540
Biden to announce first-ever federal office of gun violence prevention
(www.politico.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
540 points (94.3% liked)
News
23267 readers
2885 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The 2nd Amendment was not written with AR-15s or any other military-style weapons in mind. A full ban on those weapons is reasonable and possible.
With that logic, the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the internet, phones, television, photos, or video.
Your understanding of the second amendment (and firearms in general) is flawed, and any attempt to disarm the working class shall be frustrated. It will not happen. A ban on rifles is not reasonable, it is class warfare.
It's also an attack on disabled and women.
It's not flawed. Your understanding is flawed. You live in fear. Don't live in fear.
I don't live in fear. I hope to never have to use my tools, no matter what they are. But just how I need my socket set when my car breaks down, I have my firearms if I need to defend myself or my loved ones.
You must be living in fear of something since you feel the need to be armed all the time. What are you afraid of?
Do I live in fear of sealed boxes if I carry a pocket knife?
I wonder if a pocket knife could kill 60 people and wound more than 400 from a hotel room in Las Vegas...
Hahahaha.
Yet more ignorance.
You could own canons when it was written, and fully automatic weapons already existed.
It was written with exactly the change in tech in mind, and if you had bothered to educate yourself (by reading things like Federalist Papers or the Adams-Jefferson letters) you'd know this. But you'd rather operate from ideology and hubris.
This is such a clown argument. Canons cannot be used to kill 60 people and wound more than 400 from a hotel room in Las Vegas. Get real!
Hahahahaah. Thanks for the chuckle!
What are you, 12? As usual, you gun nuts have no real arguments.
Ah, yes, sophistry. Nice.
Define military style
Semi-automatic and automatic.
Automatic is defacto illegal unless you go through a very lengthy process whereby you register yourself and your weapon and pay money directly to the ATF. Only very few individuals own automatics for this reason.
Literally every modern handgun and rifle is semi automatic, save for skeet shooting break-action shotguns and some revolvers.
So? My point still stands. It's designed to kill as fast as possible. It should be banned.
I will always take the side of our school children and a safe society over guns. More guns do not create safety, they exacerbate violence. Most other developed countries do not have this kind of violence, and they do not have the easy access to weapons designed to kill as many as possible as fast as possible.
So you're calling for virtually all guns to be banned then except for shotguns and revolvers?
I'm calling for any weapon that's designed to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible to be banned.
And that's 99% of weapons, because what's what guns do, they all kill things with a single trigger pull. You're asking for a de facto ban and that's absolutely a losing position.
And that's not even to mention that your position effectively means "I only believe the police and the military should have guns". Because that's what would happen.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a complete repeal of the 2nd Amendment, but knowing that's a ways out, I'm just going to call for a ban on weapons specifically designed to kill as many people as possible in as little time as possible. And, no, that's absolutely not 99 percent of all weapons.
To quote Benjamin Franklin here, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Anyone is free to relocate to those other developed countries you mentioned if they do not want the burden of their own personal liberties and rights, but stripping those rights from everyone else in the USA doesn't fly well here.
Not true. You obviously know nothing about immigration to other countries.
Last I checked the USA wasn't on any country's immigration blacklist. You still need to have some kind of useful skill for a work visa, and there are unique costs to international moves, but it's far from illegal to move away from the US. Additional costs if you want to renounce your US citizenship instead of holding dual citizenship wherever you move to, but that's a personal decision there unless you move to a place that requires renouncing citizenship as part of gaining it like the US does. Unless you were conflating free as is freedom for free as in no cost, but that would be silly given the context where this entire discussion thread is about freedom.
Lol. This is just not how it works. There are an excessive amount of obstacles for a US citizen who wants to move to another developed country. Most Americans who want to leave are completely stuck here.