546
Trump floats idea of three-term presidency at NRA convention
(www.theguardian.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 19 May 2024
546 points (96.0% liked)
News
23388 readers
1452 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 same guy who unilaterally banned bump stocks with an executive order being hosted by the NRA shows how much the NRA actually cares about the second amendment.
Are you claiming the "take the guns first" guy isn't a strong 2A supporter? Say it isn't so!
Amazing how little Republicans care when the person saying that has an R next to their name
Bump stocks and all other focuses on rate of fire are more or less a sacrificial lamb. It provides a strong distinction between "Heh, stupid fucking loser thinking 'assault rifles' are actually a thing" and "semi-automatic versions of rifles specifically designed for and used by military forces"
When the reality is that basically every military strong discourages the use of full auto by anyone whose job is not to carry a machine gun of some form. But, because that AR-15 you bought at Walmart doesn't have full auto, it isn't a military weapon.
And because it is our god given right to carry an m249 everywhere we go, it is a horrible insult to the gun nuts of the world to lose their full auto capabilities so we should all feel warm and fuzzy and stop trying to stop kids from getting shot.
That's because full auto rifles*, are typically seen as wasting limited ammunition. A modern military unit isn't likely to encounter a bunched together group of 30-50 soft targets where a full auto rifle would be most effective...unlike a mass shooter indiscriminately targeting a crowded concert.
*Rifles, not machine guns. I'm well aware of the utility of squad machine gunners, talking guns, etc.
First off: modern militaries DO get some nice mass executions a lot more often than one would expect. Well worth doing some reading up on that.
Second: Automatic fire is still horrible for that. If your bullets have a high degree of penetration then you are, generally mortally, wounding multiple civilians per shot and are better at aimed shots at clusters of women and children. Or your bullets don't have a high degree of penetration and you mostly just light up one or two kindergartners whose corpses take up most of the shots. At which point you are, again, better off at firing off a bunch of snap shots.
Third: The actual reason militaries have automatic weapons is for situations where aiming is difficult or less important. Machine gunners at the squad level are expected to fire very short controlled bursts (otpimally single shots) to actually suppress a target when trying to "keep some heads down" so that the maneuver group can flank. Or they are engaging at significantly longer ranges (which is why machine guns often have a larger caliber round than the rifles) where a short burst increases the likelihood of hitting a target. And while it is mostly out of favor, many infantry rifles had burst fire capability or even simultaneous fire capability (either with two barrels or a ridiculously high rate of fire burst) to increase the likelihood of infantry hitting a target by spending more on ammo than training (before realizing it significantly increases the cost of the weapons AND requires more training so that the high schoolers can maintain their weapons in the field). But modern optics, and a decade or two of being the only people with NVGs, rendered that obsolete.
This guy massacres
Yeah bullshit, these assholes don't give a fuck about your rights or mine, they care about their power, money, and influence.