They’ll need it for the civil war
This.
This is one thing I hate about democrats. They barely swing a few undecided voters and throw it all away by bringing up an item that many undecided voters take as a single-issue subject.
Gun issues are a losing topic.
Focus efforts on anything else (healthcare, housing, etc) and gun violence will drop.
So good to see more people understanding this. Spend the political capital on shit that will actually reduce our violence, vs virtue signaling to a ever shrinking group of anti-2a voters.
Totally agree. Gun issues need to be off the table entirely until sanity has returned to government. Dems need to focus on making normal government operations and improving living standards as exciting as the threat of taking over Canada.
Funny how providing people with the things they need stops violence.
History and human nature says otherwise. There will always be violence of some kind. Someone always wants more.
Sure. But the violence decreeces when resources for each are plentiful. Its just how need and desperation work in the animal kingdom. Less competition equals less violence
Absolutely. I was responding to your comment that uses the language that it “stops violence”. Decreases is different, and we’re on the internet so there is probably some moron who thinks it will actually stop all violence and utopia will sprout. 😆
Ronnie Reagan and George Bush Sr are notorious gun control freaks and they are GOP. Yes, improving labor rules and public services would relieve the stress on the Americans reducing violence. No wonder the USA experiences so many “going postal” murders.
While the proposed bill in the article was a poorly-defined measure, I object to the idea that gun control will always be losing. It’s one of The Onion’s reliable jokes; “No way to present this, says only nation where this kind of thing happens regularly”. And that’s not because healthcare and housing are perfectly solved issues everywhere else.
I’ve spoken with several gun owners in my state who are in perfect agreement that many do not respect the weight those objects have, and follow no safety rules - and would like to see sane regulations on model production and better background check systems, based specifically around how the most gun crimes are committed. We’re just in a ridiculous spiral where the right keeps complaining Democrats want to take away all guns, and lawmakers keep aiming for these vague “assault bans” that would accomplish nothing.
I completely disagree with banning rifles and pistols. However, I am all for intensive background checks, psychological tests, firearm classes and tests, mandatory storage safety with inspections and licensing classifications depending on what you want to buy. The Europeans do this correctly and the US allows lunatics to own firearms.
Those will be used against letting leftist get guns.
deleted by creator
mandatory storage safety with inspections
Here in the U.S. our Constitution prohibits the government from performing searches of people’s homes with first having probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and a warrant to search their home that has been signed by a judge. Const. Amend. IV.
Smart move.
A gun control measure in Hawaii failed by a narrow vote this week, after several state Democrats crossed the aisle to vote against it.
The defeat of Senate Bill 401, which sought to ban assault-style rifles in the state, shows an unexpected division in a party typically unified on gun control.
Well the Republicans are public stating they plan on erasing everyone who isn’t white so yeah stay strapped
What a pointless bill. Assault rifles have been illegal nationwide for decades.
What do you mean? Assault rifles are perfectly legal
Assault rifles are full auto or burst fire. They’re not legal for civilians without a specific form of FFL, which is difficult and expensive to get. Even with an FFL you will probably run into problems with state and local laws. That’s why you’ll pretty much only see assault rifles at places like the ones outside Vegas where they let you pay to fire one for a few minutes.
Fully automatic weapons can be legally owned after a mere $200 application to the ATF.
The real hurdle is the closed nature of the full auto registry creates artificial scarcity and pushes the price of the gun itself up.
But, assuming you have the money, it is a straightforward process no more complicated or time consuming than legally owning an SBR.
Edit: Not sure why I’m being downvoted. Here is the transfer form. Block 4B is where you list what type of NFA item you are buying.
I think they call em “assault weapons” and they’re basically anything high capacity and semi auto and black and scary. Basically no recent discourse about assault whatever has actually referred to burst or auto weapons.
I think you’re probably right that those are what the law is targeting, and Newsweek is simply lying in this article.
I went and read the text. The TLDR is the law was targeted to semiautomatic weapons, but the text itself defined those as “assault rifles”.
The text proposed banning “assault rifles” and within the bill it laid out a definition for the purposes of the bill:
“Assault rifle” means a semiautomatic rifle
(1) With an overall length less than thirty inches;
(2) That has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition; or
(3) That accepts a detachable magazine or that may be readily modified to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following characteristics:
(A) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or a stock that is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, the size, or any dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability of the weapon;
(B) A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
© Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non‑trigger hand;
(D) A flash suppressor;
(E) A shroud that is attached to or partially or completely encircles the barrel and permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the second hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;
(F) A bayonet mount;
(G) A grenade launcher; or
(H) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward hand grip, or silencer.
More likely they have no idea what the difference is
deleted by creator
No you didn’t.
You know the A in AR stands for a company called Armalite right?
True, but when the United States Armory and Arsenal at Springfield, MA was in operation and evaluating rifles, they used the term Assault Rifle in their photos.
Were they burst and full auto variants?
The last photo I saw was HK G-3 produced in Spain by CEMTE and it was full auto. I believe the 3 round burst was developed during the 1980’s for the M-16A2 and I am not sure when the Warsaw Pact developed for their AK-74 rifles.
rEaChInG aCrOsS tHe AiSlE
Love a vague headline that tells me nothing about how to think.
Edit: I meant but about how to think, oh well.
newsweek is a right-wing rag that promotes conspiracy theories
EDIT: here are some details:
In November 2022, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that Newsweek had “taken a marked radical right turn by buoying extremists and promoting authoritarian leaders” since it hired conservative political activist Josh Hammer as editor-at-large. It noted the magazine’s elevation of conspiracy theorists, publication of conspiracy theories about COVID-19, views such as support for a ban on all legal immigration to the United States and denying adults access to trans-affirming medical care, and failure to disclose potential conflicts of interest in the content published on Hammer’s opinion section and podcast.
A terrible publication and source.
yet very successfully at the SEO game, and a very common source linked to across Lemmy.
Excuse me did you just ASK to be told how to think?
What surprise?
Aren’t Democrats like the backup voting option for Republicans, always?
