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.
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.
The AR platform is also just useful in general, which is why it’s become so popular.
So when shit hits the fan I can “borrow” 5.56 ammo from the military.
That’s quite a gun fantasy you have.
Can’t run up a flight of stairs, but ready to take on the us military
How’d Afghanistan go?
Or Vietnam, or the Revolutionary War for that matter.
These idiots will take every gun you have right before Hitler v2 seizes power, it’s wild.
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.
Why do you need the freedom of speech to write this comment?
Have you ever fired one before? They are way more accurate than a handgun. You could be 5ft away from someone with a handgun and still miss (especially in a high adrenaline situation). It’s considerably more difficult to miss with an AR.
The AR isnt the only rifle that exists.
Yes I’m aware of this.
Fighting fascists.
The AR isnt special. So why are they going after ARs specifically?
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.
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.
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.
If you didn’t reply within 14 seconds of me correcting my post, yeah. That’s what I corrected it to.
ANSWER FOR YOUR 14 SECOND CRIMES
14 seconds in the dungeon seems only fair
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
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.
Gun nuts are shit no matter what political label they have.
How do you figure?
Anyone who makes an object, guns, cars, pcs, weed, media they are fans of, etc. a significant aspect of their person, just means there wasn’t much person there to begin with. It is possible for something to be important to you, something you do for fun, something you enjoy, and not be your personality.
That’s kind of a creepy take, and a little dehumanizing, tbh. Just let people live their lives the way they want to and do what they enjoy.
I am not stopping anyone from making guns, or cars, or whatever, their personality. I will just avoid them.
The magic of pure ignorance, I am guessing.
deleted by creator
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.
P2025 will increase their stock portfolio value so they can dump it all and make millions.
Then add some more taxes on the middle class to pay for it.
They get more fundraising dollars when Trump’s in power too. For the dems who are in states that’ll never vote them out, they’ll make a killing from a second Trump term and they’re rich enough to be insulated from just about all his decisions that fuck the rest of us over.
To be fair there’s large swaths of the party that want him to step down. It’s his advisors and aligned leadership that insist on running him and these policies no matter what.
A though has just crossed my mind: what if the advisors want him to be there this way and wait till the last moment to say “you know what? Biden steps down [because of his health] and X runs in his place” so Democrat voters can say “we dodged the bullet”.
That moment is now. And that’s not really how politics usually works. It would be incredibly reckless to do such a thing.
I didn’t say it wasn’t reckless😁
lol, but political advisors are notoriously risk averse.
… If they see something as a risk.
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.
the left don’t give fuck about gun control - the far left actively oppose it
its the center right, pearl clutching, NIMBY, yuppy liberals who use it for virtue signaling, but even they won’t be budged on who they’re going to vote for based on the lip service about guns
The center left/right is Biden’s base too, they’re already sure to show up. But I don’t think it’s accurate to say the Left, like progressives, don’t care. They very much care, the ones further to the left want to arm up and the ones closer to the center want to ban guns. It’s an interesting intersection to look at but it pretty much comes down to how threatened they do or do not feel.
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.
Basically, they got some breathing room on the replacement thing because of Trump getting shot at. But I guarantee you behind the scenes the message is the polling numbers in PA come up or else.
If it’s viable to run someone else, I’m pretty sure that it has to happen almost immediately, if it’s going to happen. The primaries have already happened, so if someone gets run, it’d have to be the party picking them already, and there’s very limited time to campaign.
The general election is November 5. It’s currently July 17. That’s three-and-a-half months in which someone would have to sell themselves to the public.
goes back to look at presidents who didn’t run again
https://www.britannica.com/story/have-any-us-presidents-decided-not-to-run-for-a-second-term
Johnson is not the only U.S. president who decided not to seek a second elected term. The others are James K. Polk, James Buchanan, Rutherford B. Hayes, Calvin Coolidge, and Harry S. Truman. (Theodore Roosevelt declined to run in 1908, after being elected president in 1904 and serving one term, but he again sought the office—and lost—as a third-party candidate in 1912.)
-
LBJ did it prior to the primaries, at the end of March of the election year.
-
Polk apparently promised in his initial campaign that he would only serve one term, so it was known long in advance.
-
Buchanan promised in his inaugural speech that he would serve only one term, so it was known almost as far in advance.
-
Hayes apparently also pledged not to run for re-election.
-
Coolidge apparently announced the summer prior to the election year, so over a year prior to the general election.
-
Truman did it at the end of March of the election year. So relatively-close, but still with seven months to go.
-
Teddy Roosevelt apparently announced after being elected the first time that he would not seek a second term.
So looks like the closest equivalent would be LBJ and Truman, and they still did so at the end of March in the election year, with twice the amount of time remaining that’s still left for 2024, and before the primaries.
Like, I don’t think that it’d be realistic to wait and see what happens in the polls and then have someone run with even less time.
Oh yeah they aren’t talking about waiting for long. That’s why Biden is throwing progressive policies at the wall. 5% rent, AWB, SCOTUS reform…
And I thought there was a fourth. So I went to go look and the breaking news is he has Covid, right after saying he’d step aside if a major medical condition happened. So that’s going to get spun into a thing.
You know I remember when I started studying politics and I was thankful we had nice campaigns instead of the drama laden ones you see in other countries. I think I even uttered it once and forgot to knock on wood. I’m sorry guys, I jinxed us.
So I went to go look and the breaking news is he has Covid, right after saying he’d step aside if a major medical condition happened.
Ah, you’re right, news just coming out about it today.
-
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.
No, nor should they try, nor should they stick with their current seemingly nonsensical policy ideas about guns.
I can’t decide if I’m amazed, impressed, or utterly disgusted that the “stick to their guns” play on words was right there and you didn’t go for it.
Ya this is where my mind went
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 countries with nukes get permanent seats on the UN Security Council.
Maybe once the US has been around for a few more centuries it’ll be different. in the meantime, if the crazies are armed you should be too.
That’s military not civilians, it seems justified as long as there are authoritarian regimes with imperialist ideas. Completely unrelated to civilians having military weapons. Unless you’re saying civilians should have nukes too.
Unarmed protest will not stop putin
Seems Ukrainian stopped it pretty well without having civilians carrying military weapons outside of military duty.
Not true at all. Ukraine was handing out AKs like candy to any citizen willing to fight for several days before the invasion.
Because they were expecting a foreign military invasion, it still is military duty.
Nope. A civilian fighting in a war does not make them part of the military. It makes them a civilian fighting in a war.
Ukraine was handing out AKs like candy to any citizen willing to fight for several days before the invasion.
regardless of whether this statement is true or not, it would be because they were expecting and preparing themselves for military invasion.
also there was armed conflict already in progress before start of the “3 day special operation”.
Not true at all
so completely true after all… 😆
No, you said Ukraine fought Russia back without arming their civilian populace, then tried to walk it back by saying they were expecting an invasion. Yeah, no kidding. But the fact of the matter is that they did exactly that. They handed out full auto rifles and held bomb making classes for the public. Ordinary people fought back, and a rifle behind every bush was indeed critical to pushing Russia back.
Yes, it is absolutely true that Ukraine fought Russia by having ordinary citizens fighting back with military weapons.
then tried to walk it back
i couldn’t have tried to walk anything back for two reasons:
- i am not the person you originally replied to.
and
- the two statements are not contradictory, so there isn’t “taking anything back”.
But the fact of the matter is that they did exactly that. They handed out full auto rifles and held bomb making classes for the public. Ordinary people fought back, and a rifle behind every bush was indeed critical to pushing Russia back.
that is how it works. you are a civilian, until you are given weapons and task to do, such as fight invading armed forces.
how long you were on a army’s payroll before is just splitting hair. different para-military and guerilla forces are part of the armed conflicts all over the world.
and from the context of this discussion it is pretty clear that “civilians carrying military weapons outside of military duty” refers to some fucking meal team six redneck from some confederate state who only ever saw a war in television and carries his assault rifle to walmart to protect himself against people laughing at his small dick, not people fighting in actual war.
so thanks for playing darling, better luck next time.
…the military will.
Will they though? Last I checked, the EU mostly underfunds their military. They dont even meet nato obligations
This is rapidly changing, all thanks to Putin.
If you think arming yourself because there are organized fascists in the country is a similar argument to fascists wanting guns to do fascism you’re a fascist and nothing less.
Ah, didn’t know you would consider most of EU and the developed world to be fascist, thanks for the insult.
You would have been the worst kind of fence sitter right up until the germans boarded in your house. You are a fascist.
Is this what your life is like?
removed by mod
I’m with you until the last part, I’ve tasted it, and I wouldn’t wish it on DJT himself. I understand the emotion, but there’s a better way homie
do you plan to resolve any of your problems, real or perceived, with ar15?
If brown shirts start lynching my neighbors for being a certain race, do you have any better suggestions? Should I scold them, ever so sternly?
here, you can run in circles yourself, you don’t need me for that.
Page not found.
Thanks for not even considering what I asked.
reload, or fix your instance redirect, or w/e, and you’ll see i did
Hey, I appreciate you at least. At my old job they had a big office in Monterrey, and they were some of the most hard working teams I had the pleasure to work with. I absolutely lost my shit if anyone treated them any differently and I hated how the company ran that division. Working with those teams is the only thing I miss.
The fact that they always had to get permission for any time off from the team leads, were scrutinized for every cent, and often not even given the tools they needed for their job, all in the name of “saving” money, was absolute bullshit. There really were some ridiculous double standards. We never denied time off and purchased what you needed. We knew how shitty the system was and did what we could.
So, one shitty American to an awesome Mexican, thank you. For every cook, every maid, field slave, factory worker, engineer, installer, and human from your country that just wants to exist somewhere safe, feed their family, and have a roof over your head, thank you.
Soon to be “our”. And not just in America, unfortunately.
I don’t think you know what the world is like outside your gun nut bubble.
I don’t think you know what the world is like outside your gun nut bubble.
Then you should probably be a little less judgy about what folks think they need to do to defend themselves within that bubble.
Since you aren’t from the US, you may not be aware of Project 2025, but “some christofascist militia has me on my knees in front of a ditch” is a plausible eventual outcome for many over here if Trump gets in again.
How often are you shot at? Have many enemies trying to kill you? Grow up.
I’m not even a gun owner buddy, but I’m not going to pretend the world is going to stay safe for everyone who isn’t (or can’t pretend to be) a white cishet christian if Project 2025 comes to pass.
Edit: They are already ramping it up more, as if that were possible. They want to be ready to hit the ground running on Day 1 of Trump’s second term. https://www.advocate.com/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-rnc
Yeah a ton of people will lose their rights with project 2025, but how does having a gun help you fix that? Are you talking about like civilization declining into groups of people killing each other in the streets?
Then you should probably be a little less judgy about what folks think they need to do to defend themselves within that bubble.
no, he shouldn’t be. folks in gun nut bubble don’t need to defend themselves, they are just gun nuts, that’s the whole point of the argument 😆
Hey I’ve got news for you - all the US is the gun nut bubble, and we all take the impacts from it, whether we own guns or not. You may have heard about our problems with school shootings, for example, or our police who are convinced everyone wants to kill them, and so open fire at the slightest provocation…
hey, i’ve got news for you as well - more guns is not a solution to the problem. more guns is the problem.
Gun nut? I’m not replying regarding guns, but the rise of right wing nationalism
The cops will bring the rope.
Source: George floydd protests
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.
deleted by creator
Which is hilarious cuz trump said he would
I actually know a guy who plans on voting for Trump simply because “They can’t drag me to the concentration camps if I have guns”
He doesn’t think Biden wants to drag him off btw, he thinks Trump will… but it won’t matter because he had guns…
We’d have universal healthcare and constitutional abortion rights if nothing else.
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
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”.
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.
Uhh… They’ve been making those up for decades.
Yes, but now he’s basically telling them to.
How is that a conspiracy? Thats literally what Biden is advocating for here
removed by mod
Removed, civility.
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.
Noooo you don’t understand, banning pistol grips and front sight posts is totally effective! It totally didn’t spawn an entire new segment of “compliant guns” that had the same level of lethality the last time we did it…
And yet gun deaths went down…
Crime as a whole went down. In fact crime was already on the way down when the super predators bill and the AWB were passed. And the guns responsible for the majority of gun deaths were and are pistols, not “Assault Guns”. If you want to talk about preventing mass casualty shootings then let’s have that conversation. But Columbine happened in 1999. The AWB did not prevent mass casualty shootings.
I would assume that banning them would include banning all semiautomatic long guns
It never has in the past. It’s always come down to cosmetics and new sales of 30 round magazines. So you’re left with the actual rifle and a magazine well that you’re just not supposed to put certain magazines in, on the honor system…
I clicked down through the article to see what they meant by “assault rifles like” the AR-15, but they didn’t link to any actual source describing what they meant. So I couldn’t tell you what guns are on the list.
Typically 2 or more of: pistol grip, collapsible/folding stock, barrel over x length, semiautomatic firing mechanics, magazines located outside the grip.
See the former Federal Assault Weapons Ban in place from 1994-2004. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
under X length. Not over.
Which is funny because pistols exist
Yeah, and the cursed AR-15 pistol. Which really hangs a light on the ridiculousness of legislating form factor instead of measurable stuff like rate of fire, or internal function. Like if we had put into law that any weapon capable of firing X number of bullets per second is a fully automatic firearm and thus banned then bump stocks wouldn’t be an issue. But repeatedly we see the most asinine stuff, like banning thumbhole stocks.
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.”
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 think you’d be more wrong than you think. As they say, “If you go far enough left you get your guns back.”
Not to mention moderates of both parties who are gun owners in suburban and rural areas of many of the battleground states he so desperately needs.
As someone outside the US this circular debate about US citizens needing guns, because constitution is crazy. We’re over halfway through the year and the US is on track to break annual records, for gun deaths. Yet nothing happens because guns are constitutionality protected. It’s just crazy to an outsider to see absolutely nothing happen as a result. Boom more dead children, thoughts, nothing, boom more dead people. But if only we could do something, boom, more dead children, sigh, yeah but it’s the law. We must protect ourselves from bears. Boom more dead people. Silence.
Have you seen how we treat driving in this country? Guns aren’t the problem, a culture of callous disregard for other humans is, and we’re not going to fix that by trying to take guns away.
While you may be left of fascists, you’re not left. The left is unabashedly pro 2A.
Well, if the what you call the “left” makes all-encompassing blanket statements, then no- I’m not left. I’m a liberal though- and I don’t know anyone that thinks AR-15s are necessary to anyone.
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.
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 BidenShows you how the independents and left aren’t strictly anitgun. Was such a huge blunder on his part and the person asking him gave him repeated chances to walk it back and clarify it to not mean what he said, and he still insisted on total ban.
It’s not that, they literally just didn’t vote at all.
If I was a registered Democrat in Texas and actively didn’t want Beto to win because of his anti-gun stances, why would I vote for him in the gubernatorial? I can’t vote R, so best thing I can do is just not vote.
Biden is much less likely to succeed in pushing national level bans compared to Beto and state level bans, so voters who didn’t vote for Beto might’ve later voted for Biden.
Also, presidential elections simply have a higher turnout.
deleted by creator
Oh don’t I know it, preaching to the choir here.
deleted by creator
Serious questions how would guns have prevented the insurrection?
I think they mean you want to have guns AFTER the insurrection.
But then, what good are AR-15s against Abrams and F35s?
An F-35 can’t stand on a street corner and enforce martial law. This argument falls apart when you look at any armed resistance fighting oppression.
Did America not just lose a forever war against a bunch of dudes in the desert with AKs and homemade bombs?
Russia is finding out that even those planes and tanks are obsolete compared to cheap drones. At this point any laws we make won’t matter at all in Civil War II.
But then, what good are AR-15s against Abrams and F35s?
Heres the thing about civil war. You don’t need to fight the f35. You live where the pilot, and his family lives. Theres a reason civil war is a last resort and it’s not because it’s unwinnable, it’s because there’s not much justification for the steps you have to take, so the ends better be damn well justified. To think American is some how immune to how civil conflicts work is fantasy.
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.
No, it’s not the 1970’s, you can’t expect to survive fighting an American infantry platoon with nothing but rifles anymore.
You guys keep bringing up that the Taliban and Vietnamese won but you aren’t actually comparing the situations. In both situations they only won because we left voluntarily.
So tell me, if half of America votes in a Fascist, when are they leaving?
You’re assuming that people in the military are going to be just fine with bombing cities where their friends live, or where they have family. If you’re going to say that the US military, run by fascists, is just going to steamroll actual patriots, that’s what you’re talking about. But the problem is that those pilots, the drone operators, the guys running artillery batteries, they’re likely going to know people and have friends and family that live in blue cities and states, and once they find out that their own friends have been killed as ‘collateral damage’, they’re likely going to be having second thoughts.
Israel is able to level Gaza because there aren’t Israelis living in Gaza; how eager do you think members of the IDF would be to bomb the shit out of the Palestinians if they knew their own friends and family were getting killed with every bomb, and with every shell?
Then you don’t need an AR15 because there’s no tyrannical army to fight.
You can’t have it both ways.
Here’s the lovely thing: I don’t need to demonstrate a need in order to exercise a right. I don’t need to prove I need to vote in order to have the right to vote. I don’t have to prove I need religion in order to be permitted to be religious.
Oh so now you’re just abandoning any attempt to justify why a well regulated militia should allow you to carry around an AR-15 on the daily with no supervision.
We do keep asking you what the plan is if you say there’s no point in fighting back against fascism.
No, I’ve told you. You just make it a thing to not get the point. Looking at your post history this is a pattern with you. You ask for clarification, make fun of the argument and then pretend you never got an answer. I’m not engaging with that anymore.
Cool, then let’s stop talking to each other.
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.
Canada and Sweden still have a lot of guns but considerably lower rates of violence in general, and gun violence in particular.
And way, way lower gun ownership rates compared to the US. Plus very strict rules for owning a weapon, such as storage.
This is a strange angle because the UK does not have notably higher levels of knife ownership but has a disproportionately high level of stabbings.
I think the idea that the cause of gun violence is guns is just flawed. People need a reason to commit violence, they don’t just do it for fun.
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.
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.
Thank you. Agreed.
Most car accidents involve at least one Toyota Camry. Does that mean Camrys are bad? No, it just means there are a lot of them.
Not a good analogy, you don’t see Toyotas running over kids in schools. I think the point we both made at the beginning,was guns used to kill innocent people. I am not against guns, but crazy people should not have access to them.
If someone’s too dangerous to own a gun then they’re too dangerous to be out in society unsupervised at all. They should be institutionalized and given mental health treatment until they’re no longer dangerous. Just taking their guns away won’t prevent them from harming others. They might not be able to do as much damage without guns but why is any body count whatsoever acceptable?
Good luck getting help in the usa The Mental Health Systems Act of 1980(MHSA) was legislation signed by American President Jimmy Carter which provided grants to community mental health centers. In 1981 President Ronald Reagan, who had made major efforts during his governorship to reduce funding and enlistment for California mental institutions, pushed a political effort through the Democratically controlled House of Representatives and a Republican controlled Senate to repeal most of MHSA.[1] The MHSA was considered landmark legislation in mental health care policy.
Either way solving the issue would require new legislation. Focusing on healthcare would do the most good.
In high profile mass shootings. I don’t know if there is data on it but I’d assume most mass shootings are committed with handguns.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2023/ar-15-force-mass-shootings/
32% increase in ar use of ar rifles since 2010 https://www.thetrace.org/2023/07/mass-shooting-type-of-gun-used-data/
The first articles overview says it looks at 11 mass shootings and the 2nd link mentions that the data is from the narrowest subset of mass shootings. Without a strict definition you can have the numbers point to what you want.
This is a fucking retarded take and I vote Democrat. Jesus.
