You must log in or register to comment.
Boolshit like this is why I gotta remember to stock up on ammo well before the 2024 election.
LOTS of liberal sorts been buying guns. Women, POC and LGBT folks have been the largest gun buying demographic for a few years. They’ll be stocking up in case of a Trump win. I’m an old white guy, but I’ll be joining them.
And of course the conservative sorts will pull their usual freakout in case a Democrat wins. Even when it’s the same Democrat from the last 4-years. You would think they’d have learned after 8-years of Obama. LOL nope. Panicky little bitches.
Look in the mirror because that’s the person most likely to get shot with your guns. Who do you love most in the world? Because they’re number 2. This fantasy that gun ownership protects people, especially from the government needs to fucking die.
The natives had Guns; the Black Panthers had guns; Briana Taylor had an armed protector too.
I’m certain of it, and that’s why I didn’t have a gun until I was 39. Too mentally unstable. Suicidal ideation is no longer on the table, and hasn’t been for some time.
And yes, my guns could certainly fight the government. I’d likely die, but how many armed citizens fighting back would the government continue to prosecute? And it’s not like they would call in airstrikes on my hood. And how many soldiers would even participate, knowing they would be under fire from every 2nd window?
I watched a video last year of jihadis randomly shooting up a residential block of apartments after last year’s Iranian protests. Think that could happen in America? Men running and gunning while the civilians all cower in helplessness? Why or why not?
Or would they even start? Look OP, I’m 52 and never imagined America falling into the fascist hellscape we’re facing now. The front runner for the GOP candidacy just called me “vermin”, an “internal enemy” that must be exterminated. And he has a solid chance of winning.
So if you think things are bad now, just how bad would they be if the government knew, for a fact, that the citizenry was helpless? I’m not taking bets, not anymore, not with what I’ve seen this past decade.
You can choose to be peaceful, but if you are unarmed and practiced, you are merely harmless.
You’re absolutely right, guns don’t protect people at all…oh wait, they do. You mean the left has been lying to me this entire time?
Of those people that were protected, how many were protected from other people with guns? It’s just an arms race basically. Sure everyone needs guns for protection, because everyone has guns. Funny how all the countries with low gun ownership don’t have rampant murders.
Funny how the countries with high gun ownership don’t have rampant murder. Israel and Switzerland anyone?
America doesn’t have a gun problem, we have a culture problem.
Maybe Switzerland and Israel aren’t the best examples. Switzerland has mandatory military service and by extension firearm familiarity training. Israel is…well Israel.
Also s good point. I feel like that adds to mine actually. Considering the severe lack of education, mental health support, etc. in the US, the solution isn’t to add more guns then. Gun ownership increases safety when everyone is responsible (like Switzerland) but decreases it when everyone is not (like the US).
Don’t be coy, who are you going to shoot? People are being killed so you can buy guns and ammo on a whim, especially those “women, POC and LGBT folks”.
Or is this just more astro-turfing from the gun lobby, targeting a new demographic after saturating their core “idiots, racists and domestic terrorists” market?
The fearful, anxious and nervous have always been a core demographic for the gun lobby.
This is the a big reason for gun control.
- some people are hunters, collectors or hobbyists. They probably follow gun safety and security rules, or live away from people so who cares
- some people are idiots, racists, and domestic terrorists. Hopefully the FBI is on the case
- but the nervous, anxious and fearful probably always have a loaded weapon at hand, not secured because they may “need it”, and are more likely to just start blasting away out of their own fear
Yeah, the idiots, racists and domestic terrorists make the headlines with mass killings, but it’s the nervous, anxious and fearful that present the most danger for most of us. At any time, there could be an unsecured loaded weapon around for the taking or pulled out because someone got startled, or is in an unexpected situation, or approached by someone with the wrong skin color, or even in what should have been a minor altercation
There was a time when high school aged kids, especially more rural area’s, would have a rifle in the vehicle they went to school in, and would go hunting after. The rate of school shootings was extremely low and rare. So - I ask: What changed?
We’ve had machine guns accessible to people since the 1920’s, we’ve had the know how to make guns with supplies from a hardware store since like the Irish Revolution. So it’s not an accessibility issue.
Wealth Disparity, More parents with multiple jobs, commodification of housing, gentrification of neighbourhoods. That all started happening in and around the 1960’s really. Beyond this - leaded gasoline, given lead poisoning and exposure to such has been linked to lower empathy. And then there is my favorite: This cultural shift to seemingly rejecting personal responsibility - and why? how? The answer is how we are educated. What we are taught. And as a society - we voted for these changes, either purposefully or through complacency.
I’m not saying you should be allowed to go out and buy a minigun and all the ammo. What I am saying is that guns aren’t the problem - it’s the cultural back drop that is being ignored. The changes between then and now that have been demonstrably negative. And yet - the negative parts aren’t being discussed or dealt with because ultimately those in power, lacking empathy for the average person, profit from this entire situation.
It’s time we as a society tell the capitalists to shut up until basic needs are covered (food, shelter) - and tell the socialists to shut up because the USSR is a failed state. And tell the Corrupt unions to rethink their priorities. And Finally - it’s time for a new labour movement.
You know what got labour laws passed and happening in the US? Guns. So bad was the violence against labour movements that the labour movements started showing up armed and being willing to shoot first and ask questions later to the point that the government HAD to act, HAD to listen because the economy was being threatened. The reason strikes work is ultimately because it threatens companies economic viability, and it’s why we need anti-scab legislation.
It turns out that mixed-market economics is the way to go. And somehow, even back in the day - under a different format, even Adam Smith had some understanding of this. After all: The church was responsible for the charity work, and it was a MANDATE BY GOD to give like 10% of your earnings to the church. Of course - the Catholic Church is well known for hording wealth and trying to keep knowledge as the exclusive domain of the church but, well… things went sideways, the church stopped, greedy people took over and no one stepped in to fix the situation leading to toxic environments during the industrial revolution that were exploitative. And this is why we need legislation to protect against this.
UBI is an inevitability sooner or later - and it can act as a general replacement for the payouts of welfare, old age, and so much more. Sure, we need social assistance programs, but imagine how many people out their would be happy to take UBI, Work part time, and commit 10-20 hours a week just helping other people: I know many of them. But under the current environment - it doesn’t happen, and so our elderly get neglected, those down on their luck get ignored, and it’s a struggle.
We as a Society need to do better.
And doing better fixes the vast majority of crime - including gun crime.
TL;DR: Guns aren’t really the issue. The issue is the societal back drop that has changed arguably for the worse do to creating higher degrees of wealth disparity, and a greater degree of poverty which is directly linked with increased crime.
Hopefully the FBI is on the case
The FBI being on the case means that they mastermind a plot, fund it, arm it, and get a few suckers to agree to it, then put those people in jail forever. Just because the right hates them now too doesn’t mean they stopped being motherfuckers. I stand with MTG: defund the FBI!
There are 393.3 million guns owned by private citizens in the United States. 46% of all households own at least one gun. Do you really think the gun manufacturers need to troll an overall meaningless social network, posting misinformation on some random-ass meme to push their agenda? I’m hoping your comment was satire and I just have a broken satire meter.
Do you really think the gun manufacturers need to troll an overall meaningless social network, posting misinformation on some random-ass meme to push their agenda?
Not really how modern astro-turfing works (its far too easy to catch). Instead, talking points are seeded and signal boosted in key communities, then left to spread organically from there.
You’re welcome to believe that an industry that makes tools to kill people, that donates $16 million each year to Republicians and spends even more on legal challenges, would never stoop to the kind of sleazy tricks used by oil and tobacco industries, or companies like Microsoft and Apple, or governments like Israel’s and China’s.
Personally, that sounds pretty naive to me.
So why did “guns are awesome for women and the gays” suddenly become the favourite take of pro-gun groups? It definitely didn’t follow a high profile event where a minority defended themselves with a gun, because there hasn’t been any.
The only minority group that benefits from permissive gun laws is white supremacists.
Plot twist: they come for his arms
They cannot do that! He has his right to bear arms!
just the left one, then
Saw a great comment once,
“On a scale of Marx to Reagan, how do you feel about gun control?”
I like to throw this one around:
“Can you fucking believe a sitting President of the United States said, ‘Take the guns first, go through due process second’?!”
“Biden can eat a dick!”
“That was actually President Trump.”
The funny thing is that both Marx and Reagan were draft deferred and neither ever served in the military.
Both were fine with other people doing the fighting.
It’s too bad they keep talking about it as if it’s going to happen, then.
EDIT: This is going to be my only response to people who say dems aren’t trying to take away / ban guns from now on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW1HPoqqB_8
You people are funny.
Reminder that it was Reagan who took guns away in California because he didnt want Black Panthers having guns.
I am 100% aware, thank you. But that doesn’t change the fact that dems have to spout garbage about gun bans every time they open their mouths.
Red flag laws to prevent nutbags from owning assault rifles isn’t ‘a gun ban’. No one’s treading on you sweetie. No one step on snek.
You just feel so persecuted someone might DARE to regulate your fetish it gets you all worked up.
So many assumptions in one comment, lmao. You don’t know me, but nice attempt at insulting me.
But FWIW, “assault weapons ban” is literally a “ban” and they’ve been pushing it for years. I’m not talking about red flag laws.
EDIT: Okay I’m seriously confused why so many of you outright deny that dems are constantly talking about gun bans. Do you watch the news, like at all? No matter the source, and AT LEAST every election cycle, there’s a constant stream of pushing for an assault weapons ban. You have to be actually living under a rock to have never seen those words written or spoken by a dem.
And FWIW, THIS IS COMING FROM A DEM. I am against gun bans, but why the fuck are you lying and denying that dems don’t talk about gun bans??? Are you trying to play stupid?
I can see that you’re seriously confused. You even think you’re a dem.
Wow.
I’m not a dem because the only issue I disagree with Dems on is guns? Despite the fact that I vote dem? Ok buddy
You know, you can vote a certain way but still disagree with and be vocal about certain issues.
Don’t get upset baby, lots of people think they’re decent before self examination.
the fact that dems have to spout garbage about gun bans every time they open their mouths.
Got any solid examples as of late?
Literally just introduced. Defines any semi automatic as gas operated and them gans all gas operated weapons.
deleted by creator
(38)The term “semi-automatic” means A: Upon firing, uses a portion of the energy to eject the last round and load another. B: Requires a seperste pull of the trigger C: Is not a machine-gun
(V)(1) Except those provided exemptions, it is illegal to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, recieve, or possess a firearm of the above description, or any combination of parts that can create the above description.
(2)(1) Exemptions include:
- Sale to government agency or any State or Tribe.
- Sale to nuclear power plant security forces.
- Any grandfathered in device, all semi-automatics are grandfathered if manufactured and purchased before the date of enactment.
- Any immediate family transfers are still allowed for grandfathered devices.
- 22.cal Firearms.
- Fixed magazines under 10 rounds (rifles)
- Fixed magazines under 15 rounds (pistols)
(W)(1) It is now illegal to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess high capacity feeding decices over 10 rounds. Same exemptions apply minus the last.
Breaking of this law constitutes a maximum. 10 year prison sentence and $250000
Again, refer to this comment: https://lemmy.world/comment/5707227
deleted by creator
-
So you’re okay with the government seizing your property and most likely not giving you the cash value of your rifles (because if you think they will, that’s hilarious)
-
People need long guns for as long as conservatives are going to attempt insurrections and threaten civil war. But no let’s just ignore everything that happened in 2020.
-
I need to make a c/AsAGunOwner you’re a gun owner like I’m the king of England.
You even saying the word assault rifle is hilarious…you cannot just buy an assault rifle, they are just dressed up plastic semi-automatic rifles…and you’d know that if you were an actual gun owner.
deleted by creator
No, they don’t. You’re either lying or massively exaggerating.
Nobody who has been on Reddit or Lemmy for any amount of time needs a reminder about that because it gets repeated 1 million times per day on every platform whenever gun control is mentioned.
That’s the point. It’s easier to control people with fear, uncertainty and doubt than with any kind of tangible action. Just give people something to hate and tell them you are their savior. It doesn’t actually matter if you do anything about “it”, just blame your enemies for your “failures”.
Does that remind you of any quotes?
Totally. Like every day. I can’t seem to find any specific examples though, would you mind helping me out with that?
Google “assault weapons ban”. Click the news tab. It’s automatically sorted by newest.
Banning the sale of military-style assault weapons is exactly the same thing as taking your guns away.
deleted by creator
They were being sarcastic because it actually isn’t
“Yes we’re going to take your AR-15s” - Beto O’Rourke
Doesn’t sound like banning the sale of them, sounds like outright banning them to me.
Beto o rourke? Doesn’t ring a bell. Remind me what office he holds ?
No seriously though- really nice work. You found one quote from the former mayor of a Texas town who currently holds no office, and you’re using that quote like it defines a literally decades-long campaign of “Dems are gonna take your guns” Come on man you can do better than that. I’ll even GIVE you one: “ take their guns first, do due process second” there, that one’s on me.
He was a nominee for presidential candidate* you baffoon, and a close ally with Biden as well.
And that’s just one example from 2019. There are plenty more examples if you dig a bit more.
I’ll even GIVE you one: “ take their guns first, do due process second” there, that one’s on me.
Yup, that’s another good one, but unfortunately that one wasn’t spoken by a “dem”. Still a great example of authoritarians trying to disarm civilians which is precisely what I am against.
There’s no need for name-calling here. If that’s how you want to debate you can do it with someone else.
dems keep talking about taking all the guns?
When?
Refer to this comment, unless you’re being sarcastic: https://lemmy.world/comment/5707227
Banning assault weapon sales is not the same thing. I’m frankly amazed you can get this worked up about a subject you obviously have entirely misinterpreted - there’s only one use case for the ‘dems are taking your guns’ and that’s stoking fearmongering conservatives into their daily frothing delirium on Fox news.
“Yes we’re going to take your AR-15s” - a direct quote from former Democrat representative and former presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke.
I’m not misinterpreting anything. During the entire 2020 election cycle it was about taking guns, not banning sales. And I guarantee that it’s going to start again en masse during the 2024 election cycle.
And I’m only getting worked up because you are either so blindly wrong and refusing all of the evidence around you, or straight up lying and being disingenuous, and I just don’t understand which it is.
Taking AR15s, banning assault rifles - neither of these things are ‘coming for your guns’ unless the only guns you rock are assault rifles.
And that’s Beto, one voice in a giant crowd who didn’t even get elected. But keep crying lil baby, no one step on snek, no one’s taking your bangbangs, you just got really upset over nothing.
AR15s are the most common firearm in the country. Almost every person who owns a gun most likely owns an AR-15. And to be a little pedantic, AR15s are not assault rifles because they cannot select fire (switch to full auto).
And yes I learned today that Beto was never elected. I was kinda surprised actually. But it is in fact one dem who literally said “I’m gonna take your guns”, word for word, and a lot of people did support him. That doesn’t mean absolutely nothing and as a dem, I am fully aware that there are many Dems that would support the outright ban of guns without hesitation (I know a few).
But to think I’m upset over this, no lol. I think we need stricter gun regulation, but sale bans, outright bans, and confiscation are taking it way too far, when leftists should be arming themselves after a near-miss insurrection with Chief Cheeto. I don’t think I’m in the wrong for supporting gun ownership and self defense as a civilian and human right and the above (plus COVID happening) is literal proof that shit isn’t good right now and it can get worse. Seriously, I lived in Philly at the beginning of COVID and police were unable to keep up with emergency calls. If police can’t protect you (and why even expect it?) then learn to protect yourself, and firearms level the playing field.
I see it’s the gun lobby’s season to milk profits again?
(checks watch) yeah it’s been about 12 minutes since a toddler got murdered, cooldown period is complete.
Still waiting for the vaccine to kill me. I was told I would be dead by September!
I’m a Dem. Give me your guns.
(e: did it work?)
As long as they don’t take your bear arms
Illinois is certainly trying
deleted by creator
those guns are like a boat anchor around your neck
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Not if you consider some of the shit the Commerce Clause has been used to justify. Consider Wickard v. Filburn (1942) in which a farmer who grew too much wheat was penalized, insisted it was for his personal use, and still got smacked down.
That case was made possible by FDR’s New Deal creating limits on wheat production. While I think it could have been argued many different ways, they did present a fairly logical argument using the commerce clause against the ND law.
deleted by creator
Eminent domain isn’t in the constitution but gun rights are. That’s not going to fly in the current supreme court.
And notably the 4A.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
deleted by creator
