Actually a bit disappointed in this. I mean, NOW of all times you think keeping "military grade" gear out of regular citizens hands is a good idea.
News
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.
Well, yeah. NOW of all times is exactly when the fascists would want to disarm the populace.
I genuinely wonder if all the people I've had tell me Obama and Biden are going to ban all guns/they're coming for our guns are going to have a moment of self reflection when the fascists in power come for their guns.
Or is it going to be a "only white people with no unnatural hair coloring and presenting as their birth cirtificate sex are allowed to have guns"
Take the guns first and due process later
This was 2018.
So on your question on if they will have a moment of self reflection, I'm going to go with a no.
You already know the answer to that, Sarge
Right? My tin foil thoughts immediately went to them upholding states’ rights on this because they know which states will ban and which won’t.
Headline is misleading. SCOTUS turned the case down, they didn't "allow" anything and there's still potential for another case to be brought before the court.
Honestly, it’s clear SCOTUS cares as much about precedent as your average billionaire cares about the livability of the planet 100 years from now so hearing that they’re not going to listen to a case like this is refreshing
My opinion on gun control has changed over the years.
I used to be very anti gun. didn't really see the point of regular people having them.
Today though, me giving up my guns would be like Ukraine giving up their nukes but smaller.
So this just bans that "style" of rifle? Someone can just go buy some other semi-automatic rifle that doesn't look as imposing or whatever but will still kill a person just as dead? I don't really get what this accomplishes other than inconveniencing people who already own one of the guns this prohibits.
Several northeast states passed kneejerk legislation of this type in the wake of Sandy Hook. Common sense gun legislation that provides a pathway to purchase for those without red flags without violating the privacy of owners would be nice, but neither Democrats or Republicans are capable of passing any such legislation. Republicans want no regulation at all while Democrats want to score points in a punitive culture war.
The AR platform is high modifiable, has a nearly infinite number of configurations, can be customized to meet just about any need, and is easily the most widely available sem-automatic rifle on the market. This makes the barrier for entry (to being a mass shooter) much higher.
It really doesn't. AR-15s are everything you said, but just because you take this one specific model rifle it off the market doesn't mean there aren't thousands of lightweight semi automatic rifles that are cheap and just as capable to buy instead. They might not be the gun owner's version of LEGO, but they're just as available and just as lethal.
If someone wants to be a mass shooter they have unlimited options in the USA. AR-15s are just so common you see them more. Starting this decade about 1/4 of the firearms produced in the USA are AR-15s.
If 1/4 the cars sold in the USA were Corollas because they're cheap and easy to drive, would banning Corollas in Maryland reduce car wrecks? No, people would just drive Camrys or Civics or whatever and still drive like idiots.
I've heard statements before the "assault weapons" bans are pretty weak in their description and can easily be skirted with mild modifications rendering a gun no longer meeting the definition. I got curious what Maryland's law text said. I found it here: link
I'll say that the law as written is very detailed with its criteria for what is banned including even minor items like have a threaded barrel such as one would need to mount a flash suppressor. They also go through many iterations of descriptions of magazine size, detachabilty, and thumb hole position.
Just curiosity in the spirit of my original question (guns that would be legal), but still likely run afoul of the spirit (but not the letter of this law), I found this one:
Franklin Armory F17
Its rare apparently, but "the Franklin Armory F17 is the only semi-auto 17 Winchester Super Mag available today."
"assault weapons" are a nebulous concept. that law sounds like it was closely tailored to match the AR-15 and its clones, since that's the closest definition anyone can agree on. but it's not like thumb position, stock design etc. make the AR-15 more lethal than other rifles.
why don't they just ban semi-auto rifles? for home defense you can use a handgun, for hunting you can use a bolt action rifle of a pump action shotgun. you eliminate the bump stock loophole and it becomes harder to mow down a crowd.
Hand guns are so, so much more common in crime, rifles are barely a blip on the map. Also, handguns have almost no use other than killing humans/sport. (You can argue that they can offer some sort of protection from wild animals when you're hiking, by scaring them away with noise... I can't really think of much else)
Semi automatic rifles cover the gamut of utility. They're not JUST for killing people and/or sport. Every reason you could legitimately need a gun for, the broad category "semi auto rifle" covers, so banning them has a disproportionate impact to people who use them legally and as tools vs banning handguns.
If people seriously want to make a dent in gun crime/accidental deaths/suicide we need to look at handguns, but they're not scary looking enough so there's no clout. Instead we get stupid laws that try to ban scary looking black guns or limit magazine sizes. Pisses off gun owners that know it's useless and doesn't actually get at anything that can make a difference. It's all theater.
Considering that the point of the Second Amendment was to enable a "well regulated militia" to maintain "the security of a free state," military-relevant weapons ought to be the ones most protected by it.
The explicit goal was to enable the populace to defend itself militarily, and you're not doing that with a handgun (at least not effectively compared to using an assault rifle).
Here's everything you need to know. CBS Sunday morning interviews a gun nut job. She states a demonstratively false statement about how many guns kill a people a year, and gets fucking zero push back. That's how we got to where we are. It's harder to get a driver's license than it is to get a gun.
EDIT: As we all know "knives and blunt objects" are obviously used to kill more people than assault rifles.
Everyone acknowledges that the problem is mental health, everyone is convinced that solving guns is the answer.
You wanna know what I can make using styrofoam (or soap) and gasoline? Fucking napalm. You wanna know what will cause a lot more harm than a gunshot? Fucking napalm.
Good.
You’re a fucking idiot for celebrating this, if you are, under a fascist regime. You’re literally fucking brain mush.
And how exactly will an AR-15 help you against a fascistoid government?
Same way the IRA, the Vietnamese and the Afghans did.
Same way ak47s did for Afghanistan when they were being invaded
For folks actually interested in defending themselves and not just cosplaying as Delta Farce or Gravy Seals:
If you can't handle the fact that you may have to take a life someday, DON'T BUY A GUN PERIOD. Gun ownership is a serious responsibility that we as a country unfortunately don't treat as such. If you do decide to get one, the MOST IMPORTANT thing is to train, even just target practice, don't buy something and stash it in a shoe box (have somewhere secure to keep it!). Make sure you take a stop the bleed class (good idea if you're American period), and know your local self defense/gun laws backwards and forwards. If you've never touched a gun before, have someone who can show you how to safely operate and handle it before even considering buying one. This may be difficult if you're openly leftist/LGBTQ+, but there are liberal/LGBTQ+ gun owner groups, or the Socialist Rifle Association, who might have, or help you find local groups/organizations/stores that aren't right wing cultists. They should also be able to guide you on buying something that fits your use case (e.g. Home Defense or Concealed Carry) and that you can safely handle.
For a few options that aren't an AR: In states that ban the AR by name but don't have a blanket AWB, you may be able to get a Ruger Mini 14. Uses the same caliber, and has interchangeable magazines, only difference is it's wood and patterned after the M1/M14. Ruger also makes something called the PC Carbine, which is a 9mm carbine that can take Glock magazines. Then, there's the SKS which can be retrofitted to take box magazines, but those are now rare and expensive. There's also the good ol' AK-47/74 but those tend to be swept up in legislation that ban weapon platforms by name. You could also choose to get really, really good with a lever gun or shotgun. Heck, if you join the Civillian Marksmenship Program, you can get an M1 Garand! You can also get a pistol such as a Glock 19 or 43x which, while less effective than a long gun, is something at least. I would choose the 43x if you decide to get a concealed carry permit; it's very slim, good for small hands, and has a 10 round magazine which is legal most everywhere. There's a lot of options to choose from out there that get overshadowed by the AR, and thanks to our gun fetishism, it'll probably be a while before they're all legislated away.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who could have supplied the fourth vote needed to add the case to the court’s docket, issued a statement saying the question was significant and could soon warrant review but that he hoped additional opinions from lower courts could assist the justices on the issue. He wrote that the Supreme Court “should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next term or two.”
—NYT
I'm for certain gun regulation, I'm not for an outright ban however.
Consider these two events:
-
Before the holocaust the jews had to surrender in their weapons
-
before the nakba, the same happened to the Palestinians, they had to surrender their weapons.
Being able to have weapons to protect yourself from everyday threats but also for if things go south is very important.
If you want to fight fascism if things go south, you'll need weapons.
Consider these two events
I don't think that's what the SCOTUS was thinking about when they reached this ruling.
More likely it was California man arrested near Kavanaugh’s home, charged with attempted murder of justice
If you want to fight fascism if things go south, you’ll need weapons
I guess. But you also need widespread popular support. Randos with guns acting independently aren't any better at repelling fascist governments than unarmed protestors.
What American liberals lack isn't merely guns, it's militias.