Biden says it’s ‘time to outlaw’ AR-15 after Trump assassination attempt
Biden says it’s ‘time to outlaw’ AR-15 after Trump assassination attempt
The president demanded Congress renew the federal assault weapons ban that his Republican rival has rejected
You're viewing a single thread.
Time to force registration of guns. Time to force psych evals for gun owners. I own two guns. One is a SKS I bought in 1990. Although considered a assault rifle it is nothing more than a semi automatic hunting rifle. I would gladly submit to what I propose in order to ensure that some broken soul doesn't have access to a weapon. Anyone who is against accountability in this matter is probably a danger.
The SKS has the same size standard mags as an AR-15 and can do everything else the AR-15 can, but with a more powerful round.
How is it "just a semi automatic hunting rifle" if the AR-15 isn't?
So can a browning 306. My SKS doesn't use mags you can get stripper clips but it doesn't hold that many shots. Its nice you googled something and got it wrong.
My SKS uses 30 round detachable magazines, so OP is not incorrect. it's a rifle that's been around forever with tons of different configurations
You can modify them to use a mag. I did for a short time years ago but restored it to its original configuration. Using a magazine kinda sucks with that gun.
Dude, I was in gun sales for years. I've had my hands on a thousand SKS rifles.
Just because you don't have detachable mags doesn't mean it can't use them on the rifle. Like an AR it's a very adaptable platform.
Sks is a 7.62/30-06 round, which is a good round for medium to large game. The ar15 is 5.56/.223 which is much smaller and not suitable for more than varmint or coyote.
It's incrediblly not a 30.06. SKS fires a 7.62x39mm cartridge with about 1400 ft/lbs of muzzle energy.
A 30.06 is 7.62x63mm cartridge with around 3000ft/lbs or muzzle energy.
A .223 from an AR has about 1300 ft/lbs, making it MUCH closer to the SKS than the BAR.
not suitable for more than varmint or coyote.
Holy shit you have no idea what you're talking about LMAO
There's a really wide range of opinions on what animals 5.56 is ethical for. I'm not gonna say they're all valid, but this opinion this person shared is an opinion people have.
I live in Canada. We had mandatory gun registration passed in 2001. From that point on, the Conservatives used every opportunity they could to scrap the registry and finally succeeded in 2012. Since then, the reintroduction of a gun registry has been off the table.
Canada has nowhere even close to a gun culture the way the US does. The main opponents of gun registration here were hunters and farmers, a much smaller portion of the population than in the US (which also includes substantial gun enthusiast, militia, and survivalist cultures).
So what does all this mean? Gun registration laws are laughably unrealistic in the US. There is absolutely no way you will ever get a gun registry to stick as long as the Republicans have any chance whatsoever of winning an election.
Just because Canada couldn't swing means no one can. Gotcha.
That's not the comparison. The comparison is if Canada cant pass gun laws do you think a country less functional and more pro gun can?
I sincerely wish you the best of luck. I really do.
(Boost for Lemmy went fucky wucky so I reposted this comment)
Sounds like a great way for conservatives to make sure their victims don't get guns. They'll go back to pretending to be concerned for trans people and stuff. Remember when women were forced into psych wards for being "disobedient"? I bet it'd basically be the same type of labelling anyone going against the fascist agenda as mental illness.
I'm all for it in the progressive parts of the country (like Massachussetts) where minorities (including lgbt) probably wouldn't be targetted like that by the government. But in the regressive states like Mississippi, or Louisiana, or West Virginia, or Florida, or Texas... no thanks, I don't want to have my house raided when overlord Trump becomes supreme leader and the state decides I don't deserve human rights unless I convert to Christianity (the right kind of Christianity though obviously, the wrong kind will get you dragged out into the street and shot)
I think it just boils down to "gun control requires the government to enforce it especially fairly and in good faith" which I do NOT trust a conservative government to do. One shitty election, and suddenly leftists or minorities can't get guns and all my gun data next to my address and SSN is conveniently accessible to fascists, along with the statistics bought from corporations saying I'm a filthy socialist
Sounds like a great way for conservatives to make sure their victims don't get guns. They'll go back to pretending to be concerned for trans people and stuff. Remember when women were forced into psych wards for being "disobedient"? I bet it'd basically be the same type of labelling anyone going against the fascist agenda as mental illness.
I'm all for it in the progressive parts of the country (like Massachussetts) where minorities (including lgbt) probably wouldn't be targetted like that by the government. But in the regressive states like Mississippi, or Louisiana, or West Virginia, or Florida, or Texas... no thanks, I don't want to have my house raided when overlord Trump becomes supreme leader and the state decides I don't deserve human rights unless I convert to Christianity (the right kind of Christianity though obviously, the wrong kind will get you dragged out into the street and shot)
I think it just boils down to "gun control requires the government to enforce it especially fairly and in good faith" which I do NOT trust a conservative government to do. One shitty election, and suddenly leftists or minorities can't get guns and all my gun data next to my address and SSN is conveniently accessible to fascists, along with the statistics bought from corporations saying I'm a filthy socialist
To me it sounds like a good way for malfunctioning republicans to get identified. Its what they fear most. The idea that everyone will know they are sociopaths, psychopaths or have plain old NPD. When you hear someone say they don't believe in therapy you know they are afraid of being exposed.
Are you suggesting that we do it to expose peoples' medical information to the public..? Or am I misinterpreting this
I think them being openly Republican lets everyone know well enough that they lack empathy/humanity. It's on people (well, more like our education system to teach people) to recognize that, WITHOUT violating basic privacy rights. Plus, knowing the publics' ableism and perception of mental disorders, people will probably start suggesting that ASD, ADHD, etc. should disqualify you from having a gun if the laws aren't just listing out arbitrary diagnoses.
Personally, I currently live in a very red part of Georgia (not for much longer though) and I'm pretty queer and have ADHD and stuff, so I'd rather not let the government even know what guns I own. When the state or federal government becomes social democratic, I'll be completely fine with it
No I'm not suggesting that. Way to reason in advance of your data. I'm suggesting though experience that people who are against mental health are usually against it to hide their problems. I worked in mental health for a decade. Most cluster B's, people with APD, NPD or BPD can't stand the thought of getting help. All of them feel that its never their fault. They play the victim but are always the victimizer. None of them need a gun.
Why would I think people with ASD or ADHD would be a threat? I have ADHD and I also get treatment.
Seems like you are picking a outrageous example in an attempt to fluff up your position. but some types are dangerous and those are the ones who avoid therapy. Who fear it.No they're saying nobody gets exposed because health info is held to high privacy standards and your comment didn't make sense unless those mental health evals were public info, so they assumed that's what you were arguing for.
You don't have to make them public. Why is that a requirement? Its crazy that that is the only way people see it.
No, actually it's long past time to redefine hate groups and fascists as domestic terrorists and send in the FBI.
What guarantees you won't become a broken soul now that you have the weapons ?
What would make you comfortable giving them up ?
Do you train in a militia ? Would you be willing to submit to a state or county base militia every month for the rest of your active life to keep your guns ?
Do you feel any responsibility when your fellow gun owners act not just irresponsibly but act out of malice towards the public with their firearms ?
Those are "your people". Make a better case to keep your military weapons other than "i'm not crazy".
I think leaning into the well regulated militia part of 2A is where I would focus. In my thinking every town or district or whatever would have a local militia. Anyone could be involved whether they want to be armed or not. Basically the militia would train for all sorts of emergency situations in a very local way. It would have to be independent from the government though. Like, only in your town. Where do we meet? What resources will we have? Are there good choke points we should defend? Under what circumstances? And then of course actually training as a defensive militia. Each militia should have an armory/barracks. While the individual person would still technically own the weapon, anything other than hunting weapons would need to be kept in the armory unless the militia declared an emergency and everyone got their guns and manned their posts. Maybe even hunting weapons. Just have a system for checking your weapons out for hunting or practice. I'd be willing to make this sacrifice. And I'd feel much more secure knowing I lived somewhere with a well organized militia and not reliant on some far off government or a bunch of yahoo vigilantes.
I like it. I meant it is kinda the point of the natty guard, but that got too big and too military. An active community support group would be neat to see more of.
Right? The guard can get called to go to other places though, and is controlled by the government. I just think people should be prepared for whatever in their own communities, and if you're a responsible member of that well regulated "militia", then sure you can own guns.
The SKS is the first gun I ever bought. The other gun was one of few things my dad ever gave me that wasn't broken. Of course he thought it was broken when he gave it to me but it was simple fix. Simple enough for a twelve year old to fix. Why would I give up what is essentially a two hunting rifles. Sure one has a place for a bayonet but I don't own one. All of you defeatist always naively think outlawing them will get rid of them.
Every X years you have to pass again the psychiatric test.
Licensing, recurrent registration, and insurance. Mandated storage. If you can afford an arsenal, you can afford the rest of it.
I agree with all of these things, except affordability shouldn't be the issue. It should be subsidized for poorer people. I don't want only the wealthy to be well armed.
I’ve heard the “wealthy people” argument many times. Like I said, if you can afford the guns you can afford the ability to secure them. Failure to secure guns is what gets people killed, either because of accidental shootings, theft, or the guns being taken without permission. I’m not interested in debating poverty and gun ownership if the lack of ability to pay for insurance or a safe means someone else has to pay with their life. We’re already there and it’s already a massive problem. It’s why this discussion is even happening.
E: this is the most ‘Murica thing I’ve ever heard. Guns are a fucking problem, people have proven they can’t be responsible for them, and here we have people suggesting we use public money to distribute them for free or at little cost. Yeah, the answer is MORE guns. Tf is wrong with people.
Like I said, subsidize it for poorer people (including the gun). We subsidize all kinds of things to ensure poorer people can still do things they should be allowed to do but can't afford at the same level. If we managed to get as far as what you want, it'd be fairly trivial to add a gun/ammo tax or something that is used to offset the costs for poorer people. I'm agreeing with your concept, but ensuring only the wealthy can be armed is a horrible idea.
It's trivially easy to put a gun behind a lock. Licensing, registration, and insurance is a cost that can become arbitrarily large.
Insurance, because only white people should be able to have guns without paying exorbitant fees. Pass.
I used to have insurance for my firearms.
Then a bunch liberal activists hadn't hounded all the credit card payment processors to refuse to work with insurance companies who offered it, calling it "murder insurance."
Now I can't buy it because people on both sides of the debate refuse to act in good faith.
Poll taxes are racist