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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I guarantee that he will say that the attack wouldn't have happened if more of his followers had ar 15s there
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
Fighting fascists.
Why do you need the freedom of speech to write this comment?
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.
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
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?
Lose the election speed run any %
I’m 100% sure Dems are actively self sabotaging their re-election.
There is no way the entire party cannot read a fucking room. This has to be on purpose at this point.
Biden is simply the worst possible candidate, perhaps the only prominent Dem who can lose to Trump. And he’s determined to prove it.
He's trying to motivate the progressives. His campaign has finally figured out that progressives aren't turning out in the swing states. After over a year of warnings. This, the rent thing, (which progressives immediately identified as entirely too high and a gift to landlords everywhere), and the exponential increase in supposed policy lists. (Which like any gift horse, shouldn't be checked too thoroughly lest the corporate subsidies they hide shine through)
What we really need him to understand is the problem is Israel. Any of this would have worked a year ago. But many progressives are not willing to support the genocide in Israel just to buy themselves comfort.
Are you suggesting democrats will somehow fool voters into thinking they are agnostic about guns?
No, nor should they try, nor should they stick with their current seemingly nonsensical policy ideas about guns.
The "gun problem" as it stands is really more of a symptom of our mental health crisis, our ridiculously confrontational "news" cycle, and a number of other HUMAN factors that aren't going to be solved by banning a particular model of gun, though and no one seems to want to hear that.
Screeching "Ban the right's favorite model of toy" right before an election is beyond tone deaf, and an incredibly dumb move politically that won't do squat except mobilize the NRA voters to vote the other way, which we DO NOT NEED with democracy in this country at stake.
I can personally count multiple handfuls of coworkers and acquaintances who might have voted for him that will now vote trump or stay away from the polls over this.
Maybe Biden actually does plan to announce that he's not running in the 2024 general election. That way, this scores some political points with Democratic voters, but doesn't impact the election much.
Other than that, I don't really see how this makes sense politically. I dunno. Maybe his team has done some kind of analysis and is convinced that a particular demographic in the swing states that they're trying to win will like this or something, so it might be disadvantageous nationwide but a win locally.
Ya this is where my mind went
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?
Valid
Just wait for it, Dems are preparing to finally kill the filibuster just days before they lose to republicans in a landslide defeat due to running the worst possible candidate, simply because he promised the donors nothing would fundamentally change and actually delivered on it.
Afterwards, they’ll eat ice cream and blame the left for not voting hard enough.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
It'd literally be better politically to say nothing on the topic
Biden need only say three words to clinch the election right now: "He missed. Damnit."
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.
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.
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.
Seeing how 2A it almost took down a fascist it's getting hard to argue against it.
The cops will bring the rope.
Source: George floydd protests
I'll give up my guns after the christo-facists give up theirs, not before.
Add the cops to that list for me. Any disarming of citizens while the cops still get more military gear is just class war pretending to be progress.
I'm not disarming, period. Fuck that noise.
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
He IS trying to lose.
The Democrats don't WANT to defeat the Republicans because they NEED their favorite excuse in order to get away with the fuckery they like to pull all the time, all their insider trading and industrial kickbacks especially. Whenever you criticize them, they point at the GOP and say "oh so you'd rather THEM?"
Ironically, electing Democrats fucks up their plans.
I don’t think there’s a lot of people on the left that are huge AR-15 fans. We’d be fine without it.
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 Biden
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.
Nooo, let’s not. We’re gonna need those pretty soon from the looks of it.
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
It's also the most common rifle in the US, which is why it keeps showing up in various shootings that get media attention. They're not super great rifles for any application, but they're good for just about anything and designed to be modular so you can swap parts around if you need to.
That probably cost him a few votes, since he is now openly one of those gun grabbers who hates the 2nd amendment that the GOP claims all Dems are as a scare tactic.
An AR-15 semi-automatic rifle or variant has reportedly been used in multiple mass shootings in recent years, including the Sandy Hook, San Bernadino and Las Vegas shootings. I think here is the real problem with ARs
Okay? That doesn't change the numbers though.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
The FBI collects data on “active shooter incidents,” which it defines as “one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.” Using the FBI’s definition, 103 people – excluding the shooters – died in such incidents in 2021.
In 2020, the most recent year for which the FBI has published data, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available. Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 3% of firearm murders. Shotguns were involved in 1%. The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (36%) involved other kinds of firearms or those classified as “type not stated.”
103 deaths in mass shootings vs. 13,620 gun murders means that the odds of you dying in a mass shooting are less then 1%. AR's and attempts at bans thereof are meaningless feel-good legislation that doesn't fix anything. They aren't magic murder guns with homing bullets, they're just popular guns because they're perfectly adequate for what they do. Ban them and dudes will just use a different rifle.... or multiple handguns.
Completely for gun control, but the needless focus on AR-15's when all the stats say it's fucking dumb to do so annoys the shit out of me and reeks of taking advantage of the stupid who say shit like, "Why not shoot them in the arm???". There are so many FAR better things Dems could push for. Modernize the ATF's database. Plug gunshow loopholes federally rather then the hodgepodge of states we have now, put extreme risk/domestic violence laws on the books, tackle ghost guns before they become a larger issue. The list goes on, and on, and on.
Anyone looking to ban weapons must not believe Jan 6th was a genuine insurrection.
Why, oh why, would you disarm the people and give the state a monopoly on violence when that state is teetering on the edge of fascism.
Dude if the fascists get control of the military then an AR-15 is not going to help you. In fact the best chance we have of avoiding a successful violent coup is military intervention. I know that sucks to hear, but it's not the 1970's anymore. The technology we developed for 20 years of fighting an insurgency makes it pretty suicidal to attempt an insurgency against the US military.
You mean the insurgency that eventually achieved all of its goals and reclaimed it's power and control after the most powerful military in the world gave up and went home?
Or did you mean it's not the 1970s where that insurgency also did it to the second most powerful military...while a different insurgency did it to the one from the first example?
You're absolutely right that in a straight up fight no individual stands a chance against the US military (and I also tend to agree that the military would be the best friend of the people in that awful scenario) but there's two or three points that muddy the waters here a bit: it's not going to be just one, it's not going to be a straight up fight, and if the population were somehow disarmed, there wouldn't even be any struggle at all.
I'm not saying I'd fight off a battalion from my front porch wearing my Crocs, but a) anything is preferable to being herded to my fate, and b) it's not about one armed individual, it's more about the unappetizing proposition of subduing an armed populace.
80's-action-hero-MC syndrome is so prevalent in our culture it's not even fucking funny.
Maybe look a little outside the US? Other Western countries are far, far safer and have much less gun violence with less weapons in circulation. The difference is the easy access to weapons.
Maybe because
A) The AR15 is just cute if it comes to battling the US armed forces. Anyone thinking they can have an insurrection by not taking over the army, but instead having civilians with AR15's fighting the US armed forces (or even the police forces) is just... Cute. Also, again, insurrections require less weapons and more planning, connections, popularity, that sort of thing.
B) most of those weapons are used by the very people supporting a fascist government. All these "government evil!" types are dumb as fuck and voting for Trump.
C) AR15 weapons have been used (and continue to be used damn near weekly) in mass shootings that has killed hundreds of children.
Americans have shown one thing for sure: they can't be trusted to use weapons safely, securely and responsibly. If you can't take care of your toys (because thats what they are for most people, big boy toys) we take your toys away.
Take a single look at any other western country and you'll find that (barring perhaps Switzerland, where they are extremely responsible with laws and culture) they all van weapons and this shit simply. doesn't. happen. How? There are no mass murder weapons freely available.
The AR15 is just cute if it comes to battling the US armed forces. Anyone thinking they can have an insurrection by not taking over the army, but instead having civilians with AR15's fighting the US armed forces (or even the police forces) is just... Cute. Also, again, insurrections require less weapons and more planning, connections, popularity, that sort of thing.
Remember the middle east? Remember vietnam? A bunch of poverty stricken farmers kicked our asses. And with a US rebellion, you can bet theres going to be at least a few traitors in the military
This is a fucking retarded take and I vote Democrat. Jesus.
I want you to imagine the following scenario:
The RIAA: "Internet file sharing of mp3s is eating into our profits. Government, we want you to ban the Rio Volt SP250 mp3 player."
The Government: "Yes, banning only that specific make and model of mp3 player and none of the rest of Rio's product catalog, or any mp3 players manufactured by any other brand, will completely and permanently address this scourge of copyright infringement. Consider it done."
That's you! That's how DUMB you sound!
--GLaDOS.
Here's what happens when you ban a firearm by name: manufacturers change some extremely minor detail, change the model number, and keep selling it. The Tec-9 open bolt machine pistol was used in a few school shootings in the 90's, most prominently the Columbine massacre. California banned the gun by name in state law. The manufacturer responded by moving the sling ring from one side of the gun to the other and calling it the Tec-DC9, with "DC" standing for "Designed for California."
It's not an engineering problem. Banning individual makes and models is how you solve (or at least end) an engineering problem. This is a culture problem.
Yes, effective gun control measures need to target the buying process for firearms more generally, instead of fixating on specific models.
Gun buying is not really the issue, it's people getting unauthorized access to firearms from people who did go through the process of buying them legitimately. Stealing a gun from a family member who leaves them in the glove box of their truck, or in an unlocked case under the bed is much easier than trying to do a straw purchase.
Or, just target the thing that is used in over 60% of gun crimes, and focus on handguns rather than sporting rifles. They're way easier to steal and conceal, easier to accidentally drop/leave somewhere where unauthorized people (i.e. kids) can access them, and from the perspective of the very pro-2A side, are far less useful against tyrannical state actors.
This does nothing to motivate the left and everything to motivate the right....
Biden, are you TRYING to lose?
I thought this was one of Sanders' biggest advantages a few election cycles back: he never presented himself as a "gun-grabber," but rather acknowledged the legitimate uses while also acknowledging the problems with gun violence. Agree with him or not, gun control is one of those divisive issues that bogs down progress because it's so contested. I can't pretend to understand what any of these 342 million batshit crazy fellow Americans are thinking anymore, but I imagine you would have a lot more success avoiding the 49%/51% issues, no matter how important, and pushing policy in areas where there is a tiny bit more consensus among the populace.
Who out there was undecided and thought zero gun legislation is a good idea?
Granted, the specific AR-15 ban isn't a great approach. But I can't think of anyone who could've voted for him that resists looking at gun laws.
Fucking typical.
Something comes close to removing a problem created by the conservatives and the Democrats want to take it away!
The only way this is possible is by rewriting the Constitution. FDR was the last president willing to, and that definitely didn't happen.
Biden doesn't have Constitution rewriting level support.
Eh, the constitution is already ignored on this point plenty, since there's lots of 'arms' that have been restricted. Why not ignore it some more?
I think the answer is closer to treating them similarly to automatic weapons. They are not banned completely, they are simply regulated with strict access controls.
We don't have school shootings with automatic weapons, do we? (Note the Vegas bump stock skirted this ban specifically)
The type of rifle isn't the problem here. If the shooter had used something better it's likely Trump wouldn't have survived.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting
"Charles Whitman killed seventeen individuals and wounded at least thirty-one others over the course of thirteen hours before he was killed on the observation deck of the UT Tower on August 1, 1966.[72]"
And of course, infamously:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy
With the Texas tower shooter it was the shooter himself the difference. He was a Marine sharpshooter. Oswald was also a former Marine.
These guys were extensively trained.
Biden tries to throw a sure thing, again.
...Does Pres. Biden really think that the assassination attempt would have gone less well if Crooks had been using a Ruger American bolt action rifle chambered in 6.5CM? Does he really think that?
Let's be super-clear here, and AR-15 uses an intermediate cartridge. Most bolt action hunting rifles are going to use full-power cartridges, cartridges that have a longer range, may have a flatter trajectory, have less wind drift, and have a helluva lot more power when they hit their target. A center mass hit with an AR-15 at 150y is going to be bad; a center mass hit with a .308 or 6.5CM at 150y is going to be the end of someone's world. Bear in mind that many hunters do not consider a .225/5.56x45mm bullet to be ethical for deer hunting because it's lower power, while there's very broad agreement that 6.5CM and .308 are just dandy.
Also, calling for banning guns in an election year where you're already behind? When gun bans tend to galvanize Republicans and get them out to the polls? Incredibly dumb. Unbelievably dumb.
He wouldn't have been able to get 8 shots off. Of course he missed but still.
Edit: I have not been able to confirm the number of shots taken. I will update this with a source if I find something.
Of all the reasons to ban a gun, trumps little knicked ear is low on my list
If anything I think that warmed me up to the concept of not banning them.
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?
(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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
I mean, fine. But the recent attempt didn’t make the AR-15 look especially dangerous.
Marx warned against this. without armed workers the dismantling of the state machine will be much harder.
Nobody is against arms in general, just that one
you think that once the AR-15 is made illegal that'll be the end of this battle? think-tanks have spent millions to find an entry point to take arms out of the hands of workers the AR-15 is just the meanest sounding and looking one that can capture the medias attention and thus turn the minds of civilians. its all a manipulation.
Let's ban assassination too, that will show 'em!
What an idiot. Does he not realize talking about banning guns is the number one way to motivate right wingers? The US is NOT going to ban guns especially with the current Supreme Court. This is an example of his old team running old plays that haven't been successful since the 90s. He needs to go before he causes any more damage to his party.
AR-15 is also one of my favourite rifle.
Right wingers are already at 100% motivation and have been for years. It's the left that needs motivating.
If you think that then you have no idea what would come with the threat of a national gun ban. The right might be fired up but with a possible ban not one of them would miss voting day. Also, there are enough left wingers who are against banning guns to irrevocably damage the party. My point is there is no reason to even talk about this hot button issue. It's not at the top of almost any left voters list right now so it won't motivate anyone on that side. It was such a careless misstep that should have been completely avoidable. Talk about it After the election. Let's pick a candidate who can do better.
It's Pete coming for yo guns energy. Please drop the guns dems for the love of your country.
Time to ban roofs.
Unrelated fact. One of the earliest laws ever written states that if you build a house, and the roof collapses on the home owner killing them, you will be put to death.
Biden speed-running losing the election.
At this point all Trump has to do is pretend this didn't phase him, then not say anything too stupid and I'm sure Biden will do his best to just hand it over.
Guessing you dont like the Supreme Court reforms he just announced either?
Do I like, or the general public? I hate Trump more than Biden if that's essentially what you're trying to question. And yes we do need supreme court.
But will the general public give a shit or even know about this plans? Doubt it. Trump getting shot at is much more attention grabbing.
Bro why? I'd vote for a fucking shoe over him at this point, unfortunately it's between sundowners and down syndrome. These guys want to destroy everything this country was founded on and developed over the years and banning a gun is where you go?!
At this point it's intentional sabotage. No one fucking wants this. It won't change anything. Just leave it the fuck alone and start doing something for the lower and middle classes to secure your goddamn votes. Or just let the conservatives use your stupidity as a stepping stone to steal your voters by fulfilling their fear mongering.
The optics on this are abysmal. I get that he's trying to be consistent with party ideology any time there is a shooting where someone dies, but we've got an election in 4 months and talking about banning guns of any kind gets conservatives motivated to turn out.
“Fun” fact: those kids would be old enough to vote this year, had they not been gunned down.
But that's the official state rifle of the school shooter!
That's the official state rifle of the school shooter TODAY! Anyone who's seen a gun enthusiast magazine knows they have MUCH more ridiculous stuff in the pipeline.
Buddy, if you don't want to be President again just step down and let someone else run.
Not sure this will make a difference for the election. At this point, I suspect that support for gun control/rights is petty well understood and priced into support for the candidates. No one expects Biden to veto gun control legislation and no one expects Trump to sign it. Granted, Trump can be a bit of a wild card sometimes (see: bump stocks reclassification).
That said, this is likely a very hollow promise. Such legislation is almost certainly a dead bill in Congress. And even if it somehow passed, it's likely not going to make it past the current Supreme Court.
At best, this is just empty rhetoric.
Meh. Our soldiers are trained on these. They are familiar. Why ban the weapon people know how to properly use and maintain?
If I want to snipe someone, I'm using a high powered hunting rifle like a .308 or 7mm.
I have so many questions
I have exactly one. Is Biden trying to lose?
Yeah, I gotta say that making the election a referendum on Trump personally seems a whole lot more likely to be successful than making it a referendum on the federal AWB. That wasn't a political success story for the Democrats.
But, I dunno. Maybe his team has some kind of angle, like they're trying to move some critical demographic that they think that they can influence.
EDIT: I gotta say that aside from the question of whether it's a good policy or whether it's a good move politically, every time it sounds like a ban is proposed, it sets off a massive wave of firearms sales, so I'd guess that firearms vendors are going to have a good time.
At least he is sticking up for Vice President Trump
Why? If I were in the politician killing business I’d be using an AXSR, not an AR. It’s just the wrong tool for the job.
Ooh this is smart
As a foreign, I don't know why US need to buy real AR-15 at home.
If you want to play, buy Airsoft. If you want to hunt, buy a rifle.
An ar is a rifle. Its just made with lighter weight parts, aluminum and plastics.
There are people in this country who love their ARs more than they love their family. Sounds like an exaggeration. I wish it was an exaggeration. It's not.
Anyone remember that one Hamas dude who became a very good sniper using an old M1 lol.
Resistance movements still use even older rifles like the Mosin Nagant. Banning the AR-15 isn't going to accomplish anything of value.
I think a way funnier and better option would be to require marksmanship exams that you have to pass in order to have a license for rifles and shotguns. A hilariously large amount of people would fail to qualify.
And make it expensive so it immediately disuades anyone trying to get a capable firearm quickly.
... I'm sure making things more expensive so only rich people can afford them is a great idea.
Thanks Biden, guess I have some shopping to do before prices go up.
I buy stock when these things happen and sell when it cools down. You folks pay me a TON. Thanks!
God bless capitalism <3
How about we outlaw nukes instead? F-35s? Missile cruisers? Reaper drones? Whatever they have in orbit that can kill us?
Are you retarded?
Yes
I think only the military gets access to that stuff legally, and it’d be silly to restrict what weapons they can use. This is more about civilian ownership.
