They’ll need it for the civil war
this post was submitted on 03 May 2025
391 points (100.0% liked)
News
29346 readers
4414 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. 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Or...this is just another cynical ploy to appeal to the right, since they seem incapable of moving left on any subject.
It's because the politicians want the people to protect them, after they have consistently failed to protect the people.
I don't think so. It happened in the Hawaii state legislature. They don't run on the same incentives over there.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's because it's not the issue, nor should time be wasted on that right now. We can argue policy later. We need to unite and get the traitor out of office
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
I don't think the Civil War is gonna be Maui lobbing 5.56mm at Oahu...
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
I hate seeing articles like this because it tees you, the commenter, up for assuming that the entire DNC decided to drop their gun control policy.
This is just for Hawaii. Hawaii voted against this.
Newsweek is such a dogshit source to be talking about in forums and threads because they write everything assuming that Democrats are a perfectly unified group, all with identical motivations, reasoning, and agendas. We know they're not, but NW can show you a ding in a shoulder plate, and tell you the entire suit of armor is equally vulnerable.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
load more comments
(12 replies)
So the media again is helping stir the pot. When you use vague language like "assault-style" weapons, it makes it open to wide interpretation as to what an "assault-style" weapon is. You. the reader, are assuming and envisioning the AR-15, the AK-47 but it can also include semi-automatic hand guns or some types of shotguns. If you want to put a ban on something quit tip toeing and define the weapons you want to ban and their variants using specific language such as semi-automatic rifle, fully-automatic rifle, barrel length, etc. They should also quit banning by cosmetics to define "assault-style" weapons. You can easily change your fully-automatic rifle to look like a Nerf gun (fully automatics are illegal anyway). Here's a bit more on the term:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
People should actually read the laws on the books and quit relying on the media or their politicians to do the reading for them. They may find there's already several bans on "assault-style" weapons because specific language is used. People should also focus on the loopholes instead and campaign to get those closed. Politicians won't do it so long as the NRA keeps shoving cash into their pockets.
What in hell is an "assault pistol" please ?
I think we all stopped charging the enemy waving a pistol during WW1 didnt we ? This feels like something from a Blackadder episode.
It's referenced in the newsweek article. I read the wiki which says Hawaii have defined it, but the wiki links dont actually go to a definition.
The vast majority of pistols sold are semi auto, and they all have a pistol grip which, as I understand it are 2 of the main characteristics used to define assault weapon in the US
Confused foreigner.
load more comments
(5 replies)
If you want to put a ban on something quit tip toeing and define the weapons you want to ban and their variants using specific language such as semi-automatic rifle, fully-automatic rifle, barrel length, etc
That's how you get weird-ass weapons designed specifically to work around the law though. E.g in Russia they regulate harder any weapon that has rifling on more than half of the barrel (otherwise it's considered a hunting shotgun iirc), so of course there are tons of Russian civilian weapons that are basically military stuff with shitty rifling and locked to semi auto
It does turn into a game of "one-up" but this is why you get actual weapons experts to advise on the language of the law and not business owners and lawyers who have no idea what a gun is other than it makes them a lot of money or its scary.
load more comments
(6 replies)
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.
"If you've smoked weed in the last 5 years or have Trump Derangement Syndrome, I'm afraid I can't sell this to you."
We joke, but Ronald Reagan signed California's gun control laws because the Black Panthers had guns and minorities having guns scares conservatives
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Well yeah, they might need those guns to topple fascists…
In that case, let's ban them
- Republicans most likely
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
Gun control would make so much more sense if we treated guns like vehicles.
Want to drive a car?
New driver?
Pass a test, and get a provisianal license to operate safely with experienced users in your company.
Test to prove proficiency, ensure you don’t have any restrictive health issues that could impact your safe operation of the unit, validate your insurance coverage and you get a standard operators permit.
Need to use the big equipment?
Take some additional safety courses, beef up your insurance and prove you can handle it - with regular check ins and enhanced supervision and you get a commercial license.
Want to do something different, like the gun equivalent of a motorcycle? Another test and license endorsement to use.
Main theory - you can have anything you want but agree to prove and maintain proficiency and be mentally and physically able to operate it. Regular check ins to ensure your abilities do not wain and annual registration.
This is not crazy. If it works for cars, semi trucks, motorcycles etc - it should work for deadly weapons.
And remember, we have handicapped drivers, we have people on probationary permits etc, breathalyzer start switches, etc …..there are lots of places for reasonable accommodations to the infringed and those with limited or restricted capacity.
But to just turn the keys of a semi truck with a double trailer over to 16 year old with near sighted vision?
They’d say you are crazy.
But anyone of legal age can walk in, grab an AR-15 and disappear into the woodwork for the rest of their lives with capacity for mass assault and no one does anything about it.
A lot of countries do this and it works. Japan has a variant of this which, while certainly not perfect, is the reason when Abe was assassinated the dude had to basically DIY his own blunderbuss rather than being able to just unload.
I understand why you say this, but Americans have a right to bear arms, not vehicles. The only reason for all the controls on vehicles is because they are a privilege, not a right.
You should be allowed to bear arms without bullets, in a small "right to bear arms zone" far outside of any town, in a desert, with a bunch of "law enforcement" (chuckle) types pointing guns at you while you bear them. Fair is fair.
We have a right to free political speech too, anytime anywhere. But we dont have those rights anymore outside of "free speech zones" far from anywhere people will see you, and you will be threatened and physically abused and your cars vandalized by cops if you go to one. So cry me a river on your "constitutional" "right to bear arms".
The law can be whatever we collectively want it to be. The entire point of having Amendments is that the Constitution was supposed to be a living document that we would refine and improve over time.
load more comments
(1 replies)
That's simply incorrect. Nothing in there is stopping gun control laws from being implemented.
Permits are already a thing in some states, and certain individuals are prohibited from owning guns.
The right is far from unlimited, even though many seem to think so.
Americans have the right to bear arms just as much as they have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre — it's a right that can be regulated and both already are, one needs more regulation, but people don't seem to understand.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Smart move.
What a pointless bill. Assault rifles have been illegal nationwide for decades.
The bill provides the exact definition they use for assault rifle which appears to be more strict than federal law. So, no, it is not pointless.
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(14 replies)
Well the Republicans are public stating they plan on erasing everyone who isn't white so yeah stay strapped
Great point. When the country has fallen to fascism is not the time to implement gun control.
What surprise?
Aren't Democrats like the backup voting option for Republicans, always?
view more: next ›