to you, something you do for fun, something you enjoy, and not be your personality.
That’s kind of a creepy take, and a little dehumanizing, tbh. Just let people live their lives the way they want to and do what they enjoy.
I am not stopping anyone from making guns, or cars, or whatever, their personality. I will just avoid them.
deleted by creator
Holy deep fried frankenfuck will the Democrats NEVER LEARN?!?!?!?!
AFTER!
You talk about guns AFTER the election!
What in the actual pogostickingpopejohnpaul is he THINKING?!?!?
The optics are 1000% awful here.
Uvalde wasn’t enough, but a potshot at the planet’s most notorious living felon is?
Nah, I think I’ll keep my shit and wait for the far right to move.
The fuckin scenario we are in I swear.
Far right: let’s kill the left and do fascism.
Democrats: let’s ban weapons right now while there’s threats of violence against democrats.
Really?
Just as dumb as when Beto said it before his election…
It’ll never pass, and he thinks saying it will get votes, but all it does is motivate idiots to vote trump, even tho he actually did an executive action to try and close a loophole.
It might not have stood, but it worked for a couple of years.
On its own its a dumb idea, but I do think another commenter had it on the money how this is more a ploy to catch trump with his pants down. Trump can either agree and piss off his pro gun base (and look like a coward given his previous statements), he can argue against it and seem like hes inviting more violence and alienate anyone in his base who thinks gun violence is bad. Or he can ignore it and look like hes a doddering old fool oblivious to whats happening around him.
alienate anyone in his base who thinks gun violence is bad
ie exactly nobody
to his base it would look strongbrave to ignore it with the most bigly beautiful thickskin
Banning guns is a losing policy for democrats. It only ever hurts them. I really wish they’d stop lighting political capital on fire with statements like this
I said this decades ago… if Dems dropped the gun shit and embraced safe shooting sports, they would win every damn election.
Gun rights are a MAJOR factor in why many people I personally know refuse to consider voting Democrat.
They will wax poetic all day about how much they detest Trump… but then end with, “At least he won’t take away our guns.”
Which is hilarious cuz trump said he would
I actually know a guy who plans on voting for Trump simply because “They can’t drag me to the concentration camps if I have guns”
He doesn’t think Biden wants to drag him off btw, he thinks Trump will… but it won’t matter because he had guns…
The number of people I know who won’t vote for them because of gun shit is too damn high. There are cheaper ways to solve gun violence anyway. Single issue voters are dumb, but democrats need to accept that they exist and this is the biggest single issue
We’d have universal healthcare and constitutional abortion rights if nothing else.
Rich people would lose a lot of money should that ever happen, so whenever things start to look even a little good, you bet your ass some idiot in the Dems is going to scream “hell yes we’ll take your guns”.
This is like begging for Republicans to start making up conspiracies about how the Democrats set this all up to take away their gun rights.
Uhh… They’ve been making those up for decades.
Yes, but now he’s basically telling them to.
How is that a conspiracy? Thats literally what Biden is advocating for here
Removed by mod
Removed, civility.
It seems like such a lazy non-solution. Essentially telling shooters “Hey, from now on, you can only use ALL THE OTHER GUNS” as if that solves something.
This is the problem. All banning the AR will do is drive the popularity of another platform up. There’s a crapload of powerful semi-auto customizable platforms out there, it’s just that the AR variant is the most popular. It’s a stupid solution because it’s no solution at all - and I don’t mean that as a “not good enough so we should do nothing at all” thing, it’s just a completely pointless solution.
Noooo you don’t understand, banning pistol grips and front sight posts is totally effective! It totally didn’t spawn an entire new segment of “compliant guns” that had the same level of lethality the last time we did it…
I’m not even sure the AR is the most popular. It may be the best seller in the US, but I’m pretty sure that the AK-47 is more popular globally, and there’s absolutely no way that they will outlaw the AK-47 in the US since we manufacture them.
The AK is a global weapon for sure. My commentary deals with the popularity of US gun platforms because that’s the country whose laws we’re talking about. So the global popularity of the AK isn’t really directly relevant.
Well sure, but the reason I brought it up is that I’m not entirely certain that the AK or M-16 aren’t more owned in the US than the AR. AR has only been standard issue for the military since after I got out in 2004. I would wager there are far more AKs and M-16s in private hands than ARs
You’d be wrong. The AR platform is the civilian version of the M-16/M-4. And the flat-top carbine length version of the M16A4, called the M4, was standard issue for infantry units being deployed since at least 1999. They were increasingly being sold to civilians in semi-auto only configurations right up to the 1994 Assault weapons ban that named them specifically. That just resulted in a bunch of AR platforms with different names that narrowly skirted the rules of the ban, called “Compliant ARs”. After 2004, when the ban expired, sales of AR’s seem to take off because now they can sell freely under the AR name that got a ton of publicity. And now in 2024 they’re going to start selling the AR platform in Sig’s new 6.8mm flavor. To be fair the Spear itself is different enough it some people may not considerate it an Armalite platform. Other would argue it’s an AR-16 platform.
Technically, the AR was around before the M-16.
The M-16 is the military version of the rifle, not the other way around.
Sure.
The M-16 and AR-15 are the same gun barring the full auto mechanism. Armalite originally made the AR-15, sold it to Colt, who pitched it to the military, and when it was adopted, was designated the M-16. (Simplified history) So while it may not have been standard issue as the AR, it’s been around for a very long time. Obviously it’s changed up a little over time as manufacturing has changed hands, but I’m not sure if it’s worth debating what’s in private hands other than how they’re designated when they’re essentially variants of the same gun.
Gotcha, they didn’t exactly go into the manufacturing history in boot when they trained us on how to use the thing, and I have had exactly 0 reasons to touch a firearm since boot.
I would assume that banning them would include banning all semiautomatic long guns
It never has in the past. It’s always come down to cosmetics and new sales of 30 round magazines. So you’re left with the actual rifle and a magazine well that you’re just not supposed to put certain magazines in, on the honor system…
I clicked down through the article to see what they meant by “assault rifles like” the AR-15, but they didn’t link to any actual source describing what they meant. So I couldn’t tell you what guns are on the list.
Typically 2 or more of: pistol grip, collapsible/folding stock, barrel over x length, semiautomatic firing mechanics, magazines located outside the grip.
See the former Federal Assault Weapons Ban in place from 1994-2004. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
This is an issue that Biden has consistently refused to understand to be a political loser well before any suggestion of a decline. He’s consistently vocal on it in a way that would suggest he genuinely believes it to be a winning position.
In reality, it’s practically impossible to do and mostly serves to energize the right and alienate voters in states he actually needs to win. It’d literally be better politically to say nothing on the topic, but he insists on pouring fuel on the “they want to ban our guns” fire.
I have been, on the whole, positive about Biden, but this is a massive blindspot he’s held for a long time.
I can think of literally no better reason to keep ARs legal than the events of last week.
Yes, this is the exact intention of the second amendment. Armed resistance against tyrannical government. If the rise of fascism in America isn’t the time to use it, it’s meaningless.
The founding fathers envisioned state militias that would rival the power of the federal army and keep it in check. That ship has sailed, so it already lost a lot of its bite, but any power it still has can only be justified for that purpose
in b4 /pol mods delete this for “inciting violence”.
Yes, this is the exact intention of the second amendment. Armed resistance against tyrannical government
Nope. Judging by how they used militias at the time, they meant it for defending the federal government against both invasions and rebellions. The “defense against tyranny” reason is just an invention of people trying to justify their guns.
The founding fathers envisioned state militias that would rival the power of the federal army and keep it in check
Nope. There WAS no federal army at the time. They used militias IN STEAD OF a standing army, not as a check on an existing one. Which of course invalidates the entire amendment now that the country has the biggest and most advanced military in the history of humanity.
All of that being said, I consider assassination of a tyrant you can’t rid the people of in any other way the only form of murder that’s acceptable as it serves the common good.
Putin is one such tyrant, Orban probably is, and Donald Trump DEFINITELY is. The world would have been a much better place if Crooks had been a better shot.
I mean, that’s the exact opposite of what the federalist papers said. We don’t have to speculate what the founders intended, they wrote it down. But don’t take my word for it. Let’s ask Alexander Hamilton from federalist 29
If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
I mean, that’s the exact opposite of what the federalist papers said
The Federalist Papers were a bunch of editorials, not laws. The amendment itself clearly says that it’s for the security of the nation and doesn’t mention tyranny at all.
Alexander Hamilton’s opinion on standing armies is not the second amendment.
It’s a bunch of editorials, written by the same people who wrote the constitution, explaining their thought process and exactly what they intended when writing the constitution.
I do admire your gumption, pretending to know the rationale behind the 2nd amendment better than Alexander fucking Hamilton.
Fun fact: sometimes the founding fathers didn’t agree on everything.
The section of his editorial you quote doesn’t say that it’s the rationale behind the second amendment. It doesn’t mention it OR tyranny.
The amendment, which specifically spells out the reason before the conclusion does NOT reference standing armies or tyranny.
You’re just assuming connections that aren’t there and then accusing ME of pretending to be a mind reader 🤦
The section of his editorial you quote doesn’t say that it’s the rationale behind the second amendment. It doesn’t mention it OR tyranny.
The entirety of federalist 29 is about the second amendment. I think it’s safe to assume the paragraph I quoted from federalist 29 also is.
You’re just assuming connections that aren’t there and then accusing ME of pretending to be a mind reader 🤦
Calling militias “the best possible defense” against a standing federal army seems pretty cut and dry. No mind reading necessary, just regular reading.
deleted by creator
Everyone gets a free scope and 100 hours of shooting lessons with purchase.
Scopes aren’t versatile enough for the AR platform. Free LVPO with purchase and 100 hours of training.
deleted by creator
1 in 5 Americans score adequately high enough in their spacial reasoning to qualify for an M32 or M320 credit. The M203 will only be available on surplus legacy rifle systems via lottery.
Braindead take, is Biden gonna come to my rescue when some christofascist militia has me on my knees in front of a ditch?
Sounds like a similar argument to how christofascists justify owning military weapons. It’s very disturbing from a European point of view.
The countries with nukes get permanent seats on the UN Security Council.
Maybe once the US has been around for a few more centuries it’ll be different. in the meantime, if the crazies are armed you should be too.
That’s military not civilians, it seems justified as long as there are authoritarian regimes with imperialist ideas. Completely unrelated to civilians having military weapons. Unless you’re saying civilians should have nukes too.
Unarmed protest will not stop putin
…the military will.
Will they though? Last I checked, the EU mostly underfunds their military. They dont even meet nato obligations
This is rapidly changing, all thanks to Putin.
Seems Ukrainian stopped it pretty well without having civilians carrying military weapons outside of military duty.
Not true at all. Ukraine was handing out AKs like candy to any citizen willing to fight for several days before the invasion.
Ukraine was handing out AKs like candy to any citizen willing to fight for several days before the invasion.
regardless of whether this statement is true or not, it would be because they were expecting and preparing themselves for military invasion.
also there was armed conflict already in progress before start of the “3 day special operation”.
Not true at all
so completely true after all… 😆
No, you said Ukraine fought Russia back without arming their civilian populace, then tried to walk it back by saying they were expecting an invasion. Yeah, no kidding. But the fact of the matter is that they did exactly that. They handed out full auto rifles and held bomb making classes for the public. Ordinary people fought back, and a rifle behind every bush was indeed critical to pushing Russia back.
Yes, it is absolutely true that Ukraine fought Russia by having ordinary citizens fighting back with military weapons.
then tried to walk it back
i couldn’t have tried to walk anything back for two reasons:
- i am not the person you originally replied to.
and
- the two statements are not contradictory, so there isn’t “taking anything back”.
But the fact of the matter is that they did exactly that. They handed out full auto rifles and held bomb making classes for the public. Ordinary people fought back, and a rifle behind every bush was indeed critical to pushing Russia back.
that is how it works. you are a civilian, until you are given weapons and task to do, such as fight invading armed forces.
how long you were on a army’s payroll before is just splitting hair. different para-military and guerilla forces are part of the armed conflicts all over the world.
and from the context of this discussion it is pretty clear that “civilians carrying military weapons outside of military duty” refers to some fucking meal team six redneck from some confederate state who only ever saw a war in television and carries his assault rifle to walmart to protect himself against people laughing at his small dick, not people fighting in actual war.
so thanks for playing darling, better luck next time.
Because they were expecting a foreign military invasion, it still is military duty.
Nope. A civilian fighting in a war does not make them part of the military. It makes them a civilian fighting in a war.
Seeing how 2A it almost took down a fascist it’s getting hard to argue against it.
If you think arming yourself because there are organized fascists in the country is a similar argument to fascists wanting guns to do fascism you’re a fascist and nothing less.
Ah, didn’t know you would consider most of EU and the developed world to be fascist, thanks for the insult.
You would have been the worst kind of fence sitter right up until the germans boarded in your house. You are a fascist.
The cops will bring the rope.
Source: George floydd protests
Is this what your life is like?
Soon to be “our”. And not just in America, unfortunately.
I don’t think you know what the world is like outside your gun nut bubble.
I don’t think you know what the world is like outside your gun nut bubble.
Then you should probably be a little less judgy about what folks think they need to do to defend themselves within that bubble.
Since you aren’t from the US, you may not be aware of Project 2025, but “some christofascist militia has me on my knees in front of a ditch” is a plausible eventual outcome for many over here if Trump gets in again.
Then you should probably be a little less judgy about what folks think they need to do to defend themselves within that bubble.
no, he shouldn’t be. folks in gun nut bubble don’t need to defend themselves, they are just gun nuts, that’s the whole point of the argument 😆
Hey I’ve got news for you - all the US is the gun nut bubble, and we all take the impacts from it, whether we own guns or not. You may have heard about our problems with school shootings, for example, or our police who are convinced everyone wants to kill them, and so open fire at the slightest provocation…
hey, i’ve got news for you as well - more guns is not a solution to the problem. more guns is the problem.
How often are you shot at? Have many enemies trying to kill you? Grow up.
I’m not even a gun owner buddy, but I’m not going to pretend the world is going to stay safe for everyone who isn’t (or can’t pretend to be) a white cishet christian if Project 2025 comes to pass.
Edit: They are already ramping it up more, as if that were possible. They want to be ready to hit the ground running on Day 1 of Trump’s second term. https://www.advocate.com/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-rnc
Yeah a ton of people will lose their rights with project 2025, but how does having a gun help you fix that? Are you talking about like civilization declining into groups of people killing each other in the streets?
Gun nut? I’m not replying regarding guns, but the rise of right wing nationalism
Removed by mod
I’m with you until the last part, I’ve tasted it, and I wouldn’t wish it on DJT himself. I understand the emotion, but there’s a better way homie
Hey, I appreciate you at least. At my old job they had a big office in Monterrey, and they were some of the most hard working teams I had the pleasure to work with. I absolutely lost my shit if anyone treated them any differently and I hated how the company ran that division. Working with those teams is the only thing I miss.
The fact that they always had to get permission for any time off from the team leads, were scrutinized for every cent, and often not even given the tools they needed for their job, all in the name of “saving” money, was absolute bullshit. There really were some ridiculous double standards. We never denied time off and purchased what you needed. We knew how shitty the system was and did what we could.
So, one shitty American to an awesome Mexican, thank you. For every cook, every maid, field slave, factory worker, engineer, installer, and human from your country that just wants to exist somewhere safe, feed their family, and have a roof over your head, thank you.
do you plan to resolve any of your problems, real or perceived, with ar15?
If brown shirts start lynching my neighbors for being a certain race, do you have any better suggestions? Should I scold them, ever so sternly?
here, you can run in circles yourself, you don’t need me for that.
Page not found.
Thanks for not even considering what I asked.
reload, or fix your instance redirect, or w/e, and you’ll see i did
I’ll give up my guns after the christo-facists give up theirs, not before.
FUCK
its like he’s trying to lose
this is not going to get anyone excited about voting for him, but it will galvanize the opposition and push swing voters into staying home on election day at the very least
I dunno, it didn’t work out so well for Beto.
Sad things is, if the people who voted for Biden in Texas had voted for Beto, Beto would have won Texas in a landslide.
Texas gubernatorial race: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Texas_gubernatorial_election
• 4,437,099 for piss baby
• 3,553,656 votes for BetoPresidential election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Texas
• 5,259,126 for BidenShows you how the independents and left aren’t strictly anitgun. Was such a huge blunder on his part and the person asking him gave him repeated chances to walk it back and clarify it to not mean what he said, and he still insisted on total ban.
It’s not that, they literally just didn’t vote at all.
If I was a registered Democrat in Texas and actively didn’t want Beto to win because of his anti-gun stances, why would I vote for him in the gubernatorial? I can’t vote R, so best thing I can do is just not vote.
Biden is much less likely to succeed in pushing national level bans compared to Beto and state level bans, so voters who didn’t vote for Beto might’ve later voted for Biden.
Also, presidential elections simply have a higher turnout.
deleted by creator
Oh don’t I know it, preaching to the choir here.
That fucking horrible assassination attempt would have happened with or without the AR, this is just another knee-jerk emotional reaction, and it could NOT come at a worse time (pre-election). We’re fucked.
Handguns used in ~2/3 of all gun murders in the U.S.: I sleep
AR-15 used in one assassination attempt of geriatric running for president in 2024: REAL SHIT
